Talk:Steve Bégin

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Bégin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well-Written

1A

The spelling, grammar, and prose of this article is fine.

1B

This article complies with the MoS.

Verifiable

2A

This article lists all of its references.

2B

This article contains citations from reliable sources for information likely to be challenged.

2C

This article has way too many facts that are unsourced.

Broad

3A

This article addresses the main aspects of the topic.

3B

It stays on topic and doesn't go into trivial detail.

Neutral

Everything is neutral, except for this statement: "He had no points and ten penalty minutes in seven games in what was a disastrous eighth place finish for Team Canada." Could you remove the disastrous and replace it with something more neutral?

Stable

There is no recent edit wars.

Illustrated

6A

All pictures are tagged with a correct copyright or fair-use symbol.

6B

All of the pictures are relevant to the subject and have reasonable captions.

Notes:

• Could I have a source for this statement? "In the playoffs, Bégin led Saint John to the Calder Cup championship." There's nothing wrong with it, you just need a source.
• I would also like a source for this statement. "After playing through injury in 2003–04, Bégin underwent shoulder surgery that caused him to miss five months of playing time."
• Here's another one. "...expressed a desire to be traded if the team had no use for his services."
• "Bob Hartley, coach of ZSC Lions in the Swiss National League A offered him a spot on their team."

Final Verdict

I'm sorry. You have too many unreferenced information for me to accept it, although you could try again once I fixed everything. buffbills7701 22:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have jumped the gun on this one. Looking at the lines you sited as unsourced it appears the sources in is at the end of the a set of sentences that all come from the same source. I am unable to confirm on the three of them as they are off line sources and I am not the primary editor, but the looking at "...expressed a desire to be traded if the team had no use for his services." it is contained in the reference for the actual trade that took place which is the following sentence. There is no need to have every sentence referenced, unless there has been a change in requirements. It also does not appear that the nominator was given an opportunity to respond to these comments on their own which could probably clear this up. Just some food for though, cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. If two or three consecutive sentences are supported by the same reference, I will place the ref only at the end of the passage. There is no logical purpose to use the same reference in consecutive sentences. The only time I usually break this pattern is if I place a direct quote in the middle of such a string. Resolute 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing to give this a re-review sometime tomorrow, since I'm mentoring buff on the process. On the surface the article looks close to GA, and I'm unconvinced of the validity of the source issues above. Wizardman 17:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Resolute 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "40th overall, at the 1996 NHL Entry Draft," in the 1996 would work better, both in the lead and the junior section.
• the "disastrous" finish noted in the review is an issue I consider valid and would prefer the word be removed.
• "After graduating from junior, Bégin played" from junior hockey sounds a bit better.
• Is there a reason Saint John is written out after the first mention even though the article is St. John?
• "Bégin missed time due to rib,[17] and shoulder injuries." the comma isn't needed, and since refs should be after punctuation just have both at the end of the sentence.

Not too much to fix, will pass when all is addressed. Wizardman 02:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

All should be dealt with. I suspect you've hit on a common confusion with Saint John. The city referred to is Saint John, New Brunswick, while you might be thinking of St. John's, Newfoundland. Thanks! Resolute 02:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Since the rest is addressed, I'll pass the article. Wizardman 04:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)