Wikipedia:Peer review/Lanny McDonald/archive1

Lanny McDonald

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been a while since I've taken a hockey player bio to FA, and Lanny seems the best choice as one of the more popular players in league history. I have all the usual requests, prose quality and thoughts on what a reader unfamiliar with the subject may be expecting but doesn't see. Appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks, Resolute 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Lead

• "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989": Presumably his team won it, not him personally?
• "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989, captaining the Flames to the championship in his final season": Forgive my sketchy knowledge, but would he have achieved the championship before the cup? If so, maybe reword slightly to show this.
  • The Cup is what the players won by winning the championship, and the words are so closely related in the context of the NHL that they are virtually synonyms. I have reworded to try and address both above comments, hwoever.
• "among the most popular players in Flames history": Unless I missed it (which is possible), I don't think this is in the main article.
  • I implied it in the personal life section, but you are right, I didn't explain it well overall. Will rectify that.
• "well known throughout the league for his bushy red moustache and support of the Special Olympics": Should it be "well-known". Also, his moustache seems an odd item to go in the lead! While I agree that it is worth a mention, I'm not sure I would have it in the same sentence as his popularity and support of the Special Olympics; the three things do not seem to go together.
  • I think for most individuals, a thing such as their moustache would not be that important, no. But in McDonald's case, it is one of the things that has made him an iconic figure in the sport. I have clarified that. Also, joined the note on the Special Olympics to his humanitarian/leadership awards, as it fits better there.
• "He represented Team Canada": Would it be better to make this more accessible and say "at international level [or similar wording] for Canada", as not everyone may realise what this means?
  • Reworded.
• "The Flames retired his number 9 in 1990.": Phrasing a little odd: maybe just "The Flames retired his number in 1990", as I'm not sure his actual playing number is essential for the lead. If it is, maybe "Known for his number 9 shirt [? Phrasing of hockey is NOT one of my strengths!], the Flames retired…"
  • Most of our FA/GA bios include the actual number in the lead. I've reworded slightly to note that it was his uniform number, but will see if anyone else has further feedback before removing the actual digit.

Early life

• "McDonald credits his father for teaching him the value of honesty and hard work.": I'm not completely persuaded that this is important enough to include. However, if he was known for his honesty… Hmmm….
  • I'll leave it in for now, but am open to removal if others feel it does not benefit the article.
• "He served as a stick boy": I think this needs a little expansion. What would this involve?
  • Clarified, hopefully
• "He began playing organized hockey at the age of six, following his brother.": Into a specific team, or just copying his path?
  • Reworded to avoid. Realized I pretty much mentioned twice that both Lanny and Lynn played hockey.
• "Despite both having full time commitments, their parents drove them both to Hanna": Both…both.
  • Fixed
• "McDonald recounted that half of his time…": Using "recounted" leaves the question hanging: recounted to who? Maybe "recalled" avoids this?
  • Fixed
• "He completed his high school diploma while playing in Lethbridge, choosing to remain with his junior A team in 1970–71 rather than join the Medicine Hat Tigers of the Western Canada Hockey League so that he could complete his diploma": Diploma…diploma
  • Fixed
  • All of the above should be now addressed.
• "He was named to the AJHL's Second All-Star team": This one always confuses me a little; is it kind of the "second-best" team?
  • In essence, yes. The first team would usually be those voted as the best at each position, and the second team would be those voted as second best. It is obviously not something I can add to this article, but such awards tend also to be very subjective, so voters could choose to reward a player in this fashion for intangible effects, "leadership" and other things not directly related to the on-ice performance.

Junior career

• Was this part of his career amateur? Maybe worth specifying.
  • I admit, I am not sure how to add that in early without it seeming forced. The link in the above section to junior hockey and the below note that he was selected in the amateur draft might be sufficient?
• "Additionally, McDonald appeared in six Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL) games with the Calgary Centennials." Obviously this is a step-up. For lazy readers like me, maybe explain the relationship between the leagues. (I'm assuming the AJHL feeds into the WCHL?)
  • It can, but it doesn't have to. And in modern days, the relationship can be fairly complicated. I wouldn't presume to guess how defined these relationships were 40 years ago. You are correct that the WCHL (now WHL) is a higher level than the AJHL. I have made note that the Alberta league was then considered 'tier II' to help enhance the fact that it was step up.

• "The Medicine Hat Tigers acquired McDonald's rights": Related to my first point, were there contracts for these leagues? If not, how did such a trade work? Was it a swap, or did money change hands. Or did he just move?
  • It would have been a swap of players, IIRC. I have linked to Trade (sports) to help, and will try to find a story on the actual trade itself.

• "…rather than Vancouver. Instead, he went to the Toronto Maple Leafs with the fourth overall pick.[12] Additionally, he was taken 10th overall by the Cleveland Crusaders in the 1973 WHA Amateur Draft." Hockey ignorance alert! How could he be taken by two teams? And it gets a little confusing here; he was going to the WHA instead of Vancouver, but instead went to Toronto. And Cleveland. Then signed for Toronto. Help!
  • lol! Rival major leagues battling for talent. I've touched on it in other parts of the article, but will try to explain the connections a little more clearly here.
• And this amateur draft. Was it amateur players who were chosen and then signed as professionals, or were they chosen to play as amateurs?
  • Junior players are considered amatuer (in most cases), and are drafted into the professional ranks. I might just pipe link it to 1973 draft to avoid confusion.
• "The deal came as a result of the battle the NHL and WHA were waging over young talent, and McDonald found that some of the older players in Toronto resented him as a result." Too many results here, and I'm not sure it's clear how this "battle" affected his signing. Could be clearer.
  • Related to the WHA/Vancouver/Toronto issue above. I will clarify.

