Talk:Ottawa Senators/GA1

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

There's concern that the article references need work (lots of unsourced text), and possibly the organization needs a rethink. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please mark in the article where citations are needed and I will add them. The team is well covered by the media and I have access to the Ottawa Citizen newspaper dating back prior to 1990. Alaney2k (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have filled out all of the citations needed. And added alts to images and replaced the dead link. Can you explain what you mean about a re-org, and did you have concerns about some prose? Alaney2k (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Alaney2k, thanks so much for your work on the article! It looks in pretty good shape now, so I'd be in favor of keeping it, but I want to know what User:DannyMusicEditor thinks because he had commented on the article organization. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have some things I'm concerned about. For instance:

This is all supposedly supported by a single citation at the end. Does it really cover all this? That seems like an awful lot of content for one web article to cover, and it's not even a web reference that I can just click on.

I have similar concerns here:

I know for a fact that the nearest citation (the end of all that) does not cover everything said in that paragraph. You've done great with the citations where buidhe requested them, but I would like you to make sure the citations you have added cover everything up to the points of citation, and anything that isn't be cited accordingly. While this is excellent progress, I fear there may be more to be done, I'm afraid. If you would like to continue working on this, I am unopposed to it staying open. P.S. the organization comments were not me - someone else did express concerns, but I'm not sure it's quite nearly as important as the referencing in the article.  danny music editor  oops 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am happy to continue editing and adding references. I am the person who worked to make this a GA in the first place. I'd like it to stay that way. I never realized how little references have been added in the interim. Alaney2k (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

--

Note: I have notified WP:HOCKEY about this.  danny music editor  oops 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there any further work that you would like covered? I do plan to add a section on rivalries with Montreal and Toronto, but I don't think that is necessary for this reassessment. Alaney2k (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure, the article looks much improved although I'm sure there is still room for improvement, GA is not expected to be perfect. I'd support keeping at this point. The citation density is quite high so I expect that the problems dannymusiceditor noticed have been resolved. Thanks for your hard work on this article! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with buidhe, and do not see any problem areas that must be addressed before the article is passed. The lead is a little short and I would like that expanded, but it is fine enough for GA.  danny music editor  oops 22:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)