Talk:Montreal Canadiens/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, hopefully tonight (UK time). Harrias talk 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My initial most significant thought is that the History section should be significantly longer. I know there is a separate article, but given the pretty stellar history of the Canadiens, I would expect to be able to find out more about the club here, without having to refer to that article. Harrias talk 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As the one who wrote most of the current section, my personal feeling is that although the section can be expanded to cover a bit more, such as some of the info in the lead section of the History article, I don't think it should be expanded significantly. Too much overlap with the spun-out article reduces the effectiveness of having a separate article. isaacl (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Significant' was probably the wrong word for me to use. However, I do think some more is needed, particularly to summarise performances in the last 20 years. I know we like to avoid recentism, but this almost does the opposite! Harrias talk 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The challenge I had at the time was that given all the decades before the 1980s when there were lots of championships to be discussed, from an overall historic perspective it was hard to find something comparable to discuss ("continued to fail to make the playoffs" being a fairly humdrum thing to note). However I think some discussion of Patrick Roy leaving, and Saku Koivu's tenure as captain would be suitable. (If I find some time I will try to add something; of course anyone is welcome to do so!) isaacl (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I did something, maybe the wording can be improved but at least it's a start! igordebraga ≠ 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * as well as every American franchise outside of baseball with the arguable exception of the Arizona Cardinals, who unlike the Canadiens no longer play in their original city. I think this is too much detail for the lead: it might be worth cutting this bit, and just leaving the bit about being the oldest non-football franchise in Canada for the lead. This can still be included in the body of the article.
 * originally the Molson Centre Clarify this as "originally known as the Molson Centre"


 * History
 * Link francophone.
 * Move ref 13 to the end of the sentence, it looks odd stuck in the middle, rather than after punctuation.
 * However, local investors were found and instead it was the Maroons that suspended operations, and several of the Maroons players moved to the Canadiens. The two uses of "and" make this sentence a little clunky: can it be streamlined slightly, or split into two sentences.
 * In the 1976–77 season, the Canadiens set a modern-day record.. Does this mean that the record still stands, or that fewer losses had been incurred in the early years when not many games were played?
 * The next season 1977-78.. Needs an endash.
 * On December 29, 2008 the Canadiens defeated the Florida Panthers by a score of 5–2, becoming the first team in NHL history to reach 3,000 victories. Merge this into another paragraph, the MOS frowns upon single sentence paragraphs.
 * Do the Centennial celebrations really need a section to themselves?


 * Team identity
 * If "Club de hockey Canadien" is in speech-marks, Club athlétique Canadien should be too.
 * Most of the second paragraph is unreferenced: the citation given only seems to cover the final sentence, not the information about the jersey colours. (Ref #41, and the later page linked to from there would work for this.)
 * 1909-1910 should be 1909–10.
 * ...reading "CAC", Club Athlétique Canadien. Be consistent with earlier ways of writing the team's name.
 * 2009-10 needs an endash.


 * Rivalries
 * Another equally notable rivalry concerns the Boston Bruins, that since their NHL debut in 1924 have played the Canadiens in both regular season play and the playoffs combined, than any other two teams in NHL history. I think this sentence is missing a word?
 * 2011-12 needs an endash, as does 2014-15 twice and 2013-14 once.
 * 22 Canadiens games per season... Per MOS:NUM, don't start a sentence with a number as a figure.


 * Seasons and records
 * Endashes are needed for all the playoff results.


 * Current roster
 * I'm not keen on the use of flags without the country name, and nor is MOS:FLAG, but I guess it is an external template that you can't change without consensus, and I know how much North American sport loves its flags.


 * Leaders
 * In the Head coaches list, everything in the form 19xx–19yy can be written 19xx–yy, while 1997–00 should be 1997–2000.


 * Honoured members
 * The Retired numbers list need endashes in the years, and would benefit from being sortable.
 * In the Hockey Hall of Fame section, the above applies (19xx–19yy can be written 19xx–yy).
 * Both Hall of Fame lists need to use so that the people sort by surname.


 * See also
 * This includes more than it needs to, trim out some of the fat.


 * References
 * Ref #1 is a bare url.
 * Be consistent with the date format. Most use YYYY-MM-DD, but a few use Month DD, YYYY, or DD Month YYYY.

Overall, a decent article, but one that would need a fair bit more work to go on to Featured status. I'll place the nomination on hold for the moment to allow time for these concerns to be dealt with. Harrias talk 10:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Think I've done everything, please check if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 03:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally looking much better. As far as I can see, only two issues remain:


 * The Retired numbers list needs so that the people sort by surname.
 * The dates in the references still aren't consistent. Harrias talk 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Think it's done now. igordebraga ≠ 16:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I'll pass this now. Harrias talk 18:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)