Talk:1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, first things first: by my reckoning this passes all 'quick-fail' criteria (or doesn't pass, depending on your viewpoint), and I'm happy it has undergone a significant expansion and improvement since it's last review.

Lead

• Would be nice to see the lead expanded upon slightly. I feel that it should definitely include the fact that they finished as Stanley Cup runners-up up (or losing finalists, however you'd rather phrase it).
• "After a subpar year in 1974 that saw them miss the NHL playoffs..." – I'm slightly confused by this; do you mean the whole season (1973–74) was poor, or the year 1974 (ie, end of the 1973–74 season and start of the 1974–75 season). Could do with clarification; if it just means the previous season, it might be better just to state that.
• I'd prefer to see 'first' and 'second' rather than '1st' and '2nd' in the second paragraph, and feel that MOS:NUM implies this too, but I'm not going to be picky if you'd rather leave it as it is.

Offseason

• The formatting, with the 'Round' column being so wide, and yet the '#' column being too narrow, forcing '29 overall' onto two lines seems weird to me, can that be sorted out to look better?

Transactions

• "The Sabres acquired the rights to goaltender Gerry Desjardins from the New York Islanders for the rights to Garry Lariviere on February 19, 1975." – To someone with little or no knowledge of hockey, 'acquired the rights' is probably quite ambiguous, it might be worth expanding upon this slightly, or providing a note.

Regular season

• "After starting the season 3–3–1" – "3–3–1" definitely needs an explanation, while it is common usage in American sports, this isn't seen in English ones much at all.
• "..an 18–1–3 tear.." – Probably just an US(Eng) / UK(Eng) breakdown, but I don't really understand the usage of 'tear' in this context.
• "..the Sabres had the best record in hockey.." – This is very general, I think "..best record in the NHL.." might be needed; after all, some amateur team may have gone unbeaten all season!
• "The streak included two streaks of at least 10 games without a loss." – This sounds a little awkward, possibly rephrase it something like: The streak included two unbeaten stretches of at least 10 games.?
• "The team posted a season high 6-game win streak.." – Per MOS:NUM, six should be written out. Also, I think 'season-high' should be hyphenated as in the following sentence.
• "..although none of them played 75 of the team's 80 games." – This is a little ambiguous, it doesn't rule out them playing 80 games! Perhaps ..although none of them played as many as 75 of the team's 80 games.?
• "Gilbert Perreault's 8 game-winning goals was fifth." – Fifth in the league, conference, division? Could you clarify please. Also, 8 should be eight, per MOS:NUM.
• You interchange in usage for 9th, 10th, fifth, tenth throughout this paragraph (and indeed the article). As I stated in the lead section; I'd prefer them written out, but I'm not too fussy as long as you are consistent throughout.
• The second paragraph gets pretty bogged down with stats and records. I accept this is sort of the point of the paragraph, but it reads like a set of bullet points. Could you have a crack at making it more prosaic?
• Same with the third paragraph.
• The fourth paragraph is (I assume) referring to netminders; as a hockey fan this is barely noticeable to me, a lay-person wouldn't have a chance.

Summary so far

I'm going to take a break from this and let you work on the above points. However, overall I'd say that the article needs a pretty thorough copy-edit. I'm aware an article doesn't have to be perfect for GA, but I think this article suffers from a fair few technical problems that currently prevent its promotion. Although there is still a good deal of the article which I haven't reviewed, I'm going to place the review on hold, pending a copy-edit over the whole article, and the specific changes listed above. I'll be happy to field any queries and should be about most of the next few days. Harrias ^talk 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just read on the rest of the article in more depth, and the more I look at it, the more problems I see. The tables sort poorly, sometimes completely incorrectly (Birthdate for example) the table headings at abbreviated without explanation, with one of the headers being simply "'" which I don't understand the relevance of at all. Columns and rows that should possibly be unsortable sort with the rest of the tables, and your two player stats tables confuse me; the top one seems to include regular and post-season, but the second one then includes the post-season stats again (with more detail). I'm going to fail the article and suggest a peer review, especially given there are some problems pertaining to the prose in later sections.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Harrias ^talk 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)