Talk:2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Reassessment by: BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This article, unfortunately, has some fundamental flaws that should never have been missed in its original GAN review, and I'm still bemused by the fact that it was passed even though they were pointed out to the reviewer, Jaguar. Among other things, it needs it complete copyedit—I suggested that the Guild of Copy Editors be asked—due to the constant switching between present and past tense, and a significant number of other grammatical and typographical issues. Now that I have read through it, I'm even more puzzled, because the sheer number of such errors are clearly evident to anyone reading with care.

Overall assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article does not reach the standard of a Good Article, and needs significant work throughout to get there. More complete comments will be given below.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Prose does not meet the "clear and concise" guideline, and the grammatical issues, especially the regularly varying tenses, need attention in every paragraph.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Fails to adhere to WP:LEAD, notably in the linked bold text (not allowed) and other issues, a few words to watch issues as well.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Some controversial-seeming statements are not supported by references.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   There seems to be more detail than needed, notably in the Winter Olympics material, but also elsewhere.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   A couple of captions could use some minor wordsmithing.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A great deal of work needs to be done.

General thoughts: I am not much of a hockey fan, so as such I am unlikely to understand specific jargon or sports shorthand. That can be a benefit, in that if a term isn't clear to me, it probably doesn't meet the "clear and concise" GA criterion.

Individual sections

Because there is so much here, I'm going to start by noting issues with a few sections only. Once these are addressed, I will move on to others. As noted earlier, a thorough and competent copyedit will be required for the entire article. I have not yet checked for original research or close paraphrasing; I will do spot-checks later in the reassessment process if warranted.

Lead

• Opening sentence: per WP:LEAD, links are not allowed in the bolded article name. Please remove them.
• Next sentence: During head coach John Tortorella's first and only season with the team, the Canucks ended up missing the playoffs for the first time since the 2007–08 season ending their 5-year playoff streak, in addition to having their worst regular season record since the 1990–00 season. This is a run-on sentence that should be split up, and should also continue in the past tense set in the first sentence. Other errors include "1990–2000 season" (should be 1999) and missing punctuation after "2007–08 season". Suggested revision: The Canucks failed to make the playoffs for the first time since the 2007–08 season, and had their worst regular season record since the 1999–2000 season. New head coach John Tortorella was fired after his first season with the team.
• Second paragraph: this should be split and trimmed—please use three paragraphs, or four if you need them. It's too long and too detailed, and also doesn't meet the WP:LEAD requirement of summarizing the entire article: there's nothing here from the Off-season or Preseason sections, nor from the Olympics section, though I'd give the Olympics a sentence at most, as it is not germane to the Canucks season. More important, the text needs to be revised extensively, as it doesn't summarize the article: this is all-new essay material about the team and its fans. The "high hopes" are new, and the second sentence's "subject to much ridicule" is unsourced and non-neutral (and also new).
  • This showing had the Canucks outside of the playoffs, a position the team was not accustom too. A couple of problems: "outside of the playoffs", which I think means that their record, or their place in the division, had them out of the running at that point. Also, "accustom" should be "accustomed".
  • December was a monumental month for the team, recording only three loses in four weeks leading up to the New Year, with only one being a regulation loss. The use of "monumental" violates the "words to watch" criterion. Also, the way the sentence is written, December recorded (not "recording") the losses (not "loses"). This needs to be simplified, and "regulation loss" should probably be wikilinked; better would be to note that there was one loss in regulation time, and two overtime losses.
  • However, the turn of the calendar threw the Canucks into a downward spiral. The calendar didn't do anything to anyone. The team performed more poorly in January.
  • Tortorella’s bombastic approach begin to clash. "began", not "begin", and I'm not sure "clash" is the right word given how the sentence is worded.
  • There should be no need for parenthetical comments; these are the sort of details that belong in the body of the article, not its lead.
  • Vancouver would still continue for a playoff push though, ultimately failing to meet that expectation though, finishing sixth last in the NHL. Neither "though" is necessary, and "for a playoff push" is an odd locution; perhaps "Vancouver continued to fight for a playoff slot, but they failed to achieve it". Also, what exactly does "sixth last in the NHL" mean? If it's the sixth-lowest/poorest record in the NHL, then say that.
  • The low finished caused the firings of Tortorella and general manager Mike Gillis, among others. Definitely not "finished". And Gillis was gone before the end of the season.
  • There's a bit too much here about the mechanics of the finish leading to the draft selection order. I'm not sure the ultimate selection belongs in the lead; I'm pretty sure the Sedins don't.

Regular season

For now, I'm only going to cover December through February and April.

