Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice hockey at the Olympic Games/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:30, 16 June 2009.

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

 * Nominator(s): Scorpion 0422  18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from my evil mission to turn the site into Homerpedia. After a lot of hard work and time wasting, I'm finally ready to try this. My goal is to get it as the TFA at some point during the 2010 Winter Olympics. There are two possible concerns. 1) length. At 6895 words it's longer than your average FA (including Canada, Barack Obama, William Shakespeare, Alzheimer's disease, King Arthur and Western Front. Although, to be fair, those pages all have a lot of branch articles) although I don't think it's of much concern. 2) Lack of a bolded title. I couldn't think any that didn't seem extremely forced, and I am open to suggestions. Enjoy! -- Scorpion 0422  18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – I've been doing some light copy-edit work during the last couple of days. Will report back when I finish. One thing stopped me in my tracks, though: "The number of teams was increased to 14 so that there would be eight teams and a round-robin tournament could be used." Eight teams in what? The second round? This bit from the Rules section needs some fixing.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed wording to "The number of teams was increased to 14 so that a preliminary round-robin tournament consisting of eight teams could be held. The top two teams from that round joined the "Big Six" in the finals." Does that help? -- Scorpion 0422  16:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – As I said up there, I went through the whole text and gave it a light touch. Didn't see the need for much more, since it's a great read overall. A comprehensive article that's nicely written and sourced. Only complaint I have is that I thought more hyphens could have been sprinked in here and there, but that's not enough to prevent my support. If it becomes an issue, I'll be happy to assist.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. My only real concern is to wonder why the lead mentions the 1924-88 format for determining the medals but not the current format.  Would it not make more sense to focus on how it is done now, and leave the historical process to the history section?  Otherwise, all I found were some very small formatting/copyediting issues which I've corrected.  Resolute 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There used to be several sentences about it, but I thought that it went on too long, so I removed it. I have re-added a small bit about the current format. -- Scorpion 0422  21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. The acronyms for the National Hockey League, International Ice Hockey Federation, and World Anti-Doping Agency are all introduced twice. Also the section 1980: The Miracle on Ice should probably be 1980: The "Miracle on Ice" (with quotation marks). 98.166.139.216 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They are introduced once in the lead and once in the body of the article. -- Scorpion 0422  21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments — In general, this seems an extremely good article, well written, lots of well-sourced info, and images. I'm ready to give my approval once the comments below are addressed. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead:
 * I'd rephrase the first two sentences like this: "Ice hockey has been played at the Olympic Games since a men's tournament was introduced at the 1920 Summer Olympics. In 1924, it was transferred permanently to the Winter Olympic Games programme."
 * I used half of your suggestion. I think the current opening sentence works best, but I switched the second to "The men's tournament was introduced at the 1920 Summer Olympics and was transferred permanently to the Winter Olympic Games programme in 1924."
 * I think that the sentence "The women's tournament was first held at the 1998 Winter Olympics." is kinda floating there in that paragraph. since there's a special paragraph just for the women's tournament, I'd take out this sentence.
 * I wanted to try to include a mention of the women's event in the opening lead, just so that it doesn't look like it's an afterthought.
 * OK. I concede on this, since you mention both tournaments in the first paragraphs and then specify more about them on the following ones.
 * That last paragraph is time-dependent, no? I don't think it's necessary at all to appear in the lead.
 * Removed.
 * Inception as an Olympic sport:
 * How about changing the section title to a more simple "Olympic inception"?
 * Italicise foreign words/expressions/names like "Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace" (and give English translation)
 * Added italics, but I'm not sure if a translation is needed. My French sucks, but I think it's along the lines of "International Ice Hockey League"
 * Your French sucks but you can actually translate it; others might not. The section is petite, a translation wouldn't bulk it up.
 * My point was that it is basically just the French translation of "International Ice Hockey Federation" (and, I just found out that that is still the French name of it).
 * Programme or program? I've seen both forms up to this part. Stick to one English variant.
 * Went with programme.
 * In the last paragraph, I'd remove the last two sentences as they're not specifically related to this section. On the third sentence, give more emphasis to ice hockey by saying "Together with figure skating, ice hockey was permanently integrated..."
 * The last two sentences are just some background information. They are a little off-topic, but I think they assist the reader's overall understanding.
 * Like you said, they're a bit off-topic; I believe that if you remove them, readers won't miss it. It's your call, but if you decide for their removal, take attention that this paragraph will become too small.
 * That was on my mind. I could go either way I suppose.
 * Rules:
 * Why don't you start this section with the "Game rules" sub-section?
 * My rationale was that it went in order of how the process works. First qualification, then player selection, then the actual playing of the games, then doping. They just seemed to fit in that order really well. I could switch them if you like.
 * I understand your logic.
