Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Louis Leblanc/archive2


 * 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017.

Louis Leblanc

 * Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Previously nominated, and closed after two months due to last-minute commentary. I've now addressed that, and everything from the previous nomination. I also have contacted the users who left comments last time to ensure they see that the changes were made. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp
Hi. I'll start my review now. I see you've made some changes but my impression is that there is still a lot left unexplained or left for the reader to guess at. Here are some comments about the first section: Lead:
 * Would it be an idea to make the hierarchy of the leagues clearer?
 * "Eligible for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, he was selected 18th overall by the Montreal Canadiens." If a reader doesn't know that the NHL is the top league, will the full context be clear that he was moving up in his career? One idea could be to "major league NHL..." or something.
 * "Leblanc spent three seasons with the Canadiens, mainly playing for their American Hockey League (AHL) affiliates, before being traded in 2014 to the Anaheim Ducks, who kept Leblanc in the AHL." Again, this wording assumes the reader knows the AHL is lower down than the NHL. I guess if they click on the wiki-link you provide for American Hockey League, that helps, but the reader should be able to get some of the context within the current article itself.
 * I'll address both of the above here. I feel that defining the NHL anymore here isn't necessary; it isn't something other sports-related articles do, and I feel its something that can easily be found through the NHL article itself. Regarding the AHL, while the lead doesn't specify it too much, it is the lead, and the body of the article does clarify the NHL-AHL relationship, or at least attempts to.
 * OK, for now let's assume this is all right. I may have one more think about this issue before the end of the review, but for now your reasoning makes sense. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Junior:
 * "Leblanc was selected 18th overall by the Val-d'Or Foreurs in the 2007 QMJHL Draft, but instead went to the Omaha Lancers of the United States Hockey League (USHL)" If he was selected by one team, why did he have a choice to go to another team? Readers may wonder.
 * Moved some words around, but not sure how to make it much clearer.
 * OK, thanks. I appreciate you're trying to make it clearer. I'm just trying to understand this part for myself: He had to be selected for the Val-d'Or Foreurs in a draft—and he rejected being picked by them—but he was able to go to the Omaha Lancers without any kind of draft process? Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In short, there are separate junior leagues in Canada and the US, and teams can have the rights to players in their respective country, but it doesn't apply in the other. So Leblanc was drafted, and had his Canadian rights, owned by Val-d'Or, assigned in the draft, whereas he was free to sign with any US-based team (of course its more nuanced than that, but this is not the place for that discussion). Now that said, I have seen reference that there was a similar draft for player rights in the US, but I am unable to get anything resembling a source to back that. But to keep it simple, he was free to move to the US because the draft only covered his playing rights for Canadian teams. I hope that makes sense.
 * OK, we may not be able to improve this, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "At the end of the season, Leblanc was ranked by the National Hockey League (NHL) Central Scouting Bureau as a top prospect for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft;" Again, it would be nice to be clearer that the NHL is the top of the hierarchy, and what most players strive to reach.
 * See the first note; the reader is either going to know the status of the NHL, or the relevant article will do better explaining than anything here could.
 * All right, see above, let's leave this issue for now. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "their final list had him 13th overall among North American skaters" I guess that "skaters" simply means "players" here, and is used to add variety. But I'd like to suggest "players" might be the more encyclopedic term.
 * I agree, however it is a specific term used for the ranking: they are divided amongst "skaters" and "goalies," and so to use "players" would be incorrect and wrong.
 * I see. I wasn't aware of that. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Canadiens General Manager Bob Gainey also applauded Leblanc's decision to move to the United States and play in the USHL rather than stay in Quebec with the QMJHL. Gainey felt it was a more difficult choice that helped Leblanc's development as a player, and showed his good character in making such a decision." Again, it's not clear why Leblanc was able to decide this when the QMJHL had selected him. Also, I was left wondering in what way this would have been a more difficult choice.
 * Tried to add some context, but again without adding massive notes to this that distorts everything it becomes challenging to get specific.
 * Is there any minimal extra context that could be added in a footnote? Then it wouldn't disrupt the flow. But I'm not sure exactly how much extra explanation this would actually involve, so if you still think it's not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it goes against the traditional narrative in hockey circles, in which it is almost hearsay to suggest a junior player go anywhere but a Canadian team. For Gainey to have said that kind of goes against the established narrative, which if I had to speculate is possibly why he said it, as Leblanc defined convention; but that isn't exactly backed by a source.
