Talk:Ron Hextall/GA1

GA Review

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

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Concerned about some weasel words in the "Playing style" section: (Rogie Vachon's) view was shared by many, leading Hextall to be tagged as one of the most "revered and reviled" players in the league. There is a citation at the end of the sentence, but it's not clear that the fact that Vachon's view of Hextall was shared by lots of people. The beginning of this sentence could use rephrasing. (Addressed.) Usage of en dashes for scores and playing seasons appears to be correct and consistent.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Not very familiar with the guide to layout, so I'll let someone with more experience tackle this one.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some statements in the beginning of the "Playing style" section appear to be unreferenced, specifically: He distinguished himself by using his stick as a defenceman would... (Addressed)
	2c. it contains no original research.	One statement in the beginning of "Playing style" sounds like OR: Hextall's puck-handling ability meant that it was inadvisable...because Hextall would invariable (sic) get to the puck first and clear it out of his zone towards a waiting player in the neutral zone. (Addressed)
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Hextall's career is covered extensively. He is most obviously well-known for his career with the Flyers (and this is reflected in the content), but his careers with other teams in the IHL, WHL, and AHL are also covered. There is also a section devoted to general commentary and notes on his general playing style, which is an excellent touch.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No obvious need for any splitting of information. However, the "first three seasons" section runs a little long. Could it be feasibly shortened? Here are a few suggestions: Ken Wregget replaced him, and was described as remarkable during the team's 4–1 victory, which meant that they progressed to the Conference final, to face the Montreal Canadiens...The Flyers won the following game to extend the series to six games, but lost the next game 4–2, and were eliminated. -- Although relevant to the games after Hextall was replaced after his injuries, this has more to do with the Flyers performance in general in the series, rather than Hextall. Just over a month later, Hextall became the first goaltender to shoot at goal and score in the NHL when he scored an empty net goal with 72 seconds left of the game against the Boston Bruins.[note 1] The Flyers were leading the game 4–2, prompting the Bruins to pull their goaltender in favour of an extra attacker. The puck had been dumped into the Philadelphia zone by the Bruins, and Hextall picked it up without any players near him. He lined up the shot and fired it into the air; it bounced near Boston's blue line and rolled into the net.[36] Hextall had targeted becoming the "first NHL goaltender to score a true goal" over a year earlier,[17] and, speaking after the game, commented that: "I knew I could do it. It was a matter of when." -- I the general point of him making an empty net goal can is worth keeping, but this could be trimmed. For instance, I think the circumstances of the score, the time left, and the events leading up to the goal could be left out or more briefly summarized. The scores of individual games are brought up when they do not appear necessary (e.g. At the conclusion of a 4–3 victory for the Devils... when referring to a Devils game where Hextall got into a fight, but Hextall's performance is not commented on). The same goes for Win/Loss records (e.g. The Oilers won the final game of the series 3–1, ensuring that they won the Stanley Cup with a 4–3 series victory). Is it important to include this information when it is indirectly related to Hextall's performance? (Addressed)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good use of quotes and phrasing when describing Hextall's fights or penalties. This may have been the most iffy: Hextall sought revenge, aiming a savage slash at the back of Nilsson's knees. After the game Hextall betrayed no remorse for the action, only for striking the wrong player... Maybe "savage" is a bit too strong, but based on the quotes from Hextall and the circumstances, I think this description of the event is fair. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No obvious signs of recent edit warring. Player is retired, and unlikely to have produced much controversy lately, anyhow.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Current images follow image guidelines. Both are licensed under Creative Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Really? No free images of Hextall? It would definitely be preferable to have one considering there are other pictures on the page, especially one of Broddeur! The best I could find is this vector art, which is under a Creative Commons license. (Addressed--none were found)
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks good!

Reviewer: I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note; I'm getting married tomorrow (30 July), and will then be away on honeymoon for two weeks, so I'm not really going to be able to respond that well to this review. I'll be able to get online from time to time on honeymoon: but let's face it, that's not why I'm there! I'd suggest maybe contacting User:Maxim and seeing if they can look over the review: otherwise I'd ask if you can be patient and allow me those two weeks? Harrias ^talk 13:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Back from honeymoon now: I'm going to be a bit busy catching up with life, but I'll try to get started on these points over the next few days, thank you for your patience. Harrias ^talk 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

• Right, starting to slowly look over this. With your 1b point, I can see the argument for what you are saying; but I would argue that the article itself says "A seemingly perfect complement to his teammates, the once and future Broad Street Bullies, he is at once revered and reviled." Personally, I read this as the article author stating a well-held viewpoint; but if you feel it is the journalist simply reflecting the comments of Rogie Vachon and Bryan Murray then I can understand that, and can work on toning the language down.

Well, considering the view appears to be held by numerous commentators, I can accept the current wording. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• The two unreferenced sentences are, I think, things that User:Maxim added to the article, although I will double-check that. I am unsure if they are supported by his offline source: Maxim is currently on a wikibreak, so if I can't find anything backing the statements up, and he doesn't come back by the time I've had a good look around, I'll move them out of the article at least until his return. Other than these few points, is there anything in the article I need to look at reworking, or are you otherwise happy with it? Harrias ^talk 19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If they can be sources statements, they can be reinstated. I've added in a length concern for the "first three seasons" section and wanted to know if a free picture can be found for Hextall. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at these again, I am 90% sure that they are supported by the offline source: however, I have found and added a reference for the second quote, about playing dump and chase, and am still looking around for one on the first. Harrias ^talk 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments so far: no luck with those sources yet, but I'll keep hunting around. With regards to free images, I've scoured everywhere I can think of without anything cropping up so far. I really want to find something. I don't think that image you found as suitable, as while it has a CC license, it is a noncommercial one, which I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't allow (WP:NONCOM). I appreciate your length concerns, and will have a look at trimming some of the superfluous information away, though I think that some of the context of how the Flyers did in general while he was there is relevant, so some of it is worth keeping. Harrias ^talk 21:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed the article a little, I am wary about taking too much about for the reason I've given above. Not sure about the goal: I understand what you are saying, but on the other hand, it is one of the key things he is known for, so I think the description is justified. Harrias ^talk 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, excellent work. I'm trying to seek a second opinion before this gets approved, mostly because I am not experienced with WP:MOS and that this was my first GA review. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The only MoS issue I noticed is that reference titles aren't supposed to be in all-caps, so things like "SPORTS PEOPLE: PRO HOCKEY" need to be changed to "Sports People: Pro Hockey". Besides that it looks fine, and the reviewer can pass this once that's fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the second pair of eyes: I've now corrected the offending titles. Harrias ^talk 12:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)