Talk:2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good article2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2016Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

  • The lead definitely needs an expansion per
    WP:LEADLENGTH
    . Since this article is quite long, I would recommend writing another paragraph to summarise the article
  • The December, January, Before Olympics in February, After Olympics in February, March and April sections have no citations. The GA criteria requires every paragraph to be sourced, so any amount of citations implemented in these sections will have to be done in order for this to pass
  • The After Olympics in February is very short. Can it be merged into another section?
  • The last paragraph in the Canucks players in the Olympics section is also unsourced

I'm placing this on hold as the lead needs to be expanded and all unsourced sections need citations before this can pass. Once that is done, this has a good chance of passing. Overall it's very well written and comprehensive. JAGUAR  16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Hey, just wanted to let you know I may need a slight extension on this GA, if that's alright with you. I got minor surgery the other day and should be lying down for the next few days, away from the desktop. Gives me time to finally start Tales of Zersteria :P but won't be able to work on this GA for a few days. I hope that's alright, if not I'll trek through this article tonight.Spilia4 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comments/personal updates

Finally getting around to this, sorry for the delay.

  • Lead: Wrote a long lead paragraph. I'm not a Canucks fan and I typically only write leads for video games so it may be a little unorthodox, but I did my best.
  • December, January, Before Olympics in February, After Olympics in February: Combined sections due to short lengths of all and so I can limit citations.
  • Sections December+: Added refs for each subsection.
  • Canucks players in the Olympics: Last paragraphed now has a source for the 5-0 defeat vs Finland, meaning US does not get a medal.

GA recommendations have all been accounted for. @Jaguar:, if it's to your liking, we may be done here. Spilia4 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them Spilia4! And sorry for coming to this late as for some reason I didn't get your pings. I hoped the surgery went well. With all of those issues out of the way, this looks good to go. I understand that writing articles on video games and real-life sports must be very different. JAGUAR  13:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guild of Copy Editors copyedit, since the tense issues are so pervasive. There's also a great deal of informal language used, and two parenthetical comments in the lead, which would also be addressed in a copyedit. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Per BlueMoonset's suggestion, I've placed this article back under review until all of the new issues can be addressed. Before passing this I considered splitting the lead into three paragraphs so it appears more comfortable to read. Spilia4, I'm really sorry to do this, could you see to it that BlueMoonset's concerns are clarified? I'll keep an eye on this, and will promote again once all of the issues have been dealt with. JAGUAR  11:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've reversed my decision. This can be addressed if this article is sent to GAR. JAGUAR  21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sent to GAR. I think it's a great shame that it has become necessary, but the sheer number of issues make the above reversal not merely unfortunate, but troubling. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is
transcluded from Talk:2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season/GA2
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Reassessment by: BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article, unfortunately, has some fundamental flaws that should never have been missed in its original GAN review, and I'm still bemused by the fact that it was passed even though they were pointed out to the reviewer, Jaguar. Among other things, it needs it complete copyedit—I suggested that the Guild of Copy Editors be asked—due to the constant switching between present and past tense, and a significant number of other grammatical and typographical issues. Now that I have read through it, I'm even more puzzled, because the sheer number of such errors are clearly evident to anyone reading with care.

Overall assessment

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

This article does not reach the standard of a Good Article, and needs significant work throughout to get there. More complete comments will be given below.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose does not meet the "clear and concise" guideline, and the grammatical issues, especially the regularly varying tenses, need attention in every paragraph.
    B. It complies with the
    list incorporation
    :
    Fails to adhere to
    WP:LEAD
    , notably in the linked bold text (not allowed) and other issues, a few words to watch issues as well.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
    the layout style guideline
    :
    B. All
    reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
    :
    Some controversial-seeming statements are not supported by references.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    There seems to be more detail than needed, notably in the Winter Olympics material, but also elsewhere.
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
    edit war
    or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are
    suitable captions
    :
    A couple of captions could use some minor wordsmithing.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A great deal of work needs to be done.


General thoughts: I am not much of a hockey fan, so as such I am unlikely to understand specific jargon or sports shorthand. That can be a benefit, in that if a term isn't clear to me, it probably doesn't meet the "clear and concise" GA criterion.

Individual sections

Because there is so much here, I'm going to start by noting issues with a few sections only. Once these are addressed, I will move on to others. As noted earlier, a thorough and competent copyedit will be required for the entire article. I have not yet checked for original research or close paraphrasing; I will do spot-checks later in the reassessment process if warranted.

Lead

Regular season

For now, I'm only going to cover December through February and April.

December through February
  • The first sentence should be ruthlessly trimmed: "The team won seven straight games at the beginning of December, and had a 10–1–2 record for the month."
  • The second sentence: rather than "Starter", why not "Starting goalie"? Also, there's no reason to make it the rest of December since Lack started the next three games: December 29, 30, and January 1. Just say through January 1 or New Years Day.
  • Paragraph 2: I'd drop the first sentence, and start with Luongo's return on January 4 against Los Angeles, where he was reinjured and was out for the next six games. Then point out Lack's struggles.
  • {{tq|which was the worst game this season}: was it the highest score by an opponent? Widest margin of loss? Say what happened, don't characterize it, especially without a secondary source naming it "worst".
  • The January 18 series of events is not written clearly. I'd like to suggest that it's given its own paragraph and carefully revised.
  • Next paragraph would be the seven-game losing streak, which needs rewording and also a citation to support "worst losing streak since the 1990s", which is too vague: give the year or season where that last bad losing streak occurred. Also, these were seven straight regulation-time losses.
  • I'm surprised that you don't point out that the NHL break for the Winter Olympics occurred after those seven straight games were lost, and the first game back 18 days later was a victory, which ended the losing streak. Please do so.
  • The final paragraph should start with a "The", and Canucks ended their (not its) losing streak, but lost (not "would lose"; stick with straight past tense). Perhaps here you could mention that the two Lack games were post-Olympics. However, I would move the convincing of Tortorella to the beginning of March, give the date of the Heritage Classic, and fix that first sentence. Also, add a couple of words to explain that "Lu" is "Luongo", the goalie that wasn't started.
  • Since I'm going to skip over March for now, I'll note that "Mar" should be "March" throughout, and that "in a SO" needs a wikilink to explain "SO", or the acronym needs to be written out in long form (and is there a reason it isn't "in an SO"?)
April

