Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Devils/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Jersey Devils[edit]

Recreate archive from history at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Devils, incorrectly archived

Well, I've worked my butt off for this article. I think it looks pretty nice at this point. It's got good content, a lot of references and nice graphics too. So I figured why not, I'll give this article a chance at FA-status.

  • Support. Per nom. --Sportskido8 13:52 EST, 25 August 2006
  • Object. As someone who's done work on this page, it pains me to say this, but it's not FA status yet. There hasn't even been a peer review, which is typically one of the first steps towards FA status. I have a feeling it's only going to be shot down quickly at this point, but I can't support this page for FA as it currently stands. Anthony Hit me up... 17:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    That was extremely vague, but alright...--Sportskido8 14:00 EST, 25 August 2006
  • Anthony, would you please give some specific and actionable objections? Mak (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - Having undergone a large number of revisions just within the last week, this article does not meet the stability requirement. Additionally, there are a number of images that are not tagged/sourced appropriately. Neutrality is an issue, with statements such as "The move appeared to make little sense." There are gaps in the formatting, leaving excess white space. The lead is entirely too short for an article of this length. This really should have undergone a peer review first. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Did it really need a peer review that badly? I have to disagree. Anyway, white space is probably an issue, you're right. The reason I put it in articles is to make it look more pleasing to the eye. I know we're supposed to save KB and whatever but I hate to see clutter. The lead should be longer, I'll work on that. Stability? It was just me making 500 edits a day to clean it up, what's wrong with that? And Chlomes...you uploaded the picture of the 1982-1983 team. Now you're objecting yourself? Which other pictures are a problem? --Sportskido8 14:47 EST, 25 August 2006
  • Object. Sorry, but I feel that this article is not even close to being ready for FA-status. I've started working on it some, but it will most likely be weeks or months before this should be considered for FA-status. The article needs some better-quality writing (it's certainly not bad, but not compelling or brilliant, as Wikipedia:What is a featured article? requests), needs sources, and needs to be stable. --Muéro 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I think it would be nice if people could actually give some points of where to improve the article instead of simply opposing because "it's not FA status yet." Now, for some input:
    • I feel the article has some work to be done on prose. I strongly suggest you look at Chicago Bears very closely (it's actually a featured article candidate right now, looks like it'll pass). In particular, the introduction paragraphs need to be rewritten.
    • Get rid of those titles for each section (ie. not "Early struggles," just "1982–1991;" not "The early years," just "Kansas City and Colorado").
    • Shift the sections around and rename them. Again, look at the Bears article. "Team jersey" could be expanded like that article ("Team colors and mascots"), "Retired numbers" is a subsection of "Famous players," maybe "Individual records" could be split off into "Famous players" or as a subsection of "Statistics and records" (you'd have to rename "Season-by-season record"), there looks to be enough information to warrant a subsection.
    • Try using the main template instead of further. And don't put a tag like that in the introduction. You're introducing readers to the NJ Devils article, not to a separate article.
    • Look at the Bears' "Retired numbers" section. Simple, elegant. The Devils' version looks rather erratic.
  • I know I'm being rather general with my points, but they should be enough to get the article in the right direction. I'm sure with more input from others on FAC, you'll be able to get this article better than ever. ♠ SG →Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You make a lot of good points and I'll start to work on them. The only thing I disagree with is the simple, elegance of "retired numbers." The Bears article is very nice, no doubt about it. But I'm not a fan of having 4 pink tables in a row thrown at me, and that's why I kept it to 2 in a row for this article and moved a lot of stuff to the sister article "notable players and award winners." Maybe that was good, maybe not. I like to be creative with the retired numbers, like I was with the Yankees ones. Granted, there are more numbers to work with there, but I hate to follow that up with a table. I'll change this one though, somehow. --Sportskido8 16:51 EST, 25 August 2006

Request. Can the above posters please cross out anything that was scrutinized which now appears fixed with the recent changes to the article? --Sportskido8 3:30 EST, 27 August 2006

  • Object currently. The prose is still a bit disorganized. (I am working on that.) My main issue is that there is still some unsourced editorial commentary (e.g. "The next season, they were expected to be contenders once again"), which violates NPOV. I am doing my best to improve the article, but sourcing opinions is a difficult task. – flamurai (t) 12:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - An excellent point was brought up on the article talk page. There is no information regarding the team's role as an NHL scapegoat in making the league more "boring" in the 1990s through their successful use of the neutral zone trap. This is a major theme in recent team history, and without at least a paragraph on it the article cannot be considered thorough in its scope. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Cannot be considered thorough by who?...You? --Sportskido8 14:59 CST, 29 August 2006
Yes, me. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)