Talk:Bill LaForge

Article assessment
I have completely rewritten the article. I'm interested in feedback and thoughts. Flibirigit (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, I see you started this article! Flibirigit (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've already trimmed out a particularly egregious bit (a statement like "He was despised by league officials" needs to be bolstered by much higher quality cites than a press release opinion piece from a team website!), but this is studded with newspaper-style POV verbiage: a game marred by the "usual fisticuffs" or in "typical LaForge fashion," for instance. Such matters of opinion have to be set forth as quotes (if at all) and supported by multiple quality cites.   Ravenswing   08:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the sentence being removed. AnomieBOT automatically fixed the other references that were orphaned when you took out the citation. Flibirigit (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Really good stuff Flibirigit. Couple suggestions though. It seems as though those last few seasons could just be combined into one "Later coaching career" type section. Not sure you'll be able to expand those minor league teams to beyond much more than a basic summary. Also, I wonder if "Coaching style" would be better put after the coaching career section, as I've noticed that is the case with many other coach articles across a number of sports. – Nurmsook!  talk... 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I agree with combining the stub sections into a later career. I tried to expand them further, but couldn't find anything meaningful. As far the "Coaching style" section I decided to go against the trend in putting it before the "Coaching career." In my opinion the section serves as an introduction to tactics used and helps the reader understand what is discussed lower in the article. I started out trying to make a legacy section for the end, but I came up with tactics instead, so that's why I thought it's not suited to be at the end. If I wrote a legacy section, it would really be a summary of what some fans discuss in online forums. I'm curious what other people think. Flibirigit (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with the score that was mentioned on the project page. Being that we are talking North American scores it should be highest score first as it looks very wrong on the article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either way of doing it. Flibirigit (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't really have much to add that hasn't been said, aside from suggesting moving the "Coaching style" section to after his life/summary stuff; it's fairly standard to put something like that after it all (see various player articles that have "playing style" sections; they are all after the career summary). But neat to see you fleshing out coaching articles, which was definitely one of our weaker spots. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)