Talk:New Jersey Devils

/Archive 1

Trouble with archive

OK, I don't know what the trouble is in creating the archive page, but Wikipedia won't let me copy the existing talk page over to the archive... it just hangs there and then times out. I'll try again later, and besides, the talk page is archived on the older edits anyway.

In addition, I know Sportskido (and I to a lesser extent) was working hard on making this page FA. Now it failed, in part because we didn't go through peer review first. It might be bass-ackward, but I'm submitting this for peer review after the failed FA nomination to see what went wrong, and then we'll resubmit once we figure out how to fix the problems. Please feel free to comment, and let's try to keep comments positive (or at least constructive criticism). Anthony Hit me up... 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Update - I see the problem. Upon creating what I thought was a new peer review for the Devils, I discovered Sportskido already opened one. However, he failed to do one very important thing: post it on the main Peer Review page. Therefore, no one actually knew the page was up for Peer Review, which is why no one commented on it. Now it all makes sense. Hopefully we can get a formal peer review on this and then resubmit using proper channels. Anthony Hit me up... 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I DID post it on the main page. Do you think I'm an idiot? Nobody was responding to it. And forget it...people like Chlomes are going to ruin this article and keep this page from ever being FA-status. --Sportskido8 16:49 CST, 31 August 2006

I went to the peer review page and didn't see it listed there, so I assumed you hadn't posted it there. Forgive me for that assumption. However, it's not in good faith to attack other editors like Cholmes, who are simply abiding by policy. This is not YOUR page, and other people will edit it. If you can't handle it, then don't edit here. I had a similar problem when I first started, until I learned (the hard way) that this is a community, and we're all here for better or worse to make this site as good as possible. So please keep that in mind before you start accusing other people of trying to sabotage your edits. Anthony Hit me up... 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok...don't defend someone when you don't even know them. This guy is trying to ruin the article. It's not a problem of editing, no. I understand other people can edit pages, no kidding. Like you said, it's a community, and Chlomes is here for the worse. He will take images or other things that can legally be on this site and nominate them for deletion AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. I really wish he would stay away from the Devils article because he hasn't helped one bit on it. By the way, I will only attack people if I feel like they've deserved it. So there ya go. --Sportskido8 18:46 CST, 31 August 2006

I'm not going anywhere. If you want to keep adding suspect/stolen images, I will keep tagging them as such. And as far as actually improving this article - you obviously aren't interested in anyone else's help anyway, but rather in cramming your opinions down our throats. So have fun. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. Sportskido, I know Cholmes through the NFL WikiProject, and he is not out to "destroy" any articles. He's done a fine job with football related articles, and I appreciate his input here on the Devils page. On the flip side, I fail to see what the concern is over the jersey images when they've been given proper credit. As a law student, I understand the concern over copyrights, but I also feel that sometimes "fair use" paranoia on this site clamps down too tightly. I seriously doubt the site owner will get angry, and if he does, he will likely send a letter first before just opening fire with a lawsuit. The Chicago Bears article made FA status despite "questionable" images, including one you yourself tagged, Cholmes. So let's settle this dispute kindly. I would appreciate not having to bring in mediators to end the debate between the two of you, and I hope the hostilities end now. (Drawing on my experience as a day-care assistant... never thought I'd be using it on Wikipedia.) Anthony Hit me up... 02:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"you obviously aren't interested in anyone else's help anyway, but rather in cramming your opinions down our throats." Let this be known Chlomes. I am interested in everyone's opinion...except yours. --Sportskido8 12:18 CST, 1 September 2006

Todo

Here's my list of things that need to be done to get this article to FA status. Feel free to add/strike out items as they're completed. – flamurai (t) 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Section on Devils defense-first play, how they are blamed for "destroying" hockey
  • The first step is to collect references. We need as many opinion articles mentioning this as possible.

