Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Taylor/archive3

Cyclone Taylor

 * Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The third nomination, following failed attempts back in December 2019 and February 2020. The first real ice hockey star, Cyclone Taylor was once the highest-paid athlete in the world, on a per game basis, and his legacy is quite important to the development of the sport. He also had a fairly notable off-ice career as well working as a Canadian immigration officer. The article went through a Peer Review many months ago, and after much delay I have addressed those comments, as well as those in previous nominations, and believe it should be good to go now. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Image licensing looks good! Nice to see you back at FAC (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Sportsfan77777
I already reviewed this article as part of a peer review early last year. At this point, I think it's really high quality and should be easy to review for anyone who happens to stumble across this nomination. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just minor notes:
 * from 1906 to 1922 (add "for") several teams
 * and retired in 1950. <<<=== doesn't have parallelism with the rest of the sentence. Either start a new sentence or maybe "retiring in 1950"?
 * but as he was not sanctioned to play for them, and rather than play anywhere else ===>>> but as he was not sanctioned to play for them and rather than play anywhere else,
 * , the passengers were refused entry into Canada ===>>> the passengers havinoyg been refused entry into Canada OR ; the passengers were refused entry into Canada
 * Thanks for taking another look and for the support. I've fixed the above. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

We're now past 3 weeks with only one support. If this does not see further progress towards promotion in the next several days, it may be archived. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Coord note


 * I would really like to look through this. I'll try to comment in the next few days. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Clayoquot
The lead is good. I've read partway through the article and I'm enjoying it so far. The flow and level of detail are just right. Here are some issues with wording:


 * 1) - This doesn't make sense grammatically. An "in" is also missing before "1950".
 * Reworded to match what is listed later on, that should be better I hope.


 * 1) I'd split this into two sentences. Four commas in a sentence is a bit much.
 * Reworded


 * 1) . I think this also needs to be split. Five commas in a sentence is too much.
 * Agreed. I've changed it around.


 * 1) - Whitehead probably shouldn't be named at all as this sentence isn't about Whitehead's opinion. The quote from Whitehead should be paraphrased and stated as a straightforward fact.
 * Good point, done.


 * 1) - the last digit of the year seems to be missing.
 * Fixed.

I'll write more later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, I'll be waiting to see your remaining thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) - Did you mean to say after he stopped playing professionally? Most competitive athletes continue with their sport recreationally for a long time after retiring.
 * Clarified


 * 1) - This doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what "expansion" means here.
 * I removed the word; it doesn't lose any of the meaning without it.


 * 1) - was this the name of the department? Earlier, the article refers to the immigration branch of the Department of the Interior.
 * This is how it's referenced by Whitehead, but to clear things up I've reworded it to be about the federal government more generally.

Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) . We could use a few words saying who Whitehead is.
 * Done


 * 1)  Not every claim requires a citation, but this one does :) Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Very true, though I can't confirm the salary part easily, so took that out.


 * 1) sounds reminiscent of a cover letter for employment. Can you reword this?
 * I made an attempt, but let me know if it needs tweaking.


 * 1) - I suggest splitting this into two sentences.
 * Done


 * 1) - it seems slightly odd to use the passive voice here. Who donated what?
 * Re-phrased, as I can't comment on where the Cup actually came from.

This reads really well. I like the balance between the hockey and non-hockey aspects of his life. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'll just need a day or two to address everything; I'll ping you once I do. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) - This is the first time either the Senators or Renfrew are named. The full names of the teams should be given (e.g., Ottawa Senators) and the names should be wikilinked.
 * Fixed.

A nice variety of suitable reliable sources are used. Source formatting is consistent. Images have detailed alt text. Copyvio check done using Earwig's tool. I have not yet done spot checks of the sourcing. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for taking the time to look over the article. Definitely made an effort to show he had quite the off-ice life, so glad that shows. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ) I have a book on hold at the library that I plan to use for a sourcing spot-check.I'm planning to pick it up and finish my review this week. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also should have all sources here as well (except Coleman, unfortunately), so if you need me to share anything I'll be happy to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Prose issues have been fixed. I spot-checked refs #101,#102, #131, #115, #139, (Kitchen 2008, p. 160), and (Zweig 2007, p. 47). Looks like you've nailed it :) Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for going through it, I do really appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

 * There's a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Renfrew Creamery Kings (1909–1912) section. Please remove this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I don't see an issue on my side (I used two different resolutions), but moved one image down. Please let me know if that works, and if not I'll further adjust. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

 * Sometimes when you start a sentence with "however", you follow it with a comma, but other times you don't - be consistent (I would personally say the comma is correct)
 * Fixed


 * "reports about with whom Taylor would sign" - "about with whom" sounds a bit weird, any way to reword?
 * Done


 * "A comparison was made with Major League Baseball player Ty Cobb had signed" => "A comparison was made with Major League Baseball player Ty Cobb, who had signed"
 * Fixed


 * "During the season one of the most famous legends about Taylor developed: Prior" - last word does not start a new sentence so shouldn't have a capital P
 * Fixed


 * "While for the first games of the PCHA's inaugural season only had half the tickets sold" => "While the first games of the PCHA's inaugural season only had half the tickets sold"
 * Fixed


 * "with whom Taylor had played for previously" => "with whom Taylor had played previously"
 * Fixe


 * "In 1946 Taylor was named as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire" - the lead says Member of the Order, which is a lower rank. Which is correct?
 * It should be Member, so fixed


 * "A grandson, Mark Taylor, played in the NHL [...] Taylor's oldest son, Fred Jr.," - slight possibility of confusion as to who the Taylor referred to in the second sentence is, so for clarity I would move the information about the grandson to the end of the paragraph
 * I moved it later on, before the mention of Joan's death (as it refers to Cyclone's own death, I felt that should still remain there; if you think otherwise I'm not opposed to further adjustments).


