Talk:Luc Bourdon/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Luc Bourdon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * Lead
 * I would move the last sentence to the end of the second par per WP:LEAD. It looks a little lonely by itself at the moment.
 * Done.-Wafulz (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * What are "local bantam and midget teams"?
 * As I wrote the early life section, I've tried to clarify this specific part with some re-wording. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly change sixteen to 16 in "Bourdon left home when he was sixteen" per WP:MOSNUM, especially since the next par says "18-year-old".
 * Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Bourdon anonymously donated $10,000 to the local minor hockey association for families who could not afford equipment." This doesn't make sense. How can it be an anonymous donation?
 * Again, tried to clarify. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Playing career
 * What does "Canucks' blueline" mean?
 * Replaced with "among Canucks defencemen". Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What does "plus/minus rating of +7 in 27 games" mean?
 * This is an understandable phrase within hockey cirlces. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be inclusive to more than just hockey fans. Articles shouldn't contain sport-specific jargon, and I'm afraid I don't have a clue what this means. It does need to be clarified. Peanut4 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Linked to plus/minus.-Wafulz (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How did the Canucks do in the 2007-08 season?
 * It says in the third paragraph of "playing career" that they were eliminated from playoff contention.-Wafulz (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What sort of player was he?
 * Added talent analysis from HockeysFuture.com as well as being known for his shot. Also added how he was perceived as an underachiever for most of his short career, but showed strides in his last season (references to support). Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Career statistics
 * Needs a reference.
 * A link to Bourdon's stats on hockeydb.com is posted in the 'External links' section. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How come the seasons don't line up?
 * The reasoning for the season's is that they are the same season, so convention says you indent the 2nd 3rd instance etc. Personally I like them unindented but that is the reasoning for it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * General
 * Scores and years should have dashes not hyphens, e.g. 1–0 not 1-0, per WP:DASH.
 * I only found two but they're changed.-Wafulz (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's quite a bit of the article, particularly playing career which could do with some more citations.
 * I have added ten more citations throughout the article. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It generally seems quite short, but that's not entirely surprising for someone who died so young. However, do you have any more info that could be added?
 * Added playing traits, second Shippagan-born player to be drafted, was subject of many trade rumours. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try removing some use of Bourdon to "he" or suitable alternatives to avoid lots of repetition.

There's quite a bit to do, but nothing major in itself, so I'll place it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been a fantastic improvement in the article since the first review. Great work. However I've one more point arising from the work. "Shortly after the trade, Bourdon seriously injured his ankle. Although he returned to join Moncton in the playoffs, he was told by doctors at the time that it would take two years to fully recover." Obviously he continued to play despite the injury. Was he playing while not fully fit? Was their diagnosis wrong? I certainly think this needs a bit more explanation, if possible.
 * Second review


 * Expanded.-Wafulz (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

One other minor point, rather than using acronyms, I prefer a prose alternative. NHL and to a lesser extent CHL and AHL are certainly fine. Though I'm not sure about the use of QMJHL. If it's widespread then you will probably be fine using it. I'd say something like Quebec League is easier for someone to read. However, I'll leave this up to you, whether you want to change it. Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * QMJHL is the most common way to refer to the Quebec league.-Wafulz (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image - The new image is of fairly poor quality and doesn't seem to show much that the infobox doesn't already show. Do other editors think it's necessary? Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan, but it no longer breaks the article format. User:Kaiser matias thinks it's necessary because he scored his first goal that night, which I can live with.-Wafulz (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither am I fan. But it's difficult to get or find images on here full stop, and I admit it is of a significant game. At the moment I'll leave it as it is, though if you push for FAC, there may be calls for it to be removed.
 * Otherwise, more great work done to improve the article. It's a fully deserved GA pass.
 * If you wanted to push the article on further, more expansion would be more than likely needed, because it's potentially on the short side, though it does seem to cover all the aspects in the correct depth. Secondly, I would also recommend a peer review, if you were to go down the FA step. All in all, great work. Well done.
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article.-Wafulz (talk) 18:39, 24 July 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:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Peanut4 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)