Talk:1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season/GA5

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article because it was nominated for GA status. I will have a full review up shortly. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've decided to place the article on hold for the following reasons:

I don't see any justification for the existence of the overview section in the regular season section. Perhaps it could be interwoven with the rest of the section. For example, some of the info is on statistics; perhaps some of that could go alongside the statistics table.

I have rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose has much improved from previous times (see previous reviews). Nevertheless, in some places complex sentences have subordinate clauses that are at time hard to follow. They might change subjects or go off on a tangent. The simplest way to adjust this would be to cut down on the number of subordinate clauses. These problems are basically confined to the regular season section, as the prose in the lead and playoff sections is just fine.

I did not find much in Oct-Dec, but made some corrections later in that section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to read now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why isn't there a playoff stats section, just like there's one for the regular season?

The stats are unified on one table. Look more closely.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. My fault for missing it! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that at the GAN page, you have several other other nominations, as well as ongoing reviews. If you feel it is necessary, I am willing to extend the review period beyond a week so that you don't feel rushed or overwhelmed and are unable to give due attention to other matters.

I also have suggestions for further improvement. Since they do not explicitly involve the GA criteria, I won't fail the article for not meeting them, but they would make the article go beyond GA status. My suggestions for further improvement are:

The other ice hockey GA season articles are 1985–86 Calgary Flames season, 2007–08 Pittsburgh Penguins season, 2008–09 Calgary Flames season, 2009–10 Calgary Flames season, and 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season. All off them include attendance stats, at least a season average. If you intend to ever bring this article to FA status, the non-inclusion of attendance will be sure to arise.
Similarly, this article does not include preseason games. Again, if you or someone else intends to bring this up to FA status, this will arise. Using the Sabres' media guide or a newspaper archive (like in a public library) could be helpful sources to resolve these issues.
Other season articles have the game log in smaller type and in collapsable/openable tables. I don't see any reason to have the game log in the typical table format here, while other seasons are consistent amongst themselves. It is reasonable to have the same format for articles on similar or analogous topics, like sports team seasons.

I don't see preseason results or attendance figures at either Hockey-reference or hockeydb. It may be that such details are not available for older seasons. Do you know of any seasons from the 70s or earlier that have these details?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any off hand. The fact that it attendance was less likely to be easily obtainable, as well as the fact that preseason stats are in some sense less important (you want to be the best team at the end of the playoffs, not before the season started) were the main reasons why I didn't raise them aganst GA status per se, and why I put them under suggestions for further improvement. It's possible some other statistics sites might have average attendance. Searching for it gives recent seasons; the barrier is due to this season being in the past. Old box scores might have them; this would necessitate a newspaper archive. For Sabres games specifically, you would likely have to use a Buffalo or New York newspaper. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::If I were in Buffalo, I might try to find all this content. From Chicago, I will not be able to as easily. Can you evaluate the article as is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, 1985–86 Calgary Flames season does not have game-by-game attendance either. I am not interested in creating double standards for GAs. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having rereviewed the article, I now believe that objections have been adequately dealt with and that this article now meets the GA criteria. For that reason, I am going to promote the article now. Suggestions for further improvement were given above. I hope that you will keep up the good work on WP, and will keep an eye open for information on pre-season stats and attendance. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]