No references, but Neutral zone trap has related content. ccwaters 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[[1]] ccwaters 15:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Informative captions (see Wikipedia:Captions)
• Fair use rationales for
  • Image:1995Devils.jpg
  • Image:LouNJ.jpg (We should really be able to get a free photo... I may be able to ask a friend to license one of her photos under the GFDL)
  • Image:Devils 1982 1983 team photo.jpg
• Finish up citations

Date range vs. seasons

In this edit, I standardized date ranges vs. seasons as follows:

1. Seasons are YYYY-YY (e.g. 1998-99) with a hyphen
2. Date ranges are YYYY–YYYY (e.g. 1992–2004) with an en dash

– flamurai (t) 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld???

Is this reference to Seinfeld really necessary? Why is it in there? --Sportskido8 17:13 CST, 26 September 2006

• In a word, no. --Michael Greiner 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FA anytime soon?

Now that this page has 40 properly placed references, how close is this article to another FA nomination? --Sportskido8 3:04 CST, 3 October 2006

The article looks good, but at first glance there is a few things I would like to see changed. First of all there should be a link "Main Article:" under the Kansas City and Colorado section. Second I don't like the way that the articles stops following the structure of hockey team pages on wikipedia. I would put the Famous player and Current roster under a Notable player section.

And since there is an AID in the hockey project why not use it? The devils could be the first weekly AID. How about it? --Krm500 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How do we use it? --Sportskido8 1:23 CST, 7 October 2006

Is this good enough for an FA nomination, or not? --Sportskido8 12:08 CST, 23 October 2006

Good Article Nomination

At the very least, I think this article deserves a GA nomination. Let's see how it goes. --Sportskido8 16:44 CST, 26 October 2006

Good plan. There are still some things I'd like to add when I find time to dig up sources. – flamurai (t) 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is taking forever...geez...--Sportskido8 10:50 CST, 6 November 2006

The wait time on GA noms can be quite large. I can also tell you that some reviewers may not be as eager to review articles marked as long. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Day-by-Day record information???

If I remember correctly, somewhere in the Wikipedia bible it says not to make articles a news service, which is what we are doing by keeping the 06-07 standings in the season records table. I think we should just leave it blank, or say "in progress." --Sportskido8 13:14 CST, 3 November 2006

I agree. – flamurai (t) 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave it blank. Michael Greiner 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's left blank, my hunch is we'll be doing a lot of reverting. – flamurai (t) 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article assessment

I'm putting the nomination on hold due to concerns about the suitability of a number of fair use images. Other areas have room for improvement, but as this is a GA nom rather than an FA nom they are not necessarily a barrier; I'll pass the article if the image issues are resolved and the Broadcasters section is removed.

• Images: The logos are OK, as is the team photo of the first Devils squad, and the Stanley Cup celebration. However, the pictures of Lamoriello is not covered by fair use, as he is not the subject of the article. The illustration of the Newark Arena is not needed, why have a fair use illustration of a building that hasn't yet been built when we already have a free use picture of the Continental Airlines Arena on Wikipedia? The information conveyed in the picture of the jerseys is already given by the other pictures, and it is reasonably easy to create a schematic diagram of the colours, as is done in articles about football (soccer) clubs (e.g. IFK Göteborg).
• Going through the other criteria:
  • Well written: Pretty good, generally avoids use of jargon. The biggest concern is the volume of lists. The broadcasters list should be removed. It is only of any relevance to the North American TV viewer, and thus not encyclopedic.
  • Accurate and verifiable: FA standard referencing, no issues there. Could perhaps do with some print references for the icing on the cake.
  • Broad in coverage: Covers all the aspects I would expect, avoids the trivia which can plague sports articles.
  • NPOV: No obvious problems.
  • Stable: Yes, no evidence of edit wars.

