Talk:1976 Canada Cup/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria - no problems here, will continue with a detailed review below.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Pretty good, a few things below
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead it says "Hockey Canada", but might be better to use the name of the governing body at the time.
 * In this case, Hockey Canada was. The CAHA was actually a member of Hockey Canada and had ceded control of tournaments involving professionals to Hockey Canada.  I've discussed their overall battles more in 1981 Canada Cup.
 * In this case, Hockey Canada was. The CAHA was actually a member of Hockey Canada and had ceded control of tournaments involving professionals to Hockey Canada.  I've discussed their overall battles more in 1981 Canada Cup.

Teams
 * "16 of the 21 players on the roster later gained election into the"
 * Suggest - 16 of the 21 players on the roster were elected (in)to the
 * Changed
 * Not to open a can of worms, but should the diacritics be hidden for Czechoslovakian player names?
 * Given it was an international tournament, I defaulted to how we treat similar articles.
 * "The Soviets also sought to dismiss the importance of the tournament"
 * 'dismiss' seems out of place, maybe "downplay"
 * Changed

Round robin games
 * "They were upset about the officiating of Canadian referee Andre Legace, though organizers did not take the Soviet threats to quit the tournament seriously"
 * These don't follow closely enough to be in the same sentence. Possibly move the part about being upset with the officiating ahead of the sentence about them threatening to quit.
 * Broken into two sentences.
 * I understand the colour in the table, but a key would probably be helpful.
 * Agreed, added.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * In the second paragraph under "Teams" - the part about the analysts ranking could probably use an individual cite.
 * The single ref was intended to cover the entire paragraph, but I've made this more obvious.
 * The single ref was intended to cover the entire paragraph, but I've made this more obvious.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Not applicable
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Minor things needed here, I'll place it on hold. Canada Hky (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And addressed. Thanks for the review! Resolute 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, all good. Canada Hky (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Resolute 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And addressed. Thanks for the review! Resolute 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, all good. Canada Hky (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Resolute 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)