Talk:1976 Canada Cup/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria - no problems here, will continue with a detailed review below.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Pretty good, a few things below

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

In the lead it says "Hockey Canada", but might be better to use the name of the governing body at the time.

In this case, Hockey Canada was. The CAHA was actually a member of Hockey Canada and had ceded control of tournaments involving professionals to Hockey Canada. I've discussed their overall battles more in 1981 Canada Cup.

Teams

"16 of the 21 players on the roster later gained election into the"

Suggest - 16 of the 21 players on the roster were elected (in)to the

Changed

Not to open a can of worms, but should the diacritics be hidden for Czechoslovakian player names?

Given it was an international tournament, I defaulted to how we treat similar articles.

"The Soviets also sought to dismiss the importance of the tournament"

'dismiss' seems out of place, maybe "downplay"

Changed

Round robin games

"They were upset about the officiating of Canadian referee Andre Legace, though organizers did not take the Soviet threats to quit the tournament seriously"

These don't follow closely enough to be in the same sentence. Possibly move the part about being upset with the officiating ahead of the sentence about them threatening to quit.

Broken into two sentences.

I understand the colour in the table, but a key would probably be helpful.

Agreed, added.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

In the second paragraph under "Teams" - the part about the analysts ranking could probably use an individual cite.

The single ref was intended to cover the entire paragraph, but I've made this more obvious.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   Not applicable

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Minor things needed here, I'll place it on hold. Canada Hky (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   And addressed. Thanks for the review! Resolute 16:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, all good. Canada Hky (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Resolute 22:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)