Wikipedia:Peer review/Los Angeles Kings/archive1

Los Angeles Kings
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review prior to submitting for GA/FA status. I have edited the Los Angeles Kings article as well as supporting articles during these past few weeks. For inspiration, I used the New Jersey Devils and Calgary Flames, both FA status. Your thoughts and comments are appreciated. Zlit93 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some experience in getting an article to FA status (see Manzanar), but I have not had time since then to contribute significantly to this one, other than to keep an eye on it. But from my experience, and as I stated on the article's talk page, many of the edits from, I'm guessing, the last year or so, are largely unsourced. Facts and quotes (if used) must be verifiable and inline citations must be added. This is the weakest par of the article. If I have time, I'll go through it more thoroughly. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A suggestion: I haven't gone over the article to look for potential NPOV issues, but you might want to take a step back and read it as someone who isn't a Kings fan, or even a hockey fan. You might see stuff that isn't all that neutral. You'll want to fix that. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this article as being ready for a GA nom, but it is moving in the right direction. This may seem like a lot of complaints, but having written the Flames' FA, I can tell you that getting to that level is a long process filled with a crazy number of little problems to solve. I'll give my opinions on what needs to be dealt with for a GA push:
 * Comments from Resolute
 * Proseline is bad. Especially in the lead.  The actual date that something occurs, even winning the Cup, isn't always that important, especially in the lead.  I would combine their 1991 division title, Campbell Bowl wins and Stanley Cup into a single paragraph.  I would also add a paragraph on their players.  I just can't see an article on the Kings that doesn't mention Gretzky or the Triple Crown Line in the lead.
 * References. This will be the biggest challenge.  The Flames' article is comparable in size, but has twice the inline citations.  As Gmatsuda notes, there are several sections of this article that require sourcing.  Short rule: cite anything that is not an obvious fact - and when it comes to things like hockey, not much is obvious, especially to someone who isn't necessarily a fan.
 * Undue weight in the history section. Your 1992-93 section, for instance, is excessive for an article that means to cover 45 years of history. That level of detail is great for 1992-93 Los Angeles Kings season, but honestly, about two paragraphs would do here:  The first on Gretzky's injury, but posting a good record anyway, and the second summarizing the playoff run.  Leave the greater detail for the season article.
 * Too many subsections and oddly divided. For instance, there is a section covering 1988-1996, then a following section that covers 1992-93, then a section that covers 1993-99.  It gives the appearance that the article is jumping around.  I think you can merge the 1992-93, 1999-2001 and 2009-2011 sections into the other sections around them and ensure they all work in a logical chronological order to simplify this a little.
 * And finally, the big one: Point of view and Weasel words. We need to be writing our artices in encyclopedic tone, which means several words used to "spice" up the text aren't good.  Some examples:
 * Even before the Dionne trade the Kings were sent reeling when coach Pat Quinn signed a contract...
 * Despite these shocks, the Kings made the playoffs in the next two seasons...
 * The next chapter after the 1993 playoff run for the Kings was tough for Kings fans. (entire passage is POV)
 * They were forced to trade many of their stronger players, resulting in a roster composed of Gretzky, McSorely, Kurri, Blake, and little else.
 * After all he had done for the game by that time, Gretzky wanted another chance to win an elusive fifth Stanley Cup before retirement. (POV)
 * With a new home, a new coach, a potential 50-goal scorer in the fold and... POV, doubly so since Palffy never scored 50.
 * The 2000–01 season was a controversial one, as fans began to question AEG's commitment to the success of the Kings... If you can source this, it's fine, but otherwise reads as fan POV
 * Adding fuel to the fire was the February 21, 2001, trade of star defenseman Rob Blake...
 * There is more. You'll have to go over the article a couple times to catch and clean it.
 * All of the lists at the end need citations. They can all pretty much be cited to the team's media guide, however.
 * Writing an article on a team, especially with this much history, can be a challenge as your first GA/FA. It may seem like I'm being quite picky, but the review process tends to be quite picky itself. The article has a good base to start from, but there is a bit of work left to do.  However, if you wish to do it, ping me on my talk page when you think it is ready, and I'll give it a full copyedit before you list at WP:GAN.  Good luck! Resolute 14:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)