Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Hockey League/archive1

National Hockey League[edit]

The NHL article has improved over the past six months or so. Lists have been covered to prose, the text has been changed to summary style, images are GFDL (except for the logo which has a fair use rationale). it is well referenced. It has a peer review from a couple weeks ago (Wikipedia:Peer review/National Hockey League/archive1). I've also pre-run AndyZ javascript checker (at User:Jeff3000/Sandbox2, and fixed most of the problems, but can't seem to find why it's ouputting the remaining errors. -- Jeff3000 02:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object A good article, but I have a few issues with it. Jeronimo 06:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a primer on the rules of ice hockey is necessary in the "Game" section - just include a few brief explanations in the text where potentially unclear or required. Some parts of the section may also be moved to "Rules".
- I miss a bit on which teams have been the most successful, similar to the first paragraph of the "Players" section.
- More is needed on the popularity of the league, especially historically. The "Television" and "Labor issues" sections (latter featuring a bit on attendance) have information on recent seasons, but little historical information. Also missing is information the popularity relative to the other major sports leagues in the US (NFL, NBA, MLB) and popularity outside of North America.
- The televsion section is way too detailed. More is said about TV coverage for the past seasons than about play - most of it are numbers as well. I would propose to rename the section to "Popularity" (or so), using also content from my previous comment. The detailed stuff in the current TV section could be moved off to a separate article.
- Comment: Good suggestion about the Teams section, I'll try to write some stuff, and put it in the article. The rules section has been shortened, see below. I'll also try to make a historical popularity section. This of course will take time, so I'll have to apply for FA later on. -- Jeff3000 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The info about successful teams has been added. -- Jeff3000 00:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object The rules of a sport need not be regurgitated in an article about a competition, unless the rules are specific to that competition. In this case, things like the difference in size between NHL and international rinks are useful distinctions, but things like the objective of the game and icing are common to any ice hockey competition. Oldelpaso 11:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we look at the different sections that talk about rules/hockey per paragraph:
  - Rules section:
    - 1st paragraph: Just an introductory paragraph saying rules mostly follow IIHF rules except for some, this paragraph is needed.
    - 2nd paragraph: Offside, mostly talks about NHL rule changes which were are specific to how the NHL has/is operated.
    - 3rd paragraph: Icing, while the first few sentence explain Icing, the last sentence gives details as how the NHL rule about no substitions after an Icing which is NHL specific. Also the NHL icing rule is different than the IIHF icing since it is a touch icing. Thus most of the paragrpah is needed to either explain the differences and as background to those differences. Explaining the icing differences without explaining icing would be confusing to the general reader.
    - 4th paragraph: This paragraph could be shortened, but is still needed in the summary style. Specifically major fighting penalties do not exist in the IIHF.
  - Rink section
    - 1st paragraph: Details the difference in the hockey rink compared to the IIHF rink size
    - 2nd paragraph: Outlines the trapezoid area which does not exist in the IIHF.
  - Game section
    - 1st and 2nd paragraph: These paragraphs could be further shortened, but are needed in the summary style. Explanation of what the NHL plays is crucial to the NHL.
    - 3rd and 4th paragraphs: Decribes specific NHL rules regarding win/losses, and most specifically how ties are handled.

So in general, I believe most of the content is warrented as it is NHL specific. I will try shortening the first two paragraphs of the of the Game section and the 4th paragraph of the Rules section. -- Jeff3000 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ok I've shortened the Game section, and tried to make the Rules section more specific to the NHL, and differences between it, and the IIHF. -- Jeff3000 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. A citation spot check performed on this article turned up two problemmatic footnotes out of four sampled. (Results are here.) Please go through and make sure all citations lead to information supporting the footnoted statement. --Robth^Talk 04:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC) (These problems now fixed; objection withdrawn --Robth^Talk 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment of the two problems, I have fixed one. The second problem is twofold, one that the ISBN for the editor went to the wrong book, but I don't have that problem see [1]; as for the page numbers, I don't have the book anymore to annotate the references with page numebers. -- Jeff3000 20:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Using Amazon's electronic book sight, I have added page numbers to all of the references from McFarlane's book. -- Jeff3000 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As there are no official Wikipedia guidelines regarding the role of the FA director or how an article is promoted to featured status I am giving this article my support. Please see the discussions [[2]] and [[3]] at the featured article talk page for my reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayzel68 (talk • contribs)