Wikipedia

Talk:Bobby Orr/GA1

< Talk:Bobby Orr
Latest comment: 13 years ago by TonyTheTiger in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago149 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

WP:LEAD
  • The LEAD does not summarize the article. Many sections lack a mention in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • added some, could you expand on what you think is important enough to be in the lead? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • Review WP:LEAD. You can have up to 4 paragraphs in a properly structured LEAD. Often times GA reviewers let you get away without really summarizing all phases of a biographical subject. I am guilty myself at articles like Gilbert Perreault and Barry Bonds of not really summarizing the life in GAs I have written. However, a LEAD really should have a summary point from every section. In this case, we should describe Orr as a Junior hockey star and leader in a sentence to summarize section one, for example. Are 1976 Canada Cup, and the last two sections represented in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • Canada Cup is mentioned. I will work on this when all of the other minor points are crossed off. I'm sure I can revise this suitably. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • I've expanded this. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • Can you point out the content in the LEAD that summarizes the Early life section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
              • I've reworded, please review. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
                • The LEAD is now excessive. It is 3761 characters. It should be cut down to less than 3200 and preferably less than 3000. I have written 19 WP:FAs and only one (Tyrone Wheatley - 3240) has a lead longer than 2827 characters. That is the result of creep as the last two sentences have been added to keep it up to date without any text being removed to compensate. A sentence like "Orr won two Stanley Cup championships with the Bruins when Boston defeated the St. Louis Blues in the 1970 Stanley Cup Final in four games and the New York Rangers in the 1972 Stanley Cup Final in six games." could be cut down to "Orr won two Stanley Cup championships with the Bruins in 1970 and 1972." with the years piped so that the Word Stanley Cup does not appear in the sentence three times. Also "Orr also led Boston to the 1974 Stanley Cup Final where they were defeated by the Philadelphia Flyers in six games." could end at the word Final. Another sentence for chopping would be "However, after his retirement, Orr found that he was deeply in debt and he had to sell off almost everything he owned to pay his debts and taxes.", which could end after the word owned. "his final two seasons" could be cut to "two more". "record for most points and assists in a single season by a defenceman" could be "record for single-season points and assists by a defenceman" Look to chop words without removing content. See if you can bring it back under 3000 words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • The current issues with the lead are as follows:
    1. It continues to be over 3100 characters. Under 3000 is preferred.
      1. "Orr would later help in the investigations of Eagleson that led to Eagleson's fraud convictions and disbarment." could simply state "Orr aided in Eagleson's fraud convictions and disbarment."
      2. You probably don't need to mention his knee issues in both of the first two paragraphs.
      3. "Orr and his family left Chicago and returned to Boston to live where Orr rebuilt his finances through personal endorsements and public relations work." could end at the word finances.
    2. Ungrammatical at times:
      1. "Orr was married in 1972, is the father of two sons and is a grandfather." needs to be properly conjoined: Either "1972, and he is" or "1972 and is"
      2. "Orr played his entire professional career in the National Hockey League (NHL), the first ten seasons with the Boston Bruins before joining the Chicago Black Hawks for two more." The first ten seasons needs to modify career and not league. Thus, the sentence needs to be modified to move career next to first ten seasons. Something like this could work: "Orr played in the National Hockey League (NHL) for his entire professional career, the first ten seasons of which were with the Boston Bruins and the final two with the Chicago Black Hawks."
    3. Please link sports agent.
    4. Avoid would/would be. Either use past or present tense in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Early life
Orr and Eagleson
Bruins career
Free agency, and the move to Chicago
1976 Canada Cup
Retirement
Style of play
Post-hockey career
  1. terms like liability, asset and bankrupt should be linked.
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. remember conversion of $ amounts
    1. added ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  3. link NHLPA, unless you have already done so in the article.
    1. prior link -- added intro of acronym ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  4. link Baybank and Standard Brands if they are notable.
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  5. If you did not link Junior hockey above you should have.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    1. linked prior in Early life section ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Personal life
  1. link Multiple Sclerosis Society and Boston Children's Hospital
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Honours
  1. link TD Garden
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. The paragraphs here are a bit stubby. Either expand or merge.
    1. reduced to two paragraphs ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Career achievements
  1. I would put things that he was first or is the only ahead of things where he is 51st and such.
    1. re-ordered ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  2. Why isn't Orr pictured at NHL Plus-Minus Award if he has won it the most times?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    1. The article does not claim he won the award the most times, which was first awarded only after Orr's retirement. It states that he was "NHL Plus/Minus leader" the most times, which he was.  Ravenswing  18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - First, thanks for taking time to do a review. I am working on the article and hope to have all of this addressed by the end of the weekend. I've not done current dollar calculations -- I looked at the Robinson article and its conversions and its now clear to me how it was done. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for criteria)