Other things which have no bearing on the GA nom but would need to be sorted out to push the article to FA:

• The player records could perhaps be converted to prose like in Arsenal F.C..
• The number of subheadings could do with being cut down to make the TOC neater.
• The lead is a little thin
• It seems odd that the two year period from 2004-present gets more coverage than 1994-2000 when the Devils won two Stanley Cups. 2004-present should be reduced and merged with the previous subsection, and 1994-2000 should be expanded. Oldelpaso 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The major problems have been addressed. As for your other concerns:

• The lead is really a standard sports lead, as evidenced by other sports team featured articles: Chicago Bears and Arsenal F.C.. Considering the Devils history is considerably shorter, I don't see what could be added. It contains all the relevant information about the team. Devils: 131 words. Bears: 162 words. Arsenal: 146 words. The only thing I see that could be added is a possible sentence about rivalries. Edit: With the rivalries sentence it is at 163 words.
• I think that's just the nature of an in-progress article. Recent history is covered in more detail. Then as time passes, what is and isn't relevant becomes clearer. Plus, that 2004-present section starts on a clear delimiting point: the lockout. A lot happened. I really don't see much that can be cut at this point, except maybe one sentence about captains.
• Newspapers are print sources, even if the articles are linked from the web site.

– flamurai (t) 22:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GA passed. Oldelpaso 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to get the jerseys in there and a picture of Lamoriello, because they are an important part of the article in my opinion. How did the Bears get their jersey pictures passed for fair use? If they can then we can get these passed too. That being said, I'm glad this has GA-status. --Sportskido8 12:53 CST, 12 November 2006

The Road to FA-Status

I guess we're not that far away any more. I will try to do what I can from the GA-suggestions to get this closer to a featured article. I'm going to put the jerseys back up for now and when the creator of the images gets back to me I will include his email and his permission as well as the current rationale that we had for them (which was not bad in my opinion). It is essential in a sports team article that the jerseys be shown somewhere. As for the lists, I guess we can convert some of that into prose. --Sportskido8 12:56 CST, 13 November 2006

Would anyone be opposed to putting Season by Season records in its own article? Not sure about this. And see the Template page for a discussion about that too. --Sportskido8 2:16 CST, 14 November 2006

I'll leave the records table for now, since the Patriots article passed with it. I'm gonna go ahead and nominate this for FA and see what happens. It's come a long way since I first did that (which was a bit hasty, yes), but the article has every piece that it needs in my opinion and nearly 50 sources. I think it can pass now. --Sportskido8 16:17 CST, 14 November 2006

How about creating a History of the New Jersey Devils like the History of the Philadelphia Flyers article. My concerne is that the history section is too long and it focus mostly on the recent years. Look at IFK Göteborg which is a sports team with a FA status article, the article also has a short but good history section with a link to the more detailed History of ... article. --Krm500 03:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Captains & Head Coach sections

I've re-edited these 2 sections, to make them appear the same, as their counterparts in the other NHL team articles (the sections appeared as a Devils Fan site). Furthermore, these edits were made to shorten the length of the team article. GoodDay 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess they're ok now. Thing is though, you need to remember that since this is the first NHL team article with close FA consideration that it needs to set the standard for the future. So if something isn't like the other 29 articles it may not be a bad thing. --Sportskido8 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. A number of other FA sports team articles (Chicago Bears, Arsenal F.C., Sheffield Wednesday F.C., Everton F.C.) use tables in this manner. It's a perfectly legit use of tables. – flamurai (t) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The cosmetics (appearance), isn't so much a concern to me. It's more the length of the article, that cause me to simplify thoses sections appearances. GoodDay 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work everyone!

Thanks for helping along in the effort to get this article featured. After the second time I nominated it I was very confident that it would get a lot of praise, and it sure did. Special thanks to flamurai and Anthony for working on this forever in the past few months. Can't wait to see this article on the front page. Can't wait. Sportskido8 02:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulation on the FA --Krm500 11:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Front page request

Now that the article is featured, I would like to nominate it to be on the front page of Wikipedia for a day. We need the lead and a picture on there, so basically, which picture do you guys think should be up there, and is the current lead on the page good enough? We could always add something to it for the nomination. --Sportskido8 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be the Brodeur photo since that's the only one under a free license, and the group shots probably won't work as well at a small size. I didn't know there was a nomination process for front page articles... Ah I see. My last FA got put on the front page without my intervention. – flamurai (t) 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I put it up for nomination. You can see it here. I ended up using the Devils logo because it just seems more sensical. Sportskido8 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The New Jersey Devils rule. That is all.