Wikipedia:Peer review/Larry Kwong/archive1

Larry Kwong


I've listed this article for peer review because it looks fairly comprehensive and well cited for a GA, but can probably use some formatting and wording fixes (e.g. the Awards and Honours section).

Thanks, Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Zetana
Hi, this is my first peer review, and I don't know anything about hockey, so I apologize if I miss something.

Initial comments

 * 1) "Career peak outside of the NHL" is missing sourcing; the section only cites one NYT piece, but that article is missing a lot of information that is in the section. E.g. statistics are listed in the section but are not in the NYT article
 * 2) "Player-coaching career" has a   tag.
 * 3) Would prefer a better source for ref 22 (obituary from Legacy.com)
 * 4) "Honours & achievements" has an over-broad scope at the moment. Some awards make sense (cup wins) but I don't know if all of them have sufficient notability, e.g. "Calgary's Asian Heritage Month Award" & 2009 SONAHHR award. Some statistics also belong better in body: leading scorer statistics & "Nanaimo Clippers sweater hangs in the Hockey Hall of Fame" should be in Career/Legacy sections.
 * 5) On that note, I think most of the current sections (2/3-5) could be instead subsections inside a single "Career" section
 * 6) The sweater/HOF statement isn't supported by the cited source (ref 31, "Diversity in our game")
 * 7) I did some work on the references to fix them up, but which date format would you prefer? Right now the article uses all three (DMY/MDY/YMD).
 * 8) The "Bibliography" section seems to function as a "Further reading" section rather than sourcing; there's also a lot of material listed that could be used. I think a complete article would make use of Johanson's biography of Kwong, or at least some of the other print sources listed
 * 9) If this section is supposed to be a "Further reading" section, it needs to be trimmed to perhaps two or three books. Similar issue with "External links"
 * 10) 6 is the most important issue I see; if some of the bibliography sources were used I'd feel more confident the article would pass a GA. Zetana (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)