December through February

• The first sentence should be ruthlessly trimmed: "The team won seven straight games at the beginning of December, and had a 10–1–2 record for the month."
• The second sentence: rather than "Starter", why not "Starting goalie"? Also, there's no reason to make it the rest of December since Lack started the next three games: December 29, 30, and January 1. Just say through January 1 or New Years Day.
• Paragraph 2: I'd drop the first sentence, and start with Luongo's return on January 4 against Los Angeles, where he was reinjured and was out for the next six games. Then point out Lack's struggles.
• {{tq|which was the worst game this season}: was it the highest score by an opponent? Widest margin of loss? Say what happened, don't characterize it, especially without a secondary source naming it "worst".
• The January 18 series of events is not written clearly. I'd like to suggest that it's given its own paragraph and carefully revised.
• Next paragraph would be the seven-game losing streak, which needs rewording and also a citation to support "worst losing streak since the 1990s", which is too vague: give the year or season where that last bad losing streak occurred. Also, these were seven straight regulation-time losses.
• I'm surprised that you don't point out that the NHL break for the Winter Olympics occurred after those seven straight games were lost, and the first game back 18 days later was a victory, which ended the losing streak. Please do so.
• The final paragraph should start with a "The", and Canucks ended their (not its) losing streak, but lost (not "would lose"; stick with straight past tense). Perhaps here you could mention that the two Lack games were post-Olympics. However, I would move the convincing of Tortorella to the beginning of March, give the date of the Heritage Classic, and fix that first sentence. Also, add a couple of words to explain that "Lu" is "Luongo", the goalie that wasn't started.
• Since I'm going to skip over March for now, I'll note that "Mar" should be "March" throughout, and that "in a SO" needs a wikilink to explain "SO", or the acronym needs to be written out in long form (and is there a reason it isn't "in an SO"?)

April

This paragraph has very disappointing prose.

• On April Fools' Day, Alain Vigneault returns to Vancouver with the Rangers. The Rangers would go on to win 3-1, damaging the Canucks playoff hopes. It's April 1, not April Fools' Day. This should be one short sentence; the Canucks' playoff hopes were already on life support, so blaming (or crediting) the Rangers with damaging them is excessive. I'm not sure Vigneault needs to be mentioned again. Also, remember that scores should use en dashes to separate the digits, not hyphens.
• On Apr 7 There's no reason to abbreviate a month, the sentence does not end with a period. Also, if the chant started with three minutes to go and the score 3–0, say that directly; it's implied but unclear exactly when the chant began.
• This was the loss that made it impossible for the Canucks to make the playoffs, but I think it would make sense to state this up front: the Canucks had to win all their remaining games to stand a chance of making the playoffs. (They wouldn't have anyway, but at that point the math worked that way.) It makes more sense of the Gillis firing, that it happened right after they were officially out of contention. You need to add a source to support the quoted "Fire Gillis" chant.
• Trevor Linden, the former Canucks, replaced Gillis as the president of hockey operation, though he still need to find a new GM. Let's take this one thing at a time:
  • "the former Canucks" what?
  • "president of hockey operation": should this be "president of the hockey operation" or "president of hockey operations"? If the latter, is it a title that should be capitalized?
  • "still need to find a new GM": since Tortorella hadn't been fired yet, this is a questionable statement even without correcting "need" to "needed"; I would write out "GM" as "general manager" or "General Manager" here, and everywhere else it occurs in the article
• Lack's 19th Consecutive start ended: Lack's streak ended after he started 19 consecutive games
• for the last 3 game: for the final three games of the season
• On Apr 12: "April". Also, this sentence seems to be talking about the retirement of Ryan Smith, who isn't even a Canuck; why is this relevant? I'd drop this entire sentence.
• I would, however, give the date of the final game: April 13. The final two sentences are an odd mix of Daniel Sedin, who was hit, taken out on a stretcher, but was ultimately fine, and the Canucks, who won their final game of the season, a home game, and finished with a 36–35–11 record. The sentences are poorly constructed—it's unclear whether Byron or Sedin left on that stretcher, among other issues. Give Sedin only a single mention, and note that the Canucks won the season closer at home and finished with that record.

Canucks players in the Olympics

As noted above, this is far too long (and violates criterion 3b in that this is not focused on the Canucks season, but a major diversion from it). Other issues:

• First sentence: please add a comma after "Russia"
• When potential players were invited to orientation camps in the offseason for Olympic teams: Olympic teams have an offseason? I'm guessing this happened during the NHL offseason. (Also, it's "off-season" everywhere else in the article; please use the hyphen here, too.) This entire paragraph should be condensed.
• Paragraph 2: again, far too much detail. There doesn't need to be a blow-by-blow, including why someone was or wasn't necessarily expected to be selected. Kesler was not "reviled"; make sure you establish which team right away, rather than wait a sentence and a half to get to it.
• Paragraph 3: trim. Also, if both Sedins and Edler were on the Swedish team, why are only two of them eligible for medals? Something has been skipped. Kesler's non-bronze can be explained with far greater brevity.

Post season

• I think this section should be swapped with the Olympics section, since it's more relevant to the actual season, and continues the narrative already started in April.
• Give the date Tortorella was fired, rather than "soon after the regular season".
• Spell out GM
• No need to give Benning's first name in the last sentence, since it was just mentioned.
• showing positives for next season: what does this mean?
• The section should end with a source that covers the hiring of both Benning and Desjardins (or a source for each, if a combined one isn't available)

Initial summation

Even in what I've covered, there is a daunting amount of work that needs to be done on this article. I am allowing the standard seven days for work to be done on the article. If significant progress is being made, I will naturally extend the time. However, I am not willing to wait for a Guild of Copy Editors copyedit to be submitted and started, since the backlog is close to a month. (If the GOCE has begun the copyedit, I'm happy to wait for it to be concluded, provided it remains active.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Final result

There has been no response from the original nominator, Spilia4, despite having received a talk page notification back on May 6, and despite being active on Wikipedia in the interim, including making an FAC nomination. Given that the article was far from meeting the GA criteria even at the time of its original review, and not a single edit has been made to attempt to bring it up to GA level, I am closing the reassessment with the article being delisted. I regret that this is necessary, but the condition of the article leaves no other option.

Delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)