Talk:Todd Bertuzzi/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

While I am not a hockey fan (I live in a country that holds the record for worst loss in an Ice Hockey International) I am willing to reveiw this article. I have only ever watched one game live, which happened to be the Canucks, therefore I am probably not used to some of the terminology. Saying that, there was only one phrase that I found awkward so I take that to mean that the article is very accessible to most people. I have left general statements about each criteria and then gone into some more detail below. None of the comments mentioned are non-negotiable and if you feel that a comment is unfounded or not clear please leave a message underneath it explaining why. I will strike my concerns when we are happy they have been dealt with.

Criteria

• No DABs
• No Dead Links

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): ? b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ✓ Pass

   Overall very good. As with any article this size there are a few sentences that could perhaps be clearer (see comments). The currency used should be indicated in the first instance [US/CAN]$4.6 million contract and just left as the $ sign for the rest - unless of course the currency changes (see MOS:CURRENCY). The only instance where I felt hockey specific terms were used was when the trades were talked about. For example the Panthers dealt him to the Detroit Red Wings might be a correct hockey term (or even an American/Canadian sports term), but it read awkwardly to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well referenced, mostly to news sources or hockey websites. I am fine with their reliability and a spot check has shown no major issues. They are all correctly formatted. Main concern is with a statement saying "widely considered the most effective" which is outlined further in the comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): ✓ Pass b (focused): ?

   Very detailed. Understandably the Steve Moore incident is a major focus of this article. Most of it was fine, but I found the Legal Actions section difficult to follow and rather long when compared to the other sections. I am not sure a whole paragraph on a leaked letter is necessary and everything below the first three paragraphs does not seem very focused. Also as there is a whole section on the incident it should only be mentioned minimally elsewhere, in particular the Vancouver Canucks season.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: ✓ Pass

   Well done for an article that contains some quite controversial information

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: ✓ Pass

   Nothing to write home about in the last couple of months

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): ✓ Pass b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ✓ Pass

   The fair use rational for the File:Bertuzzimoorepunchsmall.jpg is unconvincing. As the picture is so small and fuzzy I would recommend not using it. The flickr ones are fine, but File:Bertuzzi-nov27.jpg looks a little dodgy to me. Clicking on the source does not lead to the image or even permission to use any image from that site. I would not be comfortable passing an article with a potentially copyrighted images and will have to seek a second opinion if they are kept in.

   Suspect images have been removed AIRcorn (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

• After two-and-a-half seasons with the club, he was traded to the Vancouver Canucks, his longest tenured team in the NHL. As written it is not clear which team the longest tenure is referring to.

Changed the prose around here, but I'm not confident I addressed what you're after. Let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine as it is now. Just to clarify; from the MOS "Pairs of commas are often used to delimit parenthetic material". So in the original sentence it could have been assumed that the "he was traded to the Vancouver Canucks" was a parenthetical remark (i.e. not one of the main constituents of the sentence) and therefore the longest tenured team statement would apply to the Islanders. A bit pedantic I know, but ultimately an easy fix. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• After seven-and-a-half seasons with Vancouver, Bertuzzi was dealt to the Florida Panthers, with whom he briefly played for until being traded again to the Red Wings. As mentioned above I find dealt to a little awkward. Is there a better term that could be used?

For the life of me, I can't think of another word to use in lieu of "dealt" that would sound less awkward to a non-hockey fan. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All I can think of is "traded". I found this wikilink Trade (sports) for MLB, NBA, NFL and Soccer. I see NHL is only mentioned briefly so maybe trade is not appropriate here. If it is, a wikilink to that article (and a expansion with more info about hockey......) wouldn't hurt. Not that you have to add anything to that article to get GA status for this one. However, if dealt is the standard term it should probably be left as is. It may sound awkward to my ears, but the meaning is clear so it is not a major issue. Also a quick Google search from Australia [1] shows quite a few hits, so I will leave it up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'd prefer to leave it as "dealt" then. I haven't encountered any problems with the term in previous articles in GA or FA and I feel like it's pretty standard terminology, even for a non-hockey fan. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing career

• His future coach with the Vancouver Canucks, Marc Crawford, passed on Bertuzzi during the draft as general manager of the Cornwall Royals; he has recalled not selecting him due to "maturity issues" and that he was "a big kid who hadn't grown into his body yet." Unclear sentence. Maybe "while he was general manager?"
• Bertuzzi competed for an Islanders' roster spot at their 1994 training camp, but was sent back to junior after going scoreless in three exhibition games. Junior what?
• After four seasons with Guelph, he left the club ranked third all-time with 280 career points, behind O'Neill and Martin St. Pierre. Would be good to say what he was ranked on next to all-time, i.e. "ranked third highest for all-time career points with 280," to make it clearer.
• While Milbury expressed regret at having to deal McCabe, relations between Bertuzzi and the club were strained. Another deal/dealt sentence.
• Both sides managed to avoid their arbitration meeting by agreeing to a three-year deal on July 26, 2001. Is "managed to avoid their" correct here? Seems a little like editorialising. Both sides avoided arbitration by ... or similar might work better.
• Parker proceeded to attack Jovanovski, at which point Bertuzzi left the bench to help his teammate. Attack is a loaded term. I know it is in the source but journalists can sensationalize, we shouldn't.
• During that span, Bertuzzi and linemate Näslund were given a new centre to play with on the team's top offensive unit. This is out of place. If it is referring to the new player then it is not needed as it is mentioned in the next sentence
• marking the beginning of what was widely considered the most effective line combination in the league for several seasons. These statements always cause issues no matter how many citations they have. This is because sports editorials are not really reliable to make blanket statements and widely considered is an unsupported attribution. It's not bad as it is and reflects the sources to a degree, but I would probably drop it a notch to say "...was considered by many to be the most effective...". "Many" is still a little ambiguous, but it is less likely to be challenged and it is still saying much the same thing. Ideally the article would say "such and such says it was the best".

