Talk:Dawson Creek Rage

Dawson Creek Rage has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 10, 2014. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: maclean (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1: Well-written

a. Prose is "
clear and concise", without copyvios
, or spelling and grammar errors:

Check for

WP:LEAD

:

Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section: Done
Check for Citations (
WP:LEADCITE
): Done
Check for Introductory text: Done
- Check for Provide an accessible overview (
  MOS:INTRO): Done
  - Major Point 1: Formation "The players, all aged between 15 and 20 years old in accordance with league rules," (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  - Major Point 2: Team history "Formed in 2010, they played in the North American Hockey League's West Division for two seasons. With losing records in both seasons, the team did not make the playoffs in either season. The ownership group made attempts at establishing the team in the British Columbia Hockey League and the Alberta Junior Hockey League but was not successful. Despite attracting better than average attendance for a NAHL team, high travelling and operating costs resulted in the team ceasing operations in April 2012" & "The Rage played in the 4,500 seat EnCana Events Centre where their first win came on September 24, 2010, against the Alaska Avalanche. Their final home game was a loss to the Wenatchee Wild in March 2012." (summarised well in the lead)
  - Major Point 3: Dissolution "" (not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
  - Major Point 4: Community "were active with charities and within the community." (summarised well in the lead)
  - Major Point 5: Uniform "The team's name and symbol was intended to represent an outward expression of passion and internal desire to dominate other teams." (summarised well in the lead)
- Check for Relative emphasis: Done
  - Major Point 1: Formation "The players, all aged between 15 and 20 years old in accordance with league rules," (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
  - Major Point 2: Team history "Formed in 2010, they played in the North American Hockey League's West Division for two seasons. With losing records in both seasons, the team did not make the playoffs in either season. The ownership group made attempts at establishing the team in the British Columbia Hockey League and the Alberta Junior Hockey League but was not successful. Despite attracting better than average attendance for a NAHL team, high travelling and operating costs resulted in the team ceasing operations in April 2012" & "The Rage played in the 4,500 seat EnCana Events Centre where their first win came on September 24, 2010, against the Alaska Avalanche. Their final home game was a loss to the Wenatchee Wild in March 2012." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
  - Major Point 3: Dissolution "" (the lead does not give due weight as is given in the body)
  - Major Point 4: Community "were active with charities and within the community." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
  - Major Point 5: Uniform "The team's name and symbol was intended to represent an outward expression of passion and internal desire to dominate other teams." (the lead gives due weight as is given in the body)
- Check for Opening paragraph (
  MOS:BEGIN
  ): Done
  - Check for First sentence (
    WP:LEADSENTENCE
    ): Done
    - "The Dawson Creek Rage (aka DC Rage) were a Tier II Junior A ice hockey team, based out of Dawson Creek, British Columbia."
  - Check for Format of the first sentence (
    MOS:BOLDTITLE
    ): Done
  - Check for Proper names and titles: Done
  - Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (
    MOS:BOLDSYN
    ): None
  - Check for Foreign language (
    MOS:FORLANG
    ): None
  - Check for Pronunciation: None
  - Check for Contextual links (
    MOS:CONTEXTLINK
    ): Done
  - Check for Biographies: NA
  - Check for Organisms: NA
Check for Biographies of living persons: NA
Check for Alternative names (
MOS:LEADALT
): Done
- Check for Non-English titles:
- Check for Usage in first sentence:
- Check for Separate section usage:
Check for Length (
WP:LEADLENGTH
): Done
Check for Clutter (
WP:LEADCLUTTER
): None

WP:LAYOUT
:

Done

Check for

WP:LAYOUT

:

Done

Check for Body sections:
MOS:BODY
. Done
- Check for Headings and sections: Done
- Check for Section templates and summary style: Done
- Check for Paragraphs (
  MOS:PARAGRAPHS
  ): Done
Check for Standard appendices and footers (
MOS:APPENDIX
): Done
- Check for Order of sections (
  WP:ORDER
  ): Done
- Check for Works or publications: Done
- Check for See also section (
  MOS:SEEALSO
  ): Done
- Check for Notes and references (
  WP:FNNR
  ): Done
- Check for Further reading (
  WP:FURTHER
  ): Done
- Check for External links (
  WP:LAYOUTEL
  ): Done
- Check for Links to sister projects: Done
- Check for Navigation templates: Done
Check for Formatting: Done
- Check for Images (
  WP:LAYIM
  ): Done
- Check for Links: Done
- Check for Horizontal rule (
  WP:LINE
  ): Done

WP:WTW
:

Done

Check for

WP:WTW

:

