Talk:Logan Thompson/GA1

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually review sports articles, but this looks pretty straight-forward, so I'll give it a go. RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead

 * I'm guessing from your spelling of "honours" that Use British English would be appropriate to add.
 * You should explain what U Sports, ECHL, and IIHF are, just like you do for WHL, NHL, and AHL.
 * Per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"; I don't see where "the first former U Sports goaltender to start an NHL game in over 30 years" is covered in the article. Never mind, I found where it says that.
 * "Thompson received significant playing time in the 2021–22 season due to injuries". That's a weird way to phrase things.  I think you mean "due to other players' injuries".
 * "Thompson was named an All-Star in 2023" All-star in what league?  This comment applies generally to the whole article; there's lots of places where I'm not sure which team or league is being talked about.
 * The first and last paragraphs are each just one sentence. That's generally frowned upon (not sure where it says that, but somewhere in the MOS).  Somehow rearrange things to not have these short paragraphs.  It might not be unreasonable for the entire lead to be a single paragraph.
 * "After playing junior in the Western Hockey League", should that be "junior hockey" instead of just "junior"?

Playing career

 * "Thompson began in bantam junior hockey", I assume "bantam" means some specific age range? You should add that.
 * "with the Calgary Bisons": add "of the XXX league"
 * "midget level", as per "bantam"
 * "CBHA" Define what that acronym means.
 * You say he's a goaltender in the lead, but that should be stated here as well. Probably up front in the first sentence: "Thompson began in bantam junior hockey as a goaltender for the Calgary..."
 * ".905 save percentage" => "0.905" per MOS:DECIMAL
 * "3.36 goals against average" this needs to be punctuated better. Maybe "3.36 goals-against average", or in quotes, or something.  As it stands now, it parses ambiguously.
 * ".934" -> "0.934" (and similarly wherever else)
 * "After the conclusion of Brock's season" I think this would work better as ".. of the Badgers' season"
 * "try-out contract" Is there some article that could be linked to which would explain more about what a "try-out contract" is? If not, don't worry about it.
 * What does "amateur try-out contract" mean as opposed to "professional try-out contract"? I'm guessing in the former, you're signed to the team for some short period of time but not getting paid?  Some explanation would help.
 * "however, he spent the entirety" given the semi-colon, I don't think you need "however". Maybe the semicolon should be a full stop?
 * "serving as one of the Pacific Division's goaltenders", link to Pacific Division (NHL).

General notes

 * I'm not sure this is strictly a WP:GACR, but the convention with article titles in references like BEARS SIGN GOALTENDER LOGAN THOMPSON TO AHL CONTRACT" is to convert them to title case per MOS:CONFORMTITLE

Lead

 * Template:Use Canadian English has been added.
 * IIHF has been elaborated on. U Sports and ECHL are respectively a pseudo-acronym and orphan initialism; they officially don't stand for anything.
 * Rephrased quote.
 * Simplified link to clarify NHL.
 * Condensed lead into one paragraph.
 * Added "hockey."

Playing career

 * Linked Minor ice hockey for bantam and midget.
 * Reworded sentence to clarify league. the AMHL (now AEHL) is split into multiple age divisions; Wikipedia's article only covers the U18.
 * Clarified CBHA.
 * Added "goaltender."
 * Re: save percentage - MOS:DECIMAL states that sporting performance averages are excluded from the leading 0. Goals against average is also properly formatted by sporting norms.
 * Added the Brock conclusion item.
 * Linked ATO and PTO article for clarity.
 * Turned semicolon into a full stop. Feel like the "however" is necessary to clarify that he never ultimately played for Hershey.
 * Linked Pacific division.

General notes

 * Converted titles into normal capitalization.

2nd opinion needed
Please see the section on sources above. This article uses a large number of sources which do not meet the WP:GNG requirements of being independent and secondary. Many of these are websites run by the individual teams or leagues. Some are clearly press releases as evidenced by wording such as " The Adirondack Thunder ... announced today that ..." My feeling is that use of such sources is acceptable on a limited basis to cite specific facts but the extensive use of that kind of source is inappropriate for a GA article. If I had to cite a specific WP:GACR, I'd say it fails item 4: Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I am requesting a second opinion on whether the degree of reliance on these non-independent primary sources is acceptable. RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just a note, mostly to my future self, I still need to perform the spot check required by WP:GAN/I, but I was going to hold off on that pending the result of the 2nd opinion. RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * are you concerned the topic isn't notable? Ajpolino (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the rest of what you wrote I'm going to assume not. Besides notability, there's no need to cite WP:GNG. As for whether those sources are reliable, I think it's a case where context matters. For match stats and other uncontroversial facts, I think citing primary and/or not-fully-independent sources is widely accepted for sports articles. E.g. see Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese which were both recently through FAC. Is there a particular source(s) you're concerned isn't a reliable reference for the claim cited? Ajpolino (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on notability, which is part of what I'm looking for somebody else to evaluate. I wouldn't think that by the time an article gets to a GA review, notability would still be in question, but here we are. RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I listed 8 specific sources above which all appear to be press releases, but once I found that many, I didn't do an exhaustive search of the rest. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright well let's deal with those two separate issues separately:
 * Notability - the guy has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, e.g. and . Also he's a starting player on a National Hockey League team (and named an "All-Star" last year to boot) so I can't imagine this article would be deleted at an AfD. That said, you needn't take my word for it; you're welcome to nominate it at AfD and see what folks think.
 * Press releases - 4 of the articles you highlighted are press releases from the team, hosted on NHL.com. The reason I pointed out the pages of those two college basketball players is that both articles were recently scrutinized and passed at FAC, so they might give a better sense of what the consensus is on acceptable sourcing in sports articles. On the Bueckers article, for example, I see 8 citations to University of Connecticut pages/press releases, the team she plays for. Hence, my impression that press releases are seen as acceptable for stats and uncontroversial facts. One of your examples is this source used to cite On July 13, 2020, Thompson signed a two-year entry-level contract with the Vegas Golden Knights of the National Hockey League (NHL). My understanding is this is the kind of uncontroversial fact we consider the team to be a reliable source for, even though they're not independent of the subject. So the context matters. Press releases aren't good for everything, but are probably just fine for certain facts. That's why I asked if there are particular claims in the article you don't think the cited source is justified for. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a less important aside, I'm not aware of any requirement that folks cite press releases with cite press release. The two FAs I reference above don't seem to. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ajpolino I'm assuming the above is your 2O, so if you could set the status back to 'onreview", I'll pick it up from there. Thanks for your input. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I was watching the /GA page but not the talk page so I didn't notice the state change.  My bad.
 * I asked for a 2O and it would be disingenuous of me to not listen to that, so I'm going to call this a pass. I do however feel the need to express my amazement that this level of reliance on press releases and primary sources is considered acceptable for a sports article. RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)