Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Nathan Horton/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Nathan Horton

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this article up to featured article status. Thanks, Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lenghty review:
  • Infobox should should include the Rampage as a former team. Generally any pro team (AHL, ECHL, Euro, etc) is included there.
  • In the opening paragraph I would include that he also played for San Antonio. I would make the first paragraph a brief summar of who Horton is, what teams he played for, stuff like that. The second paragraph can then explain some things he's done, like his OHL totals (which should probably mention whether that is a career total or not), and what type of style he plays (scorer, checker, etc). It would probably be better to leave stuff like first goal/point to later in the article; the lead is a summary of the article, trivial information is not exactly a summary.
  • Staying with the lead section, link rookie, as people unfamiliar with hockey or sports in general will have no idea what that means.
  • "during the locked out 2004-2005 season only 21 with the San Antonio Rampage of the American Hockey League (AHL)." This sounds a little awkward. Perhaps something like "only 21 games with the Rampage duirng the locked out season."
  • "The following two seasons, saw Horton play the full 82 games for the first time in his career, during which he had his career–high in goals and assists." No need for the comma after seasons; also confusing as I don't know what season he played 82 games in, or when he had his career highs. That should be clarified somewhat.
  • Include something about his playing career before joining the OHL. Even a sentence that acknowledges him playing in Thorold is suffice.
  • Is there any reason he didn't want to play for the Ice Dogs? Going on that, Hockey's Future has not passed as a reliable source in FA nominations before, so I would look for something else that makes that point. There might be a newspaper or something that mentions his stance on going to Mississauga.
  • Mentioning him scoring 3 goals against the Greyhounds seemingly has no context here, nor a date. If it just to show that him and McGratton played together, they were teammates for part of the season, so why single out that one game?
  • "To begin the 2002–03 season, Horton missed 13 games out of 22 but still ended up scoring 9 goals with 18 points during that span." As a read this, I understand that he missed 13 of the first 22 games. If thats the case, you should perhaps make that distinction. And is there any particular reason why he was gone, an injury or anything? If so, that should be included.
  • There is an overuse of the word "considered" in the 2003 NHL Draft section. Consider using a different word, like "regarded," for at least one of those uses.
  • Reading the source on the Messier quote, it doesn't sound like is responding to Keenan's comments, and really offers nothing to the article other than that Messier is some 20 years older than Horton.
  • I see no mention of when he made his NHL debut. That is usually an important event that should be noted.
  • "Staal matched the feat ... at 183 days younger than Horton." Using "at" there makes the sentence awkward. Something like "Staal matched the feat and surpassed Horton as the youngest player to score; Staal was 183 days younger than Horton was when he scored." Along the lines of that, but this example doesn't exactly sound to great either.
  • Move ref 20 to the end of the sentence; it looks weird where it is now.
  • Its unlikely that Tony Miniaci will have an article written about him, so the link can be removed, just to minimize the red in the article.
  • If he returned to the Panthers in March, why does it say above that he was out for the season? This obviously wasn't the case, so shouldn't be there.
  • Mention that the 2004–05 NHL season was cancelled, as a lock-out doesn't necessarily mean it was cancelled (just see the 1994–95 season).
  • Not every NHL player signed with an AHL team. Just say that they were forced to play in different leagues.
  • Comma after Rampage
  • "Despite having not signed with the Rampage until October 29..." can be simplified to "Despite not signing with the Rampage until..."
  • When did he assist on Campbell's goal, in the game where Horton scored?
  • "Horton scored both of the Rampage's two goals..." No need to say "Rampage's two goals," as "both" denotes two.
  • "In only 21 games for San Antonio..." "Only" here is a weasel word, and is best removed.
  • "the first games of the season, Horton was tied for the team lead in goals" How many games are "the first games?"
  • "who the Panthers had not lost to in regulation since the 2004–05 season." Sicne there was no 2004–05 season, this should be changed.
  • "Horton assisted on all goals that Jokinen recorded." How many goals did Jokinen score?
  • Bruch Garrioch doesn't need to be linked.
  • "Peter DeBoer who first saw Horton play at seven years old said..." Change to "Peter DeBoer, who first saw Horton play at seven years old, said..."
  • "but failed to record a stat." Change stat to point; stat could mean anything, and he certainly recored some sort of stat in the game.
  • Since the playing style is only a sentence long, I would consider either trying to expand it (which could be difficult), or incorporating it elsehwere in the article, like the lead or some other section. Keeping it at one sentence will be a problem in a FA nomination.
  • Again, the personal life section will have to be expanded if brought up for a FA nomination. Consider adding something about where he was born and raised, when he started playing hockey, who his parents were, siblings, hobbies, anything like that.
  • Going over the references, Hockey's Future and Hockey Fights are almost certainly not going to pass for reliable sources. Hockey's Future has already been tried, and looking over Hockey Fights, I don't have much faith in it working either.
  • That all said, the article looks good. With some fixing up, it shouldn't have trouble making it to Featured Article. Good luck with it. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Resolute

Just to be confusing, I am going to disagree with Kaiser on the infobox. We've usually only added minor league teams to that box if the player has never played in a top level league. I personally would likely leave just the Panthers in the infobox.

