Talk:Craig Conroy/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Looks pretty good overall: the Career statistics is completely unreferenced, please insert a reference into that section for the statistics.

The External link typically supports this, but I have added a general citation under the references section that supports the stats.

Referencing in general looks pretty good, but when using news references, for example New York Times, please add location and publisher details.

That would actually be redundant, given the publisher is the New York Times, and the location is New York. That would also be out of line with how newspaper citations are generally used on most other GA and FA articles.

Granted, the NYT was a bad example: however Ref 6 The Daily Gazette, 11 Globe and Mail, 12 and 13 St. Louis Post Dispatch (published by Lee Enterprises), 20, USA Today, 23 Calgary Sun (published by Quebecor), 28 Calgary Herald (published by Postmedia Network) could definitely all do with them, and personally I would prefer to see The New York Times Company listed as publisher of the New York Times.Harrias ^talk 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie. I don't see the point, especially as such entries would bring the formating out of alignment with the overwhelming majority of GAs and FAs. The only time I'd use both the work and publisher parameter is when someone has republished someone else's work. Additionally, I don't see the relevance of knowing that Lee Enterprises publishes the St. Louis Post dispatch, as one example. Reso lute 19:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a fair point: I thought that at some stage, someone had told me that these were required, but having trawled through some policy pages, and a few of my own GANs etc, I can't see anything about it. I still think locations would be useful for those ambiguous titles (The Daily Gazette, Globe and Mail), but otherwise I can live with the remainder of the information being omitted: sorry for seeming picky about this, as I said, I'd come to believe it was a necessity. Harrias ^talk 20:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do get what you are saying, however. Reso lute 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

I'm not sure whether RPI should be written out in full or not. By the letter of the MOS, it probably should, but given that RPI seems to be a common abbreviation for it, and you have provided a link, I can accept it being abbreviated.
"With the goals, Conroy reached 100 career points, making he and Mike the only father-son pair in Clarkson's history to both reach that milestone." – Sentence sounds clumsy, particularly the "making he and Mike" bit. Perhaps try rewording for clarity and to avoid referring to his father by purely his first name. I'm afraid I can't think of anything myself right now though!

Yeah, I've reworded this statement a few times while working on the article. I've tried again, let me know if its any better.

Professional career

"established himself as a regular NHLer.." – not sure that NHLer is encyclopedic language: "NHL player" should probably be used instead.

Reworded

"He reached two milestones that season, scoring his 300th career point against the Vancouver Canucks on November 29, 2003 and played his 600th game against the Detroit Red Wings on March 16, 2004." – you switch tenses twice during this sentence: "He reached ..., scoring ... and played ..." Stick to the past tense throughout.

Oops, fixed

"He returned for another season the Flames re-signed him to a one-year, two-way contract for the league minimum of $500,000." – There's a word missing, or something, in this sentence: it doesn't make much sense at the moment.

Sure did, fixed.

"..Conroy would only play nine more games.." change to "Conroy only played nine more games".

Fixed.

I will place the article on hold while you deal with my comments: overall a nice article though. Harrias ^talk 17:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for the review! I believe I have addressed your concerns. Cheers, Reso lute 15:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I still have a minor outstanding concern regarding the referencing (see my reply above), I'm now happy to pass the article as a Good Article. I'm also not sure about the capitalization of "National Team" in the lead, but that is certainly nothing to with-hold a pass for! Harrias ^talk 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]