Talk:Dawson Creek Rage/GA1

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: maclean (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) ** Major Point 1: Formation "The players, all aged between 15 and 20 years old in accordance with league rules," ( not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body )
 * 6) ** Major Point 2: Team history "Formed in 2010, they played in the North American Hockey League's West Division for two seasons. With losing records in both seasons, the team did not make the playoffs in either season. The ownership group made attempts at establishing the team in the British Columbia Hockey League and the Alberta Junior Hockey League but was not successful. Despite attracting better than average attendance for a NAHL team, high travelling and operating costs resulted in the team ceasing operations in April 2012" & "The Rage played in the 4,500 seat EnCana Events Centre where their first win came on September 24, 2010, against the Alaska Avalanche. Their final home game was a loss to the Wenatchee Wild in March 2012." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 7) ** Major Point 3: Dissolution "" ( not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body )
 * 8) ** Major Point 4: Community "were active with charities and within the community." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 9) ** Major Point 5: Uniform "The team's name and symbol was intended to represent an outward expression of passion and internal desire to dominate other teams." (summarised well in the lead)
 * 10) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 11) ** Major Point 1: Formation "The players, all aged between 15 and 20 years old in accordance with league rules," ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 12) ** Major Point 2: Team history "Formed in 2010, they played in the North American Hockey League's West Division for two seasons. With losing records in both seasons, the team did not make the playoffs in either season. The ownership group made attempts at establishing the team in the British Columbia Hockey League and the Alberta Junior Hockey League but was not successful. Despite attracting better than average attendance for a NAHL team, high travelling and operating costs resulted in the team ceasing operations in April 2012" & "The Rage played in the 4,500 seat EnCana Events Centre where their first win came on September 24, 2010, against the Alaska Avalanche. Their final home game was a loss to the Wenatchee Wild in March 2012." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 13) ** Major Point 3: Dissolution "" ( the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body )
 * 14) ** Major Point 4: Community "were active with charities and within the community." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 15) ** Major Point 5: Uniform "The team's name and symbol was intended to represent an outward expression of passion and internal desire to dominate other teams." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
 * 16) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 17) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 18) *** "The Dawson Creek Rage (aka DC Rage) were a Tier II Junior A ice hockey team, based out of Dawson Creek, British Columbia."
 * 19) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 20) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 21) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 22) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 23) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 24) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 25) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 26) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 27) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 28) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 29) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 30) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 31) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 32) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 33) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): ✅
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): ✅
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: ✅
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

✅


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 7) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 8) * What else has the author published?:
 * 9) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 10) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 3) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (NFC with a valid FUR)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) Check for copyright status:  ✅
 * 3) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅
 * 4) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅

I'm glad to see your work here. I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article :
 * I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
 * 1a issue:  A full stop is missing at the end of the first para in the lead.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Maclean, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Response from maclean25
 * Thanks for reading and reviewing the article. I have improved the lead section as follows:
 * My strategy there is to have the first paragraph about who the team is and what they did, with the second paragraph noting ancillary or background info.
 * From the "Formation" section the lead notes where they played, attempts to get the team into other leagues and the reasons why the other leagues wouldn't take them.
 * From the "Team history" section the lead provides a brief overview of how each season went.
 * From "Dissolution", the lead notes the next attempt at moving into a different league, attendance, and high expenses. —maclean (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)