Talk:West Coast Express (ice hockey)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay -I was intrigued by the name...I'll copyedit as I go and jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the copy edit.


 * I'd add one line on where the other two went at the end of the lead.
 * added


 * At the beginning of the history section, is it possible to set the scene (i.e. had the Canucks been languishing before their arrival? Whose idea was it to head-hunt this?)
 * I'll see what I can find. I know that when they made the playoffs in 2000-01 it was the first time in four years. I can probably put something like that in. I'll see if the same GM made all of the moves (I think it was) and if there is any think about hoping a player would help to turn around the franchise
 * Okay I've added information about the franchise starting to decline and a bit about them "moving in a different direction". Let me know how it looks.


 * " By the end of the season each player set new career highs in points to that time in their careers, Naslund raised his point total by fifteen finishing the year as the league's second leading scorer up thirty-one spots from the previous season, Bertuzzi enjoyed the biggest point increase on the line adding thirty points and moving from eighty-first in league scoring to third" - gah! a long sentence. Can be split readily I think.
 * Yeah I can have problems with run-on sentences. I broke up the sentence into multiple sentences.


 *  Morrison's 71 points remains a career high which he has not gotten within 11 points of tying since - "of tying" sounds really odd to me. Maybe "of equalling", but I think we can just drop it - does "Morrison's 71 points remains a career high which he has not gotten within 11 points of since" sound ok?
 * Sounds good, changed.


 *  The Canucks finished the season with 104 points, a franchise record (for points), which was later surpassed - part in parentheses is redundant and repetitive. I also think we could say "at the time" as a briefer way instead of "which was later surpassed" at the end.
 * Much better, changed


 *  The following season each member of the West Coast Express suffered a decline in production - huh? sounds like a coal mine...would be "The following season each member of the West Coast Express suffered a decline in form" be ok?
 * Form sounds a bit odd to me, would performance be better?
 * Yup, must be a regional difference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 *  the West Coast Express was widely considered one of the most dominant line combination in the league ? --> either " the West Coast Express was widely considered one of the most dominant line combinations in the league" or " the West Coast Express was widely considered the most dominant line combination in the league"
 * Fixed


 *  The line's offensive style of play during a time dominated by the neutral zone trap helped to popularize the franchise - umm, how?
 * I'm working on this, I think that my familiarity with the subject kept me from explaining properly.
 * I've expanded this, should help put it in context what the refs are talking about. Let me know if this still needs work.
 * Yes, exactly what I was looking for. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay - nice work overall and nice lively enthusiastic tone - an easy read. The only other item comprehensiveness-wise that might be good was adding any noteworthy regular season game where the trio really demolished the opposition with lots of goals. As well as just some scenario setting as I suggested above and any other tangible evidence of popularity (crowd attendances, club membership etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I started to make some changes and working on the remain comments. Thank you for the review.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of games where they register a lot of points or someone set a career-high. i think I've addressed everything here so let me know if something else needs changed, something needs more work, or if I've missed anything. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right then, blurby template time.....

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - nice lively prose befitting the subject matter.
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Nice work Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)