On hold for now with minor changes needed.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Stylistically, I would prefer that team season wikilinks be used when discussing a team of a particular season. The Bruins did not beat franchise X in any given year, they beat the 19XX team of that franchise. Linking to team season will better serve the reader with proper background on the team.
    Now, you have to link teams multiple times. E.G., "December 14 against Chicago" should link to the team 2 years after the first link of Chicago. Similarly, do this for "Orr developed a feud with Toronto rookie defenceman" and throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Well don
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  5. 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):  
    As unique as File:Bobby Orr 1966.jpg is, I am not sure it passes WP:NFCC. Licensing of File:Orr Trip.jpg & File:HHOF1999-Orr.jpg should be confirmed. I will request a second opinion. Infobox could use a caption and the 3rd image is not captioned correctly. It ends in a period and is not a full sentence. Either make it a full sentence or remove the period.
  • Second opinion: Not sure about the 1970 stanley cup pic, but the 1966 rookie pic definitely doesn't pass NFCC and should be removed/deleted. We have a free image of him already, so having the second one isn't needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • I am thinking that due to its iconic nature, it might pass. There are few athletes that have one picture associated with them like this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
      • It's kind of sad, when pictures like this are deemed not okay for an -encyclopedia-. You cannot go back in time to take 'free' pictures. Orr was a historic player, considered one of the top three players -of all time-. If I delete these pictures from the article, then it basically should pass, right? Makes a GA status essentially worthless, no? Is this really the way we want Wikipedia to be? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
        • I definitely understand. I have had many articles that I have had to remove many images for quality rating recognition. I was very discomforted to have to remove a ton of images from Crown Fountain to get an WP:FA. There are many other articles where I had to remove many images to get WP:GA. In terms of early career images of athletes, when I did Jack Kemp, I had images of him in a Buffalo Bills uniform that had to be removed. There is clearly value to knowing what an athlete looked like when he was younger, but it is against policy to include non-free images for this purpose. In truth, what the process is doing in this case is forcing you to remove images that do not belong on WP. I stand behind you on the goal. I hope we can get that kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
          • Agreed with Wizardman on the first NFCC image. It is a nice image, but we already have a photo of Orr. It does not meet the criteria. The 1970 Cup image does, imo, as it is an iconic photograph that has been discussed in reliable sources and is discussed in the article. Resolute 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • I would have to agree with Resolute here, the first one would have to go, but the cup image is iconic and discussed alot, so believe it should stay. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
            • It's too bad. I really like the photo. To me, the rookie photo illustrates how young he was when he joined the NHL. This was pre-expansion, after all. And how clean-cut he was (this was the 60s, remember) when he arrived there. You can write that he was only 18 and clean cut in a time of hippies, but it's just not the same. It's 'a young man poised to begin a stellar career'. Is it just not worthy enough, or inappropriate? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

Would have left the 1970 image in, myself. Resolute 23:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I would also reinsert the 1970 image. It is iconic in a way that may pass a fair use test. I have had several iconic fair use images pass although none in sports. See Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore as examples. In fact, you might have to remove the image of the museum display before removing "The goal".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I have commented out the hhof pic. Please complete the review on the article as it stands. I will probably not have any time over the xmas holiday to work on the article and because I am going out of town, the library books are going back. So that's a couple of weeks. If you feel like more thought or work is needed, then add those to your comments and fail it. In retrospect, peer review first before GA might have been a better idea. Anyway, I'd rather any further discussion on the images not hold up the review. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • In truth, I would hope a reviewer might favorably assess both the goal and the musuem. Is it possible to add both back and await comment. I don't think any review of the images would require research. I think it would be better for the article to have those two images if they pass. I don't think there is a rush for the article, but I will make a final assessment without the images immediately if you are adamant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Will continue to reevaluate my concerns.
Image review per request
  1. File:Bobby Orr.jpg: Okay
  2. File:Orr.jpg: Copyrighted image (source and copyright holder identified); it seems to satisfy the tenets of WP:NFCC, most crucially that there is enough critical commentary to justify the illustration.
  3. File:HHOF1999-Orr.jpg: This could be problematic. The photograph is of a montage of copyrighted images, see commons:Commons:Derivative works. It would not be an issue if the images were small and quite indistinguishable (commons:Commons:De minimis), but they are readily identifiable at first glance.
  4. File:Bobby Orr Star on Canada's Walk of Fame.jpg: The star is an artistic work, which can be copyrighted. Canada has freedom of panorama, which permits "free" photography of works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in the public. But this star might not be a work of artistic craftsmanship. It is more like an engraving or etching, which would make it a graphic work instead. See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada and commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom.