Done

Check for Words that may introduce bias: Done
- Check for Puffery (
  WP:PEA
  ): Done
- Check for Contentious labels (
  WP:LABEL
  ): Done
- Check for Unsupported attributions (
  WP:WEASEL
  ): Done
- Check for Expressions of doubt (
  WP:ALLEGED
  ): Done
- Check for Editorializing (
  MOS:OPED
  ): Done
- Check for Synonyms for said (
  WP:SAY
  ): Done
Check for Expressions that lack precision: Done
- Check for Euphemisms (
  WP:EUPHEMISM
  ): Done
- Check for Clichés and idioms (
  WP:IDIOM
  ): Done
- Check for Relative time references (
  WP:REALTIME
  ): Done
- Check for Neologisms (
  WP:PEA
  ): None
Check for Offensive material (
WP:F***
): Done

Check for

WP:MOSFICT

:

Done

Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world): Done
- Check for Primary and secondary information (
  WP:PASI
  ): Done
- Check for Contextual presentation (
  MOS:PLOT
  ): Done

WP:EMBED :
Done Prose is preferred over list ( WP:PROSE ): Check for Tables ( MOS:TABLES ):

2: Verifiable with no original research

a. Has an

appropriate reference section

:

Yes

b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

WP:RS
:

Done

Check for

WP:RS

:

Done

Check for the material (
WP:RSVETTING
): (not contentious) Done
- Is it contentious?: No
- Does the ref indeed support the material?:
Check for the author (
WP:RSVETTING
): Done
- Who is the author?:
- Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
- What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
- What else has the author published?:
- Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
Check for the publication (
WP:RSVETTING
): Done
Check for Self-published sources (
WP:SPS
):

WP:MINREF
:

Done

Check for inline citations

WP:MINREF

:

Done

Check for Direct quotations: Done
Check for Likely to be challenged: Done
Check for Contentious material about living persons (
WP:BLP
): NA

c. No original research: Done

WP:NOR :
Done Check for primary sources ( WP:PRIMARY ): Done Check for synthesis ( WP:SYN ): Done Check for original images ( WP:OI ): Done

3: Broad in its coverage

a. Major aspects:

Done

Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
1. Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
2. Check for Out of scope:
Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
1. Check for All material that is notable is covered:
2. Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
3. Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
4. Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
5. Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (
  WP:OFFTOPIC
  ):

b. Focused :
Done Check for Readability issues ( WP:LENGTH ): Check for Article size ( WP:TOO LONG! ):

4: Neutral

WP:NPOV
:

Done

4. Fair representation without bias: Done

Check for POV (
WP:YESPOV
): Done
Check for naming (
WP:POVNAMING
): Done
Check for structure (
WP:STRUCTURE
): Done
Check for Due and undue weight (
WP:DUE
): Done
Check for Balancing aspects (
WP:BALASPS
): Done
Check for Giving "equal validity" (
WP:VALID
): Done
Check for Balance (
WP:YESPOV
): Done
Check for Impartial tone (
WP:IMPARTIAL
): Done
Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (
WP:SUBJECTIVE
): Done
Check for Words to watch (
WP:YESPOV
): Done
Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
): Done
Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (
WP:PSCI
): None
Check for Religion (
WP:RNPOV
): None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images Done (NFC with a valid FUR)

Images:

Done

6: Images are

copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

:

Done

Check for copyright tags (
WP:TAGS
): Done
Check for copyright status: Done
Check for non-free content (
WP:NFC
): Done
Check for valid fair use rationales (
WP:FUR
): Done

6: Images are provided if possible and are

suitable captions

:

Done

Check for image relevance (
WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE
): Done
Check for Images for the lead (
WP:LEADIMAGE
): Done
Check for suitable captions (
WP:CAPTION
): Done

I'm glad to see your work here. ~~I do have some insights based on the above checklist that I think will improve the article~~:

I think the lead can be improved in order to provide an accessible overview and to give relative emphasis.
1a issue: A full stop is missing at the end of the first para in the lead.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Maclean, please feel free to strike out any recommendation from this review which you think will not help in improving the article which is our main aim here. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response from maclean25

Thanks for reading and reviewing the article. I have improved the lead section as follows: [1]
My strategy there is to have the first paragraph about who the team is and what they did, with the second paragraph noting ancillary or background info.
From the "Formation" section the lead notes where they played, attempts to get the team into other leagues and the reasons why the other leagues wouldn't take them.
From the "Team history" section the lead provides a brief overview of how each season went.
From "Dissolution", the lead notes the next attempt at moving into a different league, attendance, and high expenses. —maclean (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]