 * General:
 * Some image captions are too long. Do not specify a fixed width; let the "thumb" parameter do it.
 * I assume you are mainly referring to Image:Slovakia men's ice hockey team in 2002.jpg which has the caption "In 2002, NHL players were allowed to participate, but the league did not go on break during the preliminary round. Teams participating in that round, including Slovakia (2002 team pictured), were affected because they were denied the full use of their top players." I have tried shortening it.
 * How about this: "In 2002, Slovakia's team (pictured) was affected by NHL's late season break as they were denied the full use of their top players in the preliminary round."
 * Sounds good to me.
 * Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion 0422  15:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Parutakupiu (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comments have gotten a bit jumbled up, and I'm sure I've missed something. Is there anything I haven't yet addressed or need to address further? -- Scorpion 0422  18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing you haven't addressed is the first section title shortening issue. "Inception as an Olympic sport" is too long. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like "Olympic inception", it may be confusing to some users as to what that actually means. Is there a guideline about header length? -- Scorpion 0422  01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only this that it shouldn't go over ten words, which is not the case here. Still, I wonder if you could rephrase that title without losing its sense. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not simply "Inception"? Resolute 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work. -- Scorpion 0422  20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support—I decided to give my approval regardless of what is decided about the first section naming issue. It's really a minor thing that does not obscure the high level that this article already presents. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from It looks good, and I've been doing spot copy-editing. I have a few issues, though:
 * I saw both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes in there—I changed one pair of spaced en dashes to em dashes; make sure there aren't any other inconsistencies. Please keep it consistent.
 * Striking, as I can't find any more inconsistencies. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In your research, did you find information about Slovakia's reaction to being relegated to the bottom division while the Czech Republic was retained at the top? I would imagine they would be incensed about getting such a raw deal.
 * I can't remember, but I probably would be able to find something about it. However, the divisions have more effect on the World Championships than they do the Olympics, and more detail would venture off-topic (which I normally wouldn't mind, but this is a very long article).
 * Not a big deal at all, considering the overall thoroughness of the article, but a couple sentences wouldn't hurt if you could find something. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The tournament format drew criticism for not allowing all teams the full use of their NHL players during the entire event." I don't understand what you mean by "full use".
 * The 8 teams that participated in the first round did so without NHL players. The NHL players (and the top 6 teams) started playing in the second round.
 * "The NHL went on break for the duration" "went on hiatus" is slightly more idiomatic, but I'll leave it up to you.
 * Fixed.
 * "The number of teams was lowered to 12; the top six teams did not get a bye and played five preliminary round games." Maybe I missed it, but was there ever a time when the top six teams did get a bye?
 * Yes, in 1998 and 2002.
 * "The Japanese women's national team had failed to make that year's World Championships." I fail to see how this is relevant.
 * It's establishing why the Nagano committee was against adding women's hockey. They thought there was no point in adding it, since their team wasn't great and there was little public interest.
 * Can you somehow explain this in the article? This factoid stands out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well-organized article.
 * Done, I added more info and a quote as well. -- Scorpion 0422  20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "measuring 61x26 metres (200x85 feet), instead of the international size of 61x30 metres (200x98.5 feet)" Spaces before and after the "x"s per MOSNUM. There are a couple more examples in the article.
 * Fixed.
 * Another picky thing, and I'll quote MOSNUM on it: When dimensions are given, values each number should be followed by a unit (e.g., write 1 m × 3 m × 6 m, not 1 × 3 × 6 m3 or 1 × 3 × 6 m). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed every measurement to go along with the MOS. Is there anything else? -- Scorpion 0422  19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your logical quotation: sentence fragments do not have the quotation marks outside the punctuation. I fixed this example: "work day and night to have [NHL players] in Sochi."-->"work day and night to have [NHL players] in Sochi."
 * Striking, fixed a couple other instances but can't find any more. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "According to NHLPA executive director Paul Kelly, the players want to return to the Olympics and will fight to include the ability in the next agreement." "fight" carries the wrong message I think, especially considering the nature of hockey games ;)
 * Fixed.
 * (in the table) "The First Winter Olympics athlete to test positive for a banned substance" Is "First" supposed to be capitalized?
 * No, it originally didn't have the "The" in it, and when I added it, I forgot to de-capitalize the "First".
 * In the "participating nations" table, you need to use something besides or in addition to color to denote that "the nation did not exist with that designation at that time". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Those cells are the only ones that are blank, so I think that works as an indicator. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion 0422  23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support As a follower of hockey, and having extensive knowledge of the subject at hand, I am quite impressed with the article. Very detailed, heavily sourced, plenty of images, it all adds up to a great article. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with comments. Geez, this is good. Looks carefully prepared—I didn't find much. The level of detail seems appropriate. Nice work!