The first two are okay. The last two might be issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Glad to know #2 is O.K. Does "Might be issues" mean please remove or wait for another opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
In my opnion, the quickest way to resolve the issues is to remove the problematic images. Jappalang (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I know that would be the quickest. We almost did that with image #2 because we were unsure. Are there arguments to be made for 3 and 4. I.E., is there information that could be researched to preserve either? What would be necessary to preserve 3 or 4 in the article or is there nothing that can be done or is it just a borderline case that someone else might interpret otherwise. E.g., what would be necessary to show craftsmanship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Among the FAs, Celine Dion has a star in her article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
If these two images were nominated for deletion, I would argue for them to be deleted on the above basis. Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Regarding Celine Dion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and her article was promoted in 2006 (an FAC that I did not participate in). Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
O.K. Thanks for your time. I know the nominator is willing to remove the museum photo, but await response regarding the star.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the pic of the star on the sidewalk adds anything to the understanding of the subject. I'm not sure of the discussion of the museum photo. It seems that it would be okay if the picture was blurry on the details or the details were too small to be discernible. In either case, what would be the point of the photo? I'm not sure if the exhibit on Orr is permanent. If it was, that might be useful for the article and justify a photo. But probably not the contents of the exhibit as displayed in the photo. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
At this point, you would have an uphill battle for the image of the museum. As far as the walk of fame picture, you have to find content showing that it was hand chiselled or something as opposed to etched, if I am understanding the reviewer correctly. Otherwise, both must go. It can pass if you remove them or find ways to get them past WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Tony, both pictures are panoramas and both do not infringe on any original works within them. I don't believe for a second there is any possible way to use the HHOF image or sections of it in a way that diminishes any of the various copyrighted items in the picture. The images within the exhibit case are completely without detail. Take a close look at the image. And certainly a sidewalk block on a public walk of fame is a work of craftsmanship and not a graphic work. (Where would you ever get a quote on that topic?) The image is of the block and surrounding blocks, not simply of the 'maple star', the part that could be considered a graphic. But even then, there is no trademark indicated. And the walk of fame is a public project. There are no signs on the walk of fame saying no pictures of the stars are allowed. I am sure that they -expect- people to take pictures of them. There are no signs at the HHOF, for that matter. These are public exhibitions. Any objection to these would apply to the picture of Orr in his Bruin jersey, no? There he is wearing a Bruin jersey, which also appears in the exhibit. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to pass this without an image guy saying that both of the contested images are all right. I can wait as long as it takes. If you can find an image guy to say they are all right that is fine by me. We can also just let this sit and wait for other image guys to pass by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not the images. It's the arguments that I disagree with. The images are not necessary for the subject to be understood, but they've been on the Commons since May 2009. Surely someone who edits on the Commons would have noticed if they were not okay? You are saying that the Commons is not a free repository we can use. Reasonably, they should be okay until someone posts a deletion request on the Commons, no? Unless it is blatantly obvious. I'll see what I can post on the Commons to clear this up. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You assume a little too much of Commons there. It is both understaffed, and under monitored. I've nominated clear copyvios that sat there for months, and I've had normal deletion discussions sit awaiting an admin's attention for weeks after the nominal closing date of the discussions. Now, all things considered, I hate copyright paranoia and see nothing wrong with either image. However, given the objections of others, the best thing to do for now is to simply comment out the images at this time, then seek someone with knowledge at Commons who can help us decide if the images are valid or not. If they are, restoring to this article is easily done. Resolute 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

My personal preference is to try to resolve the validity of the images while we have a reason to call attention to it. The volunteer labor pool of image experst is already stretched thin. Getting people to pay attention to an image review of a very old WP:GAC is easier to do than getting them to assess a random set of images. I encourage the main editor to wait it out, but acknowledge that if the images are removed, there are no other outstanding issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

So.. what's the plan of action on those two images? Should I put them up for deletion on commons and you guys can go by that result? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

An official ruling is probably best. Just make sure you are putting up the right ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I put them up but no telling when they'll be decided on. Commons is extremely backlogged in most areas. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Both images were deleted on Commons. I removed the walk of fame one that a bot has not gotten to yet. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have passed the article. Thanks for your patience.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Orr/GA1&oldid=422524410"