Talk:Russian Five/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

• I've archived the references
• 11 of the sources are to the same source -[1] This makes it seem like we have much more talking about the topic than we are.
• Could you add some ISBNs and page numbers?
• You link to a youtube channel twice, but I'm not sure what you are actually citing to - is it a movie? Was it credited?
• After the Russian Five section is tiny, and is uncited.

Prose

Lede

• Could we merge the paragraphs together a bit? There's four tiny ones, whereas two would be suitable.
• The lede is a summary of the rest of the article. As far as I can tell, the notable bits are:

1. The Russian Five is five players playing for the wings between 1989 and 2002.
2. The five players won the stanley cup in 97
3. Four of the five also won the title in 98
4. They changed how the sport was played and taught since

I would change the lede to mention these things, and then maybe how they were all brought-in and removed.

General

• Hmm, I got most of the way through this before I realised I wasn't going to be able to pass a GAN for this. The above citing issues makes it so the vast majority of the prose is written from one source, and statements such as "despite their talents being on par with North American and Western European players." being uncited. Here's a few things I picked up, if you can fix the disparity in sources and want to go to GAN again:

1. If you have a quote, you need a citation specifically for it
2. The word "defect" is used here, and I have no idea why. The countries aren't at war
3. The first image seem completely irrelevent.
4. Some terms, such as the World Championships needs wikilinking
5. "I used the theory, who are we gonna get here now in the 4th round from North America, really?" - without explaination, I have zero idea what he's saying
6. There's a lot of dis-proportionate paragraphs. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but these could all be a standard size
7. The 3-5 sections could easily be under a section 2 header
8. Most of the article talks about 1990, and then jumps to 1997. They had other parts to their time, right?
9. After the Russian Five is tiny, and should be fleshed out.

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA and FA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addressed issues

I went ahead and addressed the issues that the reviewer pointed out. A small handful of them were not addressed, detailed here with my responses to the reviewer:

• 11 of the sources are to the same source - This makes it seem like we have much more talking about the topic than we are.

It's true that the book "Russian Five" is cited 11 times. However, that's because the book contains a wealth of knowledge of the subject of the article, and I cited items from many different chapters. Also, there are now 25 other sources in the article. I do feel that 26 total sources is plenty.

• Could you add some ISBNs and page numbers?

I added ISBNs. I have only the e-book, not the hard copy, and the page numbers change based on the size of the window that I use when reading the book in iBooks. There's no preview of the book available in Google Books. Also, Wikipedia:Good article criteria does not mention page numbers as a criterion.

• The word "defect" is used here, and I have no idea why. The countries aren't at war

Defections from the Soviet Union to the United States during the Cold War were plentiful - we even have an entire category called "Soviet defectors to the United States" and a List of Soviet and Eastern Bloc defectors. Sources use the word "defect" with regards to the three players' journeys to the NHL.

• The first image seem completely irrelevent.

All five players played in the jersey in that image before they came to the NHL. I didn't add the image originally, but I think it's relevant, so I left it.

• Most of the article talks about 1990, and then jumps to 1997

I don't see this. The article talks about every single season, in some context, between 1988 and 1998. I don't know what jump you're referring to.

JimKaatFan (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)