  • I'm not a fan of that lead section. Dumping a bunch of stats on the reader is not going to engage their interest. More over, I don't see how his statistical performance in Junior A is more important than his selection to the OHL all-rookie team, or the fact that he was a first round draft pick. The lead should sell the reader on why the player is notable.
  • Birth city should not be in the lead. Ideally, there would be an "early life" section that would describe his birthplace, life growing up, family, etc, if that information is available. Otherwise, move it to personal life.
  • Thorold Blackhawks and Oshawa Generals should be linked the first time they are used in the article body.
  • "In a 6–3 win over the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, Horton teamed up with future Ottawa Senator Brian McGrattan to score 3 goals for the Generals." - No context. Why is this seemingly random game important?
  • Why isn't his All-Rookie team selection mentioned in the prose?
  • As a personal preference, I generally don't sub-section the draft. If left as part of the junior section, I find it helps flesh out the player's pre-professional career.
  • Would you be able to note when he made his NHL debut?
  • "Horton suffered a torn rotator cuff and labrum which would potentially end his season." - Wrong tense - that is a future looking statement on an event in the past. Re-word to something along the lines of "(injury) that threatened to end his season" or "...feared would end his season.", or some such.
  • While the press release claims otherwise, I doubt Horton actually signed with the Rampage. As a player under contract to the Panthers, he would have been assigned there. The current wording is supported by the reference though.
  • "The 2004–05 NHL season ended up being locked out..." - "ended up being" is pretty loose with the language. Perhaps something like: "The 2004-05 season was not played due to a lockout..."?
  • "Through the first games of the season, Horton was tied for the team lead in goals." - Context. Why is it important to know he led the team in goals through an undefined number of games?
  • "...Horton was promoted to the Panthers' first line.[44] Despite his promotion to the first line, Horton's name was mentioned in a potential trade with the Vancouver Canucks..." Redundant usage of both "first line" and his name. Try to avoid using the same words and phrases so close together. Possible rewording: "Shortly after earning promotion to the first line, Horton's name was mentioned in a potential trade with the Vancouver Canucks, however nothing materialized."
  • "In the Panthers' 5–3 win over the Ottawa Senators on January 22, 2008, Horton recorded 4 assists,[67] which was a career–high." - I'm bad for this too, but comma abuse. There are a lot of statements throughout that could be reorganized to reduce the breaks and pauses, which hurt the flow of the article. In this case: "Horton recorded a career-high four assists in a 5–3 win over the Ottawa Senators." The next four sentences after this could be similarly reworded.
  • "Against the Nashville Predators on November 1, Horton played in his 300th career game, but failed to record a point" - Context. Why is it important to know that he did not score a point in his 300th game?
  • Legends of Hockey says he won a gold medal at the World U-18 challenge and a bronze at the U-17 in 2002. This should be mentioned in his junior section.
  • General stuff:
    • Prose quality needs to be improved, or you will get raked over the coals at FAC.
    • There are a lot of random events documented that don't really seem all that important. IMO, these distract the reader from the important information. Also, a FA does not have to be long, especially for a player this young. IMO, the article should focus on key information: milestones, injuries, trade rumours, etc. (example: Dion Phaneuf, which is my current project).
    • Numbers ten and below should be spelled out: "four assists" rather than "4 assists"
    • As noted above, commma abuse. Personally, I tend to go through an article four or five times before I'm happy that I've removed all of my overuse.
    • "Playing Style" stub section will require expansion, or need to be integrated into another section.
    • "Personal life" requires expansion.
    • While I've been able to prove each time that hockeydb is reliable, I prefer to use the player biography from Legends of Hockey for statistical references (ref 5). Nobody questions the reliability of the HHOF.
    • You will be asked to show that Our Sports Central and The Fourth Period are reliable.
    • Spell out "The Sports Network" rather than using "TSN" in ref 45.

Hope this helps, Resolute 17:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Nathan_Horton/archive1&oldid=1140159014"