Talk:Hughie Lehman/GA1

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

Quite a bit to do, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Seems far too long compared to the rest of the readable prose in the rest of the article.
 * I was concerned about that too. Problem is, I can't really summarize the article properly if I shorten it. If you have any ideas on what facts can (should) be remove, I will seriously consider doing so.
 * I would remove some of the details of the clubs, i.e. remove what league they were in and leave this up to the main body
 * Rather than give seasons, just give the actual year he joined a club
 * In fact I might go as far as basically list his clubs and the Stanley Cup success, and some details of what sort of player he was
 * I would trim it down to four maybe five sentences at most. Peanut4 (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's seven sentences, but the first and last are pretty short compared to the other five. I hope it's better.  Maxim (talk)  18:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the OVHL?
 * Ottawa Valley Hockey League. It was a pretty obscure league; I had previously tried to find what it was, but I was unsuccessful until now,
 * Most sentences use "Lehman" consider some uses of "he" instead.
 * Done.
 * It also use lots of short sentences which don't flow well. I would recommend a good copyedit of the lead.
 * I've done some work on it; if it's still too choppy, I'll get someone else to copyedit it.
 * Playing career
 * The main body starts with the start of his playing career. Do you have any info of his birth / life before his career?
 * Sadly not... I was very lucky to have had some info on Moran's early life in the previous GA we worked on. Not so lucky this time, I've found nothing.
 * Again what's the OVHL?
 * See above.
 * "in total, Lehman lost all three games he was in, giving 22 goals over that span, for a 7.33 goals-against average." Did he only play three games for the Professionals? Secondly "he was in" is a bit informal. How about "all three games in which he played"?
 * I completely rewrote that, as it had a factual error. I had mistaken two different teams, whose names were both Professional, for being one team, when there were actually two.
 * I think generally the flow needs improving. It's quite full of short sentences which while aren't that bad in parts, give it a rather awkward feel when there are several of them together.
 * I've done some work on it; if it's still too choppy, I'll get someone else to copyedit it.
 * Coaching career
 * What happened to the rest of his coaching career? Or did he decide that was it? Any reason why, if that is the case?
 * Well, I don't know exactly why, but I presume he was fired because he barely won any games. I've added a sentence that named his replacement the next season.
 * 1st replies at 02:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) [just for tracking purposes, I didn't sign my replies.  Maxim (talk) 

Overall the prose is much better and I'd now say of GA quality. It might still be worth getting an independent editor to look at it with any suggestions, but don't feel any urgency for it. Peanut4 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Playing career
 * "In New York, Lehman treated his wife went on a shopping spree, buying numerous women's designer outfits." Needs a minor re-write.
 * Bleh, that's what happens when you copyedit only half a sentence instead of a full one... :p Fixed it.  Maxim (talk)  18:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was the middle clause I was more concerned with. Peanut4 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Better now? I've re-written the sentence.  Maxim (talk)  18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

It could do with more details on his personal life, but since it doesn't appear the sources exist, or at least readily so, it meets the GA criteria. Best of luck with any improvements in the future. Peanut4 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)