Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanley Cup/archive1

Stanley Cup

This has been a feature article drive, and even though it's unrated (yet), I feel it is ready. I want comments, especially from some people who aren't familiar with Ice Hockey, to see how it can be improved. Thank you very much! The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely ready. It has great wording and synonyms and also flows very well. Thae guy drinking out of the Cup doesn't fit very well in this article. And the ^{[citation needed]} tag in the section Traditions and anecdotes needs to be cited, I'm sure. If that can be cited and the image can be removed it will be better than featured. --Hasek is the best 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we can get rid of the offending quotation, too. What do you think? The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 15:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I wrote on the Stanley Cup talk page:

In the anecdotes and traditions section, we need a few citations. This is a general notice. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the article. Written pretty good, however I do have some minor issues:

If I am remembering correctly, they created a new Stanley Cup in order to preseve the old one. If a source is listed, that should be included. There needs to be some reason why they made the first duplicate. In progress. Might be tougher to correct.
The note about the Rangers taking it to McSorley's Old Ale House, if it can not be cited, should be removed. I've never heard anything about that until reading the article, and there's not citation, and there is plenty of other noted things the Cup has done to be able to removed an unsourced event.
The Finals of note should just be removed outright. It is rather POV, and one could argue that every finals has been notable for one reason or another. Deleted

Other than those points, I think it could make a good case for FA status. Kaiser matias 17:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kaiser did the PR already I just looked over this quickly. A couple of things I noticed:

Is it really necessary to put the South Park thing there, specifically? It might be better if it said "For other disambiguities, click here" or something. Deleted
The Adventures and Misadventures lists are kind of long, and long lists are generally not encouraged (unless they're specific list articles like "List of so and so"). Is it possible to convert them into non-bulleted prose?Rewritten
You can get rid of that last section, because it doesn't pertain to the cup itself.Deleted

That's what I noticed after a quick lookover but for the most part it looks very good. Nice work! Sportskido8 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as when the duplicate was made, it was in 1969. Why? Err, because the original was over 75 years old, had undergone a lot of wear and tear, and silver just isn't that rugged? RGTraynor 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the source? That source is probably the difference between GA/A and FA. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the article again. It looks a lot better, and very well written. Should make the grade to FA if you submit it, I think. Kaiser matias 20:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have time to read the entire article, but one comment: The lead image is horrible. We really need to find a free image of just the cup, or someone can crop that one and make a new image out of it. As it is, the focus is on the player's bright orange shirt and not on the cup. --Mus Musculus 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]