Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Calgary Flames

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

---

Calgary Flames

Check external links

Over the past year or so, I've slowly re-written and cited this article, looking to bring it up to a similar standard of another ice hockey FA, New Jersey Devils. Following a final push, this article has recently completed a peer review, during which it gained good article status. After spending the last day or so tightening up the references and performing one final copyedit, I believe this article is ready for Featured status. Looking forward to all feedback. Resolute 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Great article, but there are a few rather dramatic statements that aren't strictly supported, like "the deal is widely believed to have been the beginning of the Flames' long decline" and "The Flames stunned the hockey world". I'm not necessarily saying the prose should be watered down, but perhaps a different presentation or better sources are in order. Melchoir (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Such as peacock tearms? Maxim_(talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've revised both statements to be more neutral. Resolute 17:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • From my limited experience in FAC, just changing both statements isn't usually enough. You've gotta comb through the article for all or almost of such things. Maxim_(talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I caught most of it before, but did another pass-over and reworded a few more minor usage issues. Resolute 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, I haven't pored over every sentence, but it certainly looks good! Melchoir (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• dubbed the Flames "Canada's team."—it would be eccentric for the dot to be part of the title. See MOS on logical punctuation within quotation marks.
• Check the hyphens in scores, such as 26-0 (26–0). Double hyphens in the table at the bottom better as en dashes.
• Check the reference list carefully; spot check revealed, for example, missing author's name at ref. 33. Ref 29 doesn't have the site owner listed. Tony (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the awkward dot. About the scores, I think all of them are en dashes. Should they be hyphens; I was under the impression that scores should use endashes. I will give the references more time. --Maxim_(talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Checked references, will double check in the morning. Will double check the dashes as well once I have a chance. For scores, which type of dash is preferable? Resolute 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Doublechecked references, they should be consistent now. Ensured all scores and records are endashes. Resolute 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good article, another quality piece by Resolute. Good to see another ice hockey article going for FA status. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support though I wish the team captains section was restored. Overall, this article is flaming hot. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Great job on this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very detailed, well cited. This one deserves a promotion to featured status.--Hokeman (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment:
  • There appears to be quite a number of statements regarding scorelines (or series scores) but it's not immediately obvious where a reference/citation for those are. I think this verfiability aspect is important. I don't doubt the truth is presented by the editors here, but the lay reader should be able to know what he/she is reading is verifiable. I can cite examples if you want but I think it's fairly clear. In the long term, erring on the side of too many inline citations would avoid silly problems like FA review by anal-rententive editors.
  • "Another bright spot for the team during this time was defenceman Robyn Regehr, who became the youngest nominee ever for the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, which recognizes perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication to hockey, in his rookie year, despite suffering two broken legs in a car accident the previous summer" --> any way to make this more readable? Manderiko (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, do you feel that more citations are needed for the scores? As for the second one, splitting it into two sentences might help. I'll fix it. Maxim_(talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Checked all scores and season records. They should all be cited now. Also reworked the statement regarding Regehr a little more. Resolute 16:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks SandyGeorgia that you took the time to comment, I always highly appreciate your feedback. But, what's an unresolved external link?? I thought it was a synonym for dead links, but I checked and there are no dead links. Maxim_(talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All links are working. The three links showing "connection refused" by the tool linked above are all pointing to legendsofhockey.net and are all currently working. It seems that the tool is being denied access, but the site is live. Please let me know if this is not what you are referring to. Thanks, Resolute 03:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was referring to Check external links; if you've checked them all, that's good (the tool seems to time out sometimes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There were three "unresponsive" links, but the webpages looked perfectly fine to me. Maxim_(talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
        • 111 Connection refused seems to be an issue with the socket library in python. They have there own classification (blue) since there's nothing editors can do about these links. The timeouts length are longer for the cached (180 sec) than web version (60 sec), but it would say 110 Connection timed out if that were the case. — Dispenser 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm, so are the links okay, then? Maxim_(talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.