 * OK. Moisejp (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "On July 30, 2010, Leblanc signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens. By agreeing to an NHL contract, he forfeited his NCAA eligibility and had to leave Harvard, being considered a professional according to NCAA standards." I see that you tweaked this slightly based on my comment last time, but I still don't feel it's clear. If he signed to the Canadiens, doesn't that mean he wanted to imminently pursue a career with an NHL team? If so, saying that he "had to" leave Harvard and he "forfeited his NCAA eligibility" ("forfeited" suggests a possible sacrifice made) sounds misleading or at least confusing.
 * Changed wording to "professional," as that is the issue regarding NCAA eligibility.
 * It's undeniable that he was no longer eligible for the NCAA. But my point was, wasn't his dream presumably to succeed in the NHL? If so, saying he "forfeited" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) his NCAA eligibility seems to put a little emphasis where it doesn't belong. Why would anyone want to play in the NCAA when they had a chance to make it big in the NHL? Trading one's NCAA eligibility for a spot in the NHL is a positive thing, not negative. Anyway, this is minor and maybe I'm getting too hung up on semantics. If you're comfortable with this part, I won't press this any further. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. This mainly stems from the fact that most younger players spend a few years in the minor leagues before they make the NHL, if ever. This includes playing in the NCAA, which has a four-year limit; and unlike the Canadian major junior leagues or AHL, players can not play briefly in the NHL to see how good they are and return to the NCAA, but must either remain at the university level or "turn pro" (NCAA policy regards the Canadian leagues as pro for reasons that aren't relevant here).
 * OK. Moisejp (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "After attending his first training camp with the Canadiens in September 2010, Leblanc was sent to the Montreal Junior Hockey Club (Montreal Juniors) of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) for the 2010–11 season." We learn later that it was Chicoutimi that sent him to the Juniors. Would it be clearer to explain that now rather than saying "was sent to" here?
 * Changed wording, think it may better reflect the situation.
 * See below. I think I have an idea for editing this when I have a window of time. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "In the off-season the team relocated to Boisbriand, a suburb of Montreal, and were renamed the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada; the team would subsequently trade Leblanc's major junior rights to the Shawinigan Cataractes, though he never played for them." Readers may wonder why he never played for them.
 * I'd like to still think about whether there's a way the info about his various QMJHL contracts could be explained less confusedly more clearly. I'll get back to you if I have any ideas. Moisejp (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to clarify better what I meant for my last point. I was suddenly called away to attend to something and wasn't able to choose my words carefully. I meant that there is a lot of activity described with Leblanc changing teams lots of times in a short period of time, plus there is some jumping back and forth in the chronological time line. Confusing is a strong word, but it's less easy to follow than would be ideal. It may be that this can't be helped—these are the events that happened and the article is describing them. But what I meant to say is I'd like to give another think about whether any further tweaking can be done—for example, by adding helpful transitions to the prose, or by rearranging the order the descriptions a bit—to help the reader as much as possible. If I can't think of any specific solutions for this, then no worries. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see what you mean regarding the transactions, in that they don't really have a clear place to go. However I feel that as they are really inconsequential to his career, it would be disruptive to put them chronologically, as it would just be some random note in the middle of relevant things happening. That said, they are still important enough to mention, as they clearly had an effect on his career (it was why he played in Montreal and not rural Quebec, after all; and if I can speculate, that may have influenced his choice to leave Harvard, as the team was close to the Canadiens). Thus I'd feel it wrong to outright remove the information, but to plant the trades sporadically seems an equally poor choice. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think they might work in a footnote? Maybe the most important information in the main text, and then a clarification in a footnote about how he had changed QMJHL contracts a couple of times before that. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Let me look at it.
 * I've got some ideas for possibly rearranging this section a bit. I'd like to give a whirl at editing it in the next couple of days when I have time. If my edits aren't an improvement, we can always revert back. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go for it, I'm interested in what you got in mind. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See what you think: User:Moisejp/sandbox3. Unfortunately in my editing I stripped all the inline sources. I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for you to add them back in. Maybe I can help with it, but I didn't want to do any work on that until I find out if you like the edit. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that looks pretty good actually, and is still clear on what happened. And its no issue regarding the sources, I can add them if you import that into the article itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and either changed things up or left my own opinion on some matters, and hope to hear what you think on them. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kasier matias. I have been a bit busy the last few days, but hope to respond to your replies and continue the review as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I can relate to a busy schedule, so take your time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll continue reviewing the next part soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered you're queries above, so let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have imported the text we discussed in. I hope to begin reviewing the second half of the article in the coming days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Support on prose. Your changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ultimately" is used three times in the article. Does it add any real meaning to any of the instances?