This paragraph has very disappointing prose.

  • On April Fools' Day, Alain Vigneault returns to Vancouver with the Rangers. The Rangers would go on to win 3-1, damaging the Canucks playoff hopes. It's April 1, not April Fools' Day. This should be one short sentence; the Canucks' playoff hopes were already on life support, so blaming (or crediting) the Rangers with damaging them is excessive. I'm not sure Vigneault needs to be mentioned again. Also, remember that scores should use en dashes to separate the digits, not hyphens.
  • On Apr 7 There's no reason to abbreviate a month, the sentence does not end with a period. Also, if the chant started with three minutes to go and the score 3–0, say that directly; it's implied but unclear exactly when the chant began.
  • This was the loss that made it impossible for the Canucks to make the playoffs, but I think it would make sense to state this up front: the Canucks had to win all their remaining games to stand a chance of making the playoffs. (They wouldn't have anyway, but at that point the math worked that way.) It makes more sense of the Gillis firing, that it happened right after they were officially out of contention. You need to add a source to support the quoted "Fire Gillis" chant.
  • Trevor Linden, the former Canucks, replaced Gillis as the president of hockey operation, though he still need to find a new GM. Let's take this one thing at a time:
    • "the former Canucks" what?
    • "president of hockey operation": should this be "president of the hockey operation" or "president of hockey operations"? If the latter, is it a title that should be capitalized?
    • "still need to find a new GM": since Tortorella hadn't been fired yet, this is a questionable statement even without correcting "need" to "needed"; I would write out "GM" as "general manager" or "General Manager" here, and everywhere else it occurs in the article
  • Lack's 19th Consecutive start ended: Lack's streak ended after he started 19 consecutive games
  • for the last 3 game: for the final three games of the season
  • On Apr 12: "April". Also, this sentence seems to be talking about the retirement of Ryan Smith, who isn't even a Canuck; why is this relevant? I'd drop this entire sentence.
  • I would, however, give the date of the final game: April 13. The final two sentences are an odd mix of Daniel Sedin, who was hit, taken out on a stretcher, but was ultimately fine, and the Canucks, who won their final game of the season, a home game, and finished with a 36–35–11 record. The sentences are poorly constructed—it's unclear whether Byron or Sedin left on that stretcher, among other issues. Give Sedin only a single mention, and note that the Canucks won the season closer at home and finished with that record.

Canucks players in the Olympics

As noted above, this is far too long (and violates criterion 3b in that this is not focused on the Canucks season, but a major diversion from it). Other issues:

  • First sentence: please add a comma after "Russia"
  • When potential players were invited to orientation camps in the offseason for Olympic teams: Olympic teams have an offseason? I'm guessing this happened during the NHL offseason. (Also, it's "off-season" everywhere else in the article; please use the hyphen here, too.) This entire paragraph should be condensed.
  • Paragraph 2: again, far too much detail. There doesn't need to be a blow-by-blow, including why someone was or wasn't necessarily expected to be selected. Kesler was not "reviled"; make sure you establish which team right away, rather than wait a sentence and a half to get to it.
  • Paragraph 3: trim. Also, if both Sedins and Edler were on the Swedish team, why are only two of them eligible for medals? Something has been skipped. Kesler's non-bronze can be explained with far greater brevity.

Post season

  • I think this section should be swapped with the Olympics section, since it's more relevant to the actual season, and continues the narrative already started in April.
  • Give the date Tortorella was fired, rather than "soon after the regular season".
  • Spell out GM
  • No need to give Benning's first name in the last sentence, since it was just mentioned.
  • showing positives for next season: what does this mean?
  • The section should end with a source that covers the hiring of both Benning and Desjardins (or a source for each, if a combined one isn't available)

Initial summation

Even in what I've covered, there is a daunting amount of work that needs to be done on this article. I am allowing the standard seven days for work to be done on the article. If significant progress is being made, I will naturally extend the time. However, I am not willing to wait for a Guild of Copy Editors copyedit to be submitted and started, since the backlog is close to a month. (If the GOCE has begun the copyedit, I'm happy to wait for it to be concluded, provided it remains active.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final result

There has been no response from the original nominator, Spilia4, despite having received a talk page notification back on May 6, and despite being active on Wikipedia in the interim, including making an FAC nomination. Given that the article was far from meeting the GA criteria even at the time of its original review, and not a single edit has been made to attempt to bring it up to GA level, I am closing the reassessment with the article being delisted. I regret that this is necessary, but the condition of the article leaves no other option.

Delisted. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 44 external links on 2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 45 external links on 2013–14 Vancouver Canucks season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013–14_Vancouver_Canucks_season&oldid=1196655982"