 * I would merge the last two paragraphs of the legacy section, as both are quite short
 * Done


 * That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, appreciate your comments, and should have everything addressed here. If you think anything else should be done just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I've copyedited; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.
 * "However the high wages proved to be unsustainable and in 1907 the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, decided to allow professional players in 1907. Able to play in Canada, many players left the IHL, which folded that summer." I don't follow the sequence of thoughts here.  What connects the two halves of the first sentence?
 * The IHL (which had the high wages) was based in the US, while the ECAHA was in Canada. Most IHL players were from Canada, so when given the chance to play in Canada they took that up; combined with an IHL that was unable to keep going, it led to the latter folding. If you have thoughts on how to make that clearer I'll be glad to do so (I also removed the second "1907" there).
 * As currently phrased it makes it sound as though the high wages being unsustainable is the reason the ECAHA decided to allow professional players. How about "In 1907 the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, decided to allow professional players.  Many of the Canadian players took the opportunity to play in Canada, and left the IHL, which folded that summer."  That eliminates the mention of high wages as part of the reason though so it might need tweaking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, that works for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be best to put the caveat about Brice's article naming Taylor "Cyclone" in the main text; the only hint that it is not fully supported is the word "allegedly" in the quote box.
 * There is a footnote there about it (the same one used in the quote box), but I added a qualifier to the text. If more's needed please say so.
 * "his previous efforts to challenge for it had been rebuffed": I doubt if "rebuffed" is the right word here; it means he was turned down, not that he failed.
 * Modified to a more reasonable "unsuccessful".
 * "during the next game between the two, on March 8 in Renfrew, the Millionaires won 17–2": surely an error? He didn't join the Millionaires till four years later.  And is the February 12, 1908 date for his boast correct?  We're in the Renfrew Creamery Kings section which should mean we're no earlier than the 1909-1910 season.
 * Not exactly: Renfrew was also known informally as the "Millionaires", though I seem to have forgotten that note in the article. I've added a small note about the multiple "Millionaires", but kept Renfrew as the "Creamery Kings" throughout to avoid confusion.
 * You have an ISBN on Coleman but it's too early -- is this a reprint? If so I would use the date on the copy consulting and use the orig-date parameter to give the original edition year.
 * It was the original, but I used what Worldcat has. I've switched that out for the OCLC number though, as I think you're right we shouldn't anachronistically use ISBNs when they weren't there.
 * Thanks, addressed everything here, and appreciate your comments and edits. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed
 * "Acknowledged as one of the first stars of hockey". I see Legacy supports that he was a star, but what source supports the "first" claim?
 * Addressed that, and added the "professional qualifier" per the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author in Bibliography?
 * Currently by publication date, but if that needs adjusting I can do so.
 * That's fine, but it's not done consistently - Wong is the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed that.


 * Do you have any information about Knights of Winter Publishing?
 * They're a small publisher, but have released other titles on hockey history, especially as it relates to Western Canada. The book itself has received favourable coverage from the Society of International Hockey Research, the leading scholarly body on hockey. The book also is fully-cited.
 * Do you have a link to that coverage? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't easily (I'm not a current member so access to their archives is restricted), but I do have a review in the University of British Columbia-based BC Studies (the website formatting is not working properly for me, but the text should be readable still).


 * What is "inc." in the Coleman title?
 * I'd presume it's "inclusive", but it's not spelt out. I don't have this book physically available see image of similar book for reference


 * What makes Frank Cosentino a reliable source on this topic? Ditto Penumbra Press.
 * Cosentino (who actually has his own article here has a PhD in physical education, and has written several books on Canadian sport history. I can't speak for the Press itself, but the book is fully-cited to contemporary-era newspapers.
 * Right, but having citations doesn't in itself make a source reliable - any more info on that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a favourable review of it in the Canadian Journal of History of Sport Vol. 22, No. 2 (1991). I have a PDF of that if you'd like to check.
 * Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a DOI link for it (link), but if you need it sent I can privately share it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry - I do have access, but that source is about the Cosentino book. I'm wondering about Penumbra. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (outdent)I get it, thanks. Far as I'm aware, they're a smaller Canadian press that's been around for some time, with a focus on Canadian culture and history. I can't find any reliable source on that (nothing that would be considered a RS here at least), but that is what I understand of it. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. If we don't have more info on it, do we know anything about this specific author or book suggesting that it would be considered high-quality? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say yes. As noted, Cosentino is certainly reputable, and someone who could be considered high-quality. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Cosentino - the Penumbra Press title, by Kitchen. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I shouldn't be responding while getting over a cold. Kitchen was an historical consultant for the Ottawa Senators, an NHL team, and a past president of the SIHR. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Why repeat work title in the author parameter?
 * Not sure what this refers to?
 * Eg Ottawa Citizen + Ottawa Citizen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed those. However not sure where to sort them now, so I have them alphabetical by title. If that needs adjustment let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Edition statement should be in its own parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like the first point remains outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - are you satisfied with the changes for that last sourcing point? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)