 * I got rid of two of them. The first instance I kept just because I feel when discussing his pre-draft ranking and his actual spot in the draft it makes sense.
 * "He was invited to the summer camp the following year in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and was one of the better players at the camp." Sounds possibly subjective, though I haven't checked what the source says. Could you make it more objective by maybe saying "So-and-so said that..."
 * Changed the wording, and the link as apparently the previous one is dead now.
 * "He later notched an assist in the gold medal game, where Canada lost to Russia 5–3." "Notched" sounds fine for sports newspaper writing, but I am unsure about encyclopedia writing (it sounds a bit casual to me). How would you feel about changing it?
 * Changed
 * All addressed now. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking such a detailed look at the article, really glad to have someone do that and put such effort in, really makes a difference. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I noticed this article failing to receive much attention, so I wanted to give it a look. It make take a few days before I can come back, so please be patient with the article, coordinators.
 * United States really doesn't need the link in the lead, as it is so well-known. This is a prime example of overlinking.
 * "Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens later that year, who had earlier acquired his Quebec Major Junior Hockey League playing rights." For a better order in this sentence, try "Later that year Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens, who had...". This puts "who" right after the team name, which it is referring to.
 * Don't know if anyone has brought this up to this point, but the body jumps right into his playing career without any mention of anything that happened earlier in his life. There's a healthy paragraph in the personal life section about his early years, which would be of great help in providing some context for the playing career sections. How would you feel about splitting that paragraph into an Early life section at the start of the body? It would leave a shorter personal life section, but it would still be a whole paragraph (still long enough to be worthwhile) and the article as a whole would have a logical order.
 * Junior: NCAA should be spelled out in its first use, as is done with the other abbreviations.
 * Professional: "the overtime winner" could be seen as an example of sportswriter-type prose, which in my experience hasn't been rewarded often at FAC. A longer-but-simpler "the game-winning goal in overtime" would be more formal.
 * "for the Canadiens, where he had 5 goals and 5 assists". The Canadiens aren't a place, so we need something other than "where". Perhaps "for whom he had 5 goals and 5 assists" would work?
 * There's a similar usage after Norfolk Admirals, which could use a similar fix.
 * Remove the comma in "January, 2013".
 * International play: "and" is needed before "was one of the top scorers at the camp."
 * Reference 13 needs an access date. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Everything here's been addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – All of my concerns have been taken care of, and pending a source review, I'm reasonably confident that the article meets the FA criteria. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment for coordinators: This has been up for nearly two months now, and has only two supports. As I'd prefer to not have to relist it a third time, is there anything that can be done to help move this along? Kaiser matias (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

 Leaning support : Recusing as coordinator from this one, and I've done some light copy-editing. I've read it a couple of times, and there is nothing glaringly wrong. However, there is something that I can't quite put my finger on that isn't quite working. It could be in my imagination, but I'd like to have one last look before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is a slightly repetitive sentence structure: too many sentences begin "Leblanc", "he" or with a simple subject. I've reworked some, and this should be less of an issue now.
 * One area where I think we might be a little weak is in judging his effectiveness. We have plenty of stats, albeit fairly meaningless unless you follow hockey as there is understandably no context to what makes a "good" total. However, there is not very much that says "he played well" or "he played badly" or "the coaches thought he was terrible". I think, if possible, we need much more on this or it is simply a list of appearances and goals scored without any commentary. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That should be something that can be worked on, will just need a couple days to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, so went and added some details about how he was seen as failing to meet his potential, and a bit about being a draft bust. There isn't a lot out there that explicitly says he was bad though, just thoughts on his future career and allusions, which I've tried to quantify best as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support: I think those last changes were what was needed. I'm still not entirely taken with something, probably the prose, but I think we're into matters of taste now. I may pick at it a little more, but I think it meets the criteria and so I'm switching to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review: Everything is cited that needs to be. Sources are all of the appropriate quality. I tweaked a few dates to match the article's formatting scheme, but everything else looks to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.