Wikipedia:Peer review/List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game/archive1

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game
This peer review discussion has been closed. This request is somewhat unorthodox -- this list is already featured. I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a very substantial amount of editing since it was promoted: the promoted version was 9140 bytes, and the current is at 17,015. The feedback I'm look is firstly in terms of the writing quality and the clarity of the prose. I've added a very substantial amount of prose and I want to be especially sure that it is (reasonably?) understable by someone without considerable prior knowledge of the subject, as well as it being well-written. Another issue on which feedback would be appreciated would be whether this can be called a list or whether it is more an article (in terms of FL vs FA distinction), because of the amount of prose as compared to the list itself.

Thanks,  Maxim (talk)  21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"'The first goaltender to score a goal by intentionally shooting the puck into the opponent's net was the Philadelphia Flyers' Ron Hextall, who on December 8, 1987, scored in an empty net after Boston pulled their goaltender, Rejean Lemelin, for a sixth attacker late in the third period.[14] This was the case for the most recent instance of goaltender scoring, when Chris Mason was credited with a goal in 2006. The most recent goaltender to have scored a goal by deliberately shooting the puck into his opponents' net was Evgeni Nabokov, in 2002.'" This paragraph doesn't make sense for me. Forgive me if I'm being stupid (which is possible): but from what I am reading, you say that Hextall intentionally shot the puck in the opponents net (with the goaltender pulled). You then say that this was the case for the most recent instance, in 2006. But you then say that the most recent goaltender to have scored by deliberately shooting the puck into the goal was in 2002. But following what is stated here, surely the 2006 goal was also intentional? Am I missing something?  Harrias  talk 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * You're not being stupid, and you're perfectly right about the paragraph not making sense. I think it was a result of moving blocks of text around when re-writing the prose part of article. Nabokov was a shot on goal, Mason was an own goal. I've fixed this in the article. Thanks for noticing it.  Maxim (talk)  23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems a little wordy in places. Things like "(it is very dangerous if the goalkeeper turns the puck over to opposing team)" could probably be cut, with "practical considerations" before it changed to "to avoid giving the opponents a chance to score" or something. Also, there are some weasel words, like

"'Though both Ron Hextall and Martin Brodeur have scored twice, Hextall is the only goaltender to score twice by directly shooting the puck into the opponent's net. Martin Brodeur's second goal was an own goal by the other team, where Brodeur received credit for touching the puck last. Interestingly, it is the only game-winning goal scored by a goaltender. Hextall and Brodeur both scored in a playoff game as well as a regular season game. Hextall's second goal is the only goal scored by a goaltender while his team was short handed, and Evgeni Nabokov's goal is the only one that was scored on a power play." Hopefully that helps. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It helped. I've fixed the problematic statements you pointed out, and I've given it somewhat of a copyedit. Thanks.  Maxim (talk)  21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:
 * The main issue with this "list" is that it has, effectively, ceased to be a list in WP terms. See WP:LIST: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)." We have here a lead followed by two substantial prose sections, after which is a very short list (11 items). With lists,  the substance of the information should be in the list rather than the text; the format we have here is much more that of an article than a list. If it were to be submitted to WP:FLC in its present form, I doubt that it would succeeed; most likely the nominator would be referred to FAC.
 * Another issue that arises from the expansion of the prose is that the lead no longer fulfils the requirements of WP:LEAD – to be a concise summary of the article's content. If the page is to be reincarnated as an article, the lead would need to be expanded to summarise all the information in the article.
 * I haven't worked through the prose in detail, but it seems to need some attention. The first sentence: "Eleven goals have been scored by nine separate goaltenders in a National Hockey League (NHL) game" is ambiguously stated. There are unnecessary repetitons, e.g. "Ron Hextall of the Philadelphia Flyers was second goaltender to score a goal, and the first goaltender to score by taking a shot" (the word "goaltender" occurs five times in this short paragraph). Assertive statements such as "Scoring a goal into the opposing team's net is challenging for goaltenders" are POV and should be omitted. These are just a few prose issues I've identified at a glance.

I believe that the correct sequence of events to follow should be:-
 * 1) Removal of featured list status as inappropriate
 * 2) Retitle the article by removal of the words "List of"
 * 3) Work on the prose
 * 4) Possibly seek a further peer review when these are done
 * 5) Submit to FAC for featured status as an article.

Please note that these are my personal views. They are offered as suggestions, carry no particular weight, and others may disagree. Whatever you decide to do, good luck. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've worked on the prose a bit, but any serious copyedit would have to be done by some removed from the text, as I've worked with it too much. I've expanded the lead. Now, for the more difficult part... with regards to the list part, what would the FAC people say to an article with three sections, of which one is a lead? I guess the "better" way to phrase the question would be "is it possible that this page would end up in the middle, not really a list but not really an article?" I'm also concerned about spending what could be months in the processes of FLRC followed by FAC. If, for example, I submitted it straight to FAC, would that be problematic? I'm asking because you have tonnes of FA experience as both an author and reviewer.
 * I was also interested in your opinion on the sourcing of the first paragraph for Technique. Some of the claims there are very straightforward for someone with some experience with ice hockey (e.g. to score into a empty net from your own end, the shot must be very accurately placed throught its trajectory) or, in the case of something like "All NHL goaltenders who have scored a goal by shooting the puck have done so with an empty net" is verifiable if a report for each of the goals of checked (I'm reluctant to flood the article with as much as 11 references for one sentence). Thanks so much.  Maxim (talk)  21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)