Toronto Maple Leafs

• "scoring 37 goals and 56 assists": reads as if he scored the assists.
  • Fixed
• "Playing with both a broken wrist and broken nose suffered during the series": Slightly inelegant. Maybe "His wrist and nose were both broken during the series, but he scored the overtime winning goal…"
  • Changed
• Presumably they then lost their semi-final? Worth expanding as it kind of tails off.
  • Correct, and clarified.

Colorado Rockies

• "Punch Imlach was named the general manager in Toronto": Why not "Toronto general manager"?
  • That works too, changed.
• "The two disagreed frequently and Cherry was fired following the season." Specify which two: McDonald and Miron or Cherry and Miron?
  • Clarified

Calgary Flames

• "league goal scoring title": "goal-scoring"?
  • Reworded to eliminate that bit entirely. There actually was no award for leading the league in goals then.
• "reduced his scoring to 33 goals and 66 points": First time points are mentioned. I'm lost now! What is the difference?
  • I actually have used points several times by this point. I went back and linked to point (ice hockey) on first use.
• "McDonald was the 21st player in NHL history to score 400 career goals": Maybe "McDonald became…"?
  • Agreed, changed
• "It was thought he had scored the milestone goal in his previous game…": By whom? Press, player, team-mates, crowd…?
  • Clarified
• "In the playoffs, McDonald was witness to one of the most infamous moments in NHL history.[53][54][55]": Without checking them, three refs seems excessive and looks a little ugly. Also, however many refs it has, infamous also suggests POV or editorial voice. (And it doesn't seem that bad)
  • I use those three references on this mention specifically to try and dispel the notation that it is my POV.
• "The series ended in disappointment: He watched from the bench as a furious attempt at tying the final game fell short": Stray capital letter after colon. And the tone of this sentence is not the most encyclopaedic: "furious", "fell short". I'm also a little confused as to what the "furious attempt" was, as it is a little vague.
  • Clarified and tried to clean up the tone
• Are we missing a season? It goes from 86-87 to 88-89.
  • Nothing special happened that season, but I added a brief note.
• "McDonald was the sentimental favourite as the 1989 Stanley Cup playoffs began": Not sure what this means; sentimental how? And favourite in the popular or the bookmaker sense?
  • Reworded entirely
• "McDonald was scratched": Not quite encyclopaedic.
  • Reworded
• "who saw a streaking McDonald": Again not sure about the tone.
  • I'm not sure how else to phrase "old man flies up the right wing really, really fast"  ;)

Management career

• "Vice President": "Vice-President"? (Not sure on this one)
  • Common spelling in the sources does not use a hyphen
• "He chose the corporate role partly due to a fascination with the business world, and partly to remain close to his family as a role in hockey operations would have necessitated greater travel.": Role…role.
  • Removed one use
• Big jump from his retirement in '89 and his VP role, to his search for a manager in 2000. Anything in between?
  • Nothing major that I have come across. I will perform an additional search before a FA run.
• "While team sources claimed he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired, McDonald denied the claims": Maybe "McDonald denied claims from team sources that he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired".

Playing style

• "He was often a healthy scratch": Lost by this one!
  • Reworded. It means he was left out of the lineup for reason other than injury.

Legacy

• "The arrival of the Flames in Calgary for the 1980–81 NHL season found a team in transition": I'm assuming that the franchise arrived in Calgary at this point. It may be worth mentioning this in the playing career section. Also, possibly "The Flames were a team in transition when they arrived in Calgary for the 1980-81 NHL season".
  • The team arrived in Calgary (relocated from Atlanta) before McDonald was traded to the Flames. I am trying to set the background of what the Flames' situation was like prior to his arrival. I've reworded this to try and make it flow better.

• A few other bits here, such as the WHA battle may be usefully repeated in the earlier sections as well.
  • It is touched on, but I will expand the earlier mentions
• "His efforts left a lasting impression on his teammates,[86] among them was Tiger Williams who called McDonald "a great ambassador" for the NHL.": Either replace the comma with a semi-colon, or cut "was".
  • Semi-colon it is!

Personal life

• Possibly an issue with my browser, but the text seems to be overlaying on the quote box here.
  • I'm not seeing it on my browser (Firefox), but will check a few other browsers and screen configurations before a FA run.

Career statistics

• I know hockey articles often leave this section uncited, but I really prefer a reference for statistics.
  • It is effectively cited in the external links section. But I will add an entry to the general references section that specifies it supports the stats table.

General

• Really high-quality and really enjoyable. The prose seems very good, and as a non-hockey person, there was little that I found difficult. I have listed anything I was unsure about. Very easy to read.
• I have not checked the referencing or done spot-checks.
• I do not watch peer reviews so please let me know on my talk page if you have questions or comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Your review and compliments are very much appreciated! I'm glad you found the article informative, especially coming from a non-hockey background. I'm always concerned about ease of understanding for unfamiliar readers, so this is quite beneficial. Thanks again, Resolute 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)