 * If you're looking to trim some fat from the lead (and you should), I'd start with the mentions of the non-dominant "other medal winners". Also, don't use "include" if you're going to list them all—just use "are".
 * West Germany isn't listed in the lead, which is why "include" is used.
 * It stood out that you used "was initially reluctant to" twice in the lead. Can you mix it up a bit?
 * Switched the second use to "was hesitant to".
 * Don't specify acronyms you don't use again (LHG)
 * Removed.
 * "In 1995, an agreement was reached that allowed NHL players to participate in the tournament" Can we switch this from passive to active and say who agreed? Was this an agreement just among IOC members, or between the IOC and various leagues?
 * I clarified that bit.
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422  18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follow:
 * File:Ice hockey pictogram.svg: is this a representation of the official logo? If yes, is the logo copyrighted?  If not, why should an unofficial logo be the representation of this event?  Transcluding a design does not bestow new copyrights (no originality introduced); in other words, the SVG should follow the license of the original designer only.
 * It is one of many sport pictograms that was created specifically for wikipedia. These pictograms are generally used on all Olympic sport pages, and this just follows the standard.
 * File:Ice hockey layout.svg: what is the inspiration for the base layout of the field (source of dimensions for the field, etc)?
 * I'm not sure, is it an important matter?
 * This is to verify that the diagram is an accurate representation of the source/object (per Image use policy). Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, because I didn't create the image, but I'm assuming the user made it as accurate as possible. Is there anything I should do?
 * If the pictured field closely mirrors the contents of a book or reliable website, we can quote that as the source. Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The image itself cites this as a source. -- Scorpion 0422  14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blessed me... I must have been blind... yeesh! Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Other Images are verifiably in public domain or appropriately licensed. Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I think there is an image overload near the end. Why are there so many game shots there? I hope it is not just to pad the whitespaces at the right of the table. Judicious and appropriate use of images gives a better presentation than indiscriminate use of "free" images. If this is an article about Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, then the shots should be of the more significant matches, be they controversial or monumental in the history of the games, not of individual country's triumphs. Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, I wanted to include as many images of as many teams as I could to avoid any potential bias claims (there have been nationalist users who complain about the silliest things). There was also a concern about the number of images of Canadian teams in a peer review. I think the images do add to the page, and since they are free, I don't see why they can't be used? --  Scorpion 0422  16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Image use policy, Images, and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 12. As a whole, images are to be judiciously used.  Commons would host masses of pertinent images, but the most representative of the subject are shown in the article.  This becomes a matter of aesthetics and reading experience.  Jappalang (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think the images affect the reading experience because they are along tables. However, I have removed them anyway. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bringing File:Ice hockey pictogram.svg down here, as my concern seems to be no longer of a copyright/permission issue. What I am concerned about (after resolving possible copyrights) is: should we emboss an unofficial logo onto an international event, which carries its own event logos (albeit copyrighted and for each occasion)?  I know there seems not to be official policy or guideline against using "free" images, but I worry that some might mistake our editors' creations as official logos and in printing as such, propagate a misperception.  In fact there is encouragement to use "free" images, but is there an oversight here for this kind of situation?  What was the discussion (and rationales) that led to the creation of these logos and implementation?  Jappalang (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around for any discussion about the logos, so I don't know. I do somewhat agree with you about users mistaking it for any kind of official logo, but I don't know what else to use as a lead image. I had tried a different one a while back but I removed it because I was afraid it might cause edit wars from users who try to add a different team to the lead. Do you have any suggestions for an alternate lead image? I guess the image of the 1920 team might work (it might be the most relevant), but again, I'm afraid that users might claim the article is biased towards Canada and showing a Canadian team in the lead wouldn't help matters. --  Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope we can get answers from those who made the decision (and propagated this practice) if they are reading this, and perhaps other editors can weigh in as well. Are WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Ice Hockey not aware of this possible issue?  Jappalang (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the Olympic sport pictograms, I have never endorsed nor opposed their use as a potential "official" visual identity to be used in Wikipedia articles about the corresponding Olympic sport. So far, they have been used only as decorative items of "sport per year" navigation boxes and tables with stats concerning the sports depicted by that pictogram. Nothing as big as being used as lead image in the history of an Olympic sport. So, I understand Jappalang's perspective, and I think that, since there does not seems to be any consensus on this matter, perhaps it should be best not to include the pictogram or, at least, not give it such a preponderance in the lead navbox template. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make things simpler, I have switched to a new lead image of the 1920 gold medal winning team. It may bring on some complaints, but I think it makes the most sense of any of the current images. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing the image does address the comment, although I think a photo of a 1920 ice hockey match would be the best representation for the article. The 1920 team could suffice since the article is about the sport in the Olympics.  Jappalang (talk) 06:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as far as I know, we don't have any free images of any games from the 1920 tournament, so the team is the second best option. Do you consider your concerns completely addressed? -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jappalang (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.