Talk:Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 30, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Reasonably well written, I made a few copy-edits
 * Large parts of the article consist of one sentence statements, veering towards become a list. I wonder if in fact this should be converted into a list article.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I found a number of dead links using CheckLinks
 * ref # 8, is a blog, not RS
 * ref #23 [v], YouTube is not RS
 * references need to be consistently formatted, some are just bare URLs at present.
 * The statement: After 114 years, the Cup made a trip in April 2006 back to London, where it was originally made contradicts ref #2, which states that it was made in Sheffield. In fact it was bought in the London shop.
 * A number of anecdotes and mishaps are unreferenced. It is the nature of an article like this that each statement would need referencing.
 * 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:
 * I am going to ask for a second opinion on this. I feel that it fails criterion 1 (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation . Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the comments below. No work has been undertaken on the article since the review and I am de-listing this and re-classifying as List class. I recommend that editors rewrite as a list article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am going to ask for a second opinion on this. I feel that it fails criterion 1 (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation . Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the comments below. No work has been undertaken on the article since the review and I am de-listing this and re-classifying as List class. I recommend that editors rewrite as a list article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had looked through the article recently since I was considering reviewing it myself, so I'll provide a 2nd opinion. I think you're right on all the points you've nailed, and I actually question whether we need that huge chunk of one-sentence misadventure text; we could just as easily limit it to a few notable ones. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That large chunk of unrelated paragraphs in the Misadventures section bothers me as well. I'd suggest moving that out to a separate (new) list and including only a few of the major events in this article, much as Wizardman suggests. So far as I'm concerned the presence of that section in its present form alone is sufficient for the article to fail the "well written" criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That section is sort of the point of this entire article. It could probably be converted into better prose/paragraphs. But it definitely should not be cut. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the article has to be rewritten as a list. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)