Talk:Bill Mosienko/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick Fail Criteria
 * No problems with any of these, so I will proceed with the full review.

Review
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Well-written article about a HHOFer, who sometimes gets lost in the shuffle of the bigger names of his time.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: Maybe a little too focused, one of the sources is an article about his grandson playing for the same NHL organization, that could be worked in briefly in the Personal Life section. Borderline trivial, but when an entire article is written about it, and it can be worked in, it adds something to the article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No problems here.
 * 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:
 * No problems, again
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * All good again
 * 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:
 * Not much to do here, I'll put it on hold until these issues can be addressed.Canada Hky (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I will try to resolve these issues next year. On the Black Hawks vs. Blackhawks issue, however, the team was known as the Black Hawks until 1986 (although there is, of course argument on it), but on Wikipedia, we've typically used the two-word variant when the team name is discussed in a period prior to 1986. IMO, it would be akin to describing the 1996 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim as the Anaheim Ducks.  I'd say that changing to the one word variant would necessitate a discussion within the hockey project for a consistent change. Resolute 04:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good about the rest of it - it might be worth opening up that discussion. The Ducks official website still refers to the pre-200? team as the Mighty Ducks (here http://ducks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?bcid=17234), whereas the Blackhawks website is consistent with one word throughout all its team related history articles (here as one example http://blackhawks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46777).  Canada Hky (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've addressed your raised points in the prose section. IMO, noting that Tyler played in the Hawks organization is a little trivial, given neither Tyler nor Bill actually played for the same team or fanchise. Appreciate your comments, Resolute 22:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And to address the "Bill" issue, I simply dropped the notation of his "Mossie" nickname. Given it was only a simplification of his given name, I decided it would be about as ridiculous as "Jarome "Iggy" Iginla". Resolute 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All issues have been addressed or explained, and I'll pass this article! Canada Hky (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)