I imagine this might come up again if you take it to FAC, but it is fine as far as I am concerned for GA. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

*Bertuzzi had emerged as an effective power forward, using his size and strength to position himself in front of the net, with stickhandling ability – a combination of skill that complemented Näslund's goal-scoring prowess and Morrison's playmaking ability. Borderline puffery. Would attribute it.

Took out and replaced some words. Let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would still consider attributing it as it currently reads like an opinion. For example: "Bertuzzi had emerged as an effective power forward, able too use his size and strength to position himself in front of the net. According to the Canucks assistant coach Jack McIlhargey Bertuzzi's stickhandling ability complemented Näslund's goal-scoring and Morrison's playmaking ability [well]." If you can think of a way to reword that so ability isn't used twice in the same sentence it would work (I tried "skill" but it didn't seem right). "Well" is horrible too, needs another word that means slightly less than "perfectly". Maybe "greatly complimented Naslund's....". I will let you have a play with this. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did some work. Lemme know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Facing the Minnesota Wild, the Canucks squandered their own three-games-to-one series lead and were eliminated in seven games.Squandered is not very encyclopaedic
• His actions, which effectively ended Moore's career. were a retaliation to a legal Moore hit on Näslund during a previous game that concussed the Canucks captain and sidelined him for three games. Ungrammatical. As this is covered in detail later only the minimum amount of information is required here. I would suggest to just describe what happened and the punishment, leaving the next section to explore it further. As it is there is no support in the cited ref for the first hit being legal so that at the moment that constitutes original research. The length (indefinite)of the initial suspension should be mentioned here though as that impacts on this season.

Somewhere in the paragraph starting Inactive in 2004–05 due to the players lockout and his ongoing suspension, which had been extended internationally, Bertuzzi returned to the Canucks in 2005–06. it needs to be indicate that the indefinate suspension was overturned/suspended. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• The deal was made largely in part to the fact Bertuzzi was in the last year of his contract with no guarantee he would re-sign with Florida in the off-season. "Largely in part to the fact". Not very concise and rather unclear.

Steve Moore incident

• In particular, forward Brad May issued a "bounty" on Moore, while Bertuzzi called him a "piece of s---." We are not censured, but this is not something I will push.

I know it's pretty clear which specific word is being censured, but I figured because the source didn't spell out the word, the article shouldn't either.

I think it looks a bit funny saying saying someone said "s dash dash dash". Not really that concerned though and I don't think a GA is going to be challenged over it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelled it out. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• The following year, Moore filed a lawsuit in a Colorado court against Bertuzzi on February 17, 2005. Don't have both "the following year" and "2005".

Re reading that I think it might be better to leave in the 2005 and take out the following year. That is because the year 2004 had not been mentioned for a while so it was not obvious what the following year was following. "On February 17, 2005, Moore filed a lawsuit in a Colorado court against Bertuzzi." or smething similar. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• On February 16, 2006, the day of Bertuzzi's first Olympic game with Team Canada, Moore filed another lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court against Bertuzzi, the Canucks, and Orca Bay, seeking $15 million in pecuniary damages for loss of income – CAD$1 million for aggravated damages, and CAD$2 million for punitive damages. As per the comment under Criteria 1, the dollar ammounts should be specified more consistently. Up until this point I had assumed the rest was in Canadian dollars.

By specifying US dollars first it is assumed that the preceding $ signs in the article are US. Therefore I think it might be better to add CAD$ to every instance where it is needed, only wikilink the first occurrence though. As this is an article about a Canadian you could convert all the amounts into Canadian dollars. The exchange rates at the time would have to be used and I imagine it could be more hassle than it is worth. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for clearing that up. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

• They have two children born a year-and-a-half apart: a son named Tag and a daughter named Jaden,[1][120] both born in Vancouver. The colon does not work with the "both born in Vancouver" tacked on.

Took out colon and replaced with comma? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

With the rewording the colon could have stayed. Comma works too though. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Consider combining the last two paragraphs to even out the section.
• He has said that Bertuzzi takes after him in regards to his toughness and aggression. and His father has stated the he was proud of his own local reputation as a "dirty player" and referred to it as a "Bertuzzi trait." These two sentences would work better linked together rather than being on separate paragraphs.

Notes

• The information in the notes should have a ref for each incident.

I will place it on hold for now, but don't see any problems getting it up to standard. Cheers 06:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review; your input's really helpful. Did a little bit of work.. I'm hoping to finish off the above issues in the next couple of days. Cheers.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I know it looks like a lot, but most of it is minor. If you have any questions about any of the comments let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done as far as your initial comments go. I'm not sure how well I addressed some of the issues (I left comments on these above), but just let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A few small points that I feel may need some more clarification. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

K, did some more work. Let me know. Thanks for your time! I really appreciate the thorough review. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All good. Will pass this now. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)