Talk:2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season

GA Review

Reviewer: Deunick (talk · contribs) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Missing a few Citations in the first paragraph. I am seeing sentence fragments ( I think)

Please add some of the articles in the first page then please resubmit. We want your article to be proven good!

All of the sentences you marked with the citation needed template are in the lead, all of that information is referenced in the body and shouldn't need citations. As such I'm going to renominate the article, if another editor deems that the cites should be added I can add redundant cites. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - According to WP:LEAD: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." You cannot quick fail a GA simply because it doesn't conform with a belief that is not rooted in policy or GA criteria. So it would be proper to renominate it as the editor failed it out. Also is strongly recommended that a reviewer detail the issues and give a one-week period for the editor(s) to address them. That way they review doesn't have to wait forever to get reviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Know very little about the intricacies of NHL so found some of this a little confusing. Feel free to debate any of the points raised below. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

First off thanks for the review. Second it will probably be beneficial that you are unfamiliar with the subject matter since I am probably too close. This should help make the article easier to understand to a broader audience, so to speak

Thanks. Will get to this soon. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Offseason

• Wouldn't mind a date in the first sentence of the off season. I generally read the lead last, so in this case it lacked a little context.

The off-season is essentially once a team has finished their season so it stars earlier for non playoff teams, which means theirs no hard date to put on it. I added a date to when the trade was made so I hope that helps. If you would still prefer something in the first sentence I can try to come up with something.

• Why is Jeff Carter a "star"? Is there something more objective we could use (All Star etc)

Changed to All-Star

• The deal sent one of Columbus' young developing players, Jakub Voracek, the eighth overall pick, and a third round pick in the 2011 draft to the Philadelphia Flyers for Carter. Okay I am not overly familiar with NHL, so that may explain why I found this a little confusing. I am assuming Voracek was traded for Carter? I think you are missing a comma after "2011 draft" as it doesn't quite make grammatical sense. Although this will probably put two many commas in the sentence. How about "Jakub Vorack, one of Columbus' young developing players and the eighth overall pick, was traded to the Philadelphia Flyers for Carter" Are the 2011 draft details important? What does eighth overall pick mean?

The first part of the original sentence was meant to bridge the gap between what Columbus said their philosophy was and the actual application of said philosophy. Since it was not important and the sentence is rather long I have removed it.

The draft details are important. Its not uncommon for a team to trade a player for a pick a full year later. This trade actually took place during the 2011 draft which is talked about later. During the draft it is even more common that someone would be traded for a pick in the following years draft.

Eighth overall simply means the 8th pick in the draft, but the draft is broken down by rounds so common notation would be something like 8th pick in the second round (which is the 38th overall). I tried to clarify this when I re-wrote the sentence.

• What does traded for negotiating rights mean? It goes on to say that the signed him so I am not sure if the negotiating rights are that important. What does start of "free agency" mean?

Players who have complete the final year of their contracts are not allowed to sign with another team until a set date (currently July 1 each year) which marks the start of Free agency. Players that teams know they will be unable to re-sign or are choosing not to resign can be traded, but are only under contract till free agency starts. Since the player is not obligated to stay with the team that acquires him the team has not acquired the player but rather exclusive rights to negotiate a new contract with the player. If a deal is not reached by July 1 the player becomes a free agent and is allowed to sign with any team he chooses. If Team B fails to sign a player after acquiring his rights Team A still retains what was traded for his rights, it is not uncommon that a team will trade for negotiating rights and fail to sign the player thus getting nothing in return, or find they will not be able to sign a player and trade the negotiating rights to a third team to not lose out entirely.

The explanation was a little long winded, but I think I covered everything. There is a pretty good explanation on the NHL salary cap page that I linked to the free agency reference.

• The trading is confusing me a lot. You can trade players for a pick? It is not really fair to ask for a detailed discription here, but is there a Wikipedia article that could be linked.

There are a couple of pages for transactions, though I don't know if they are descriptive of the processes. Let me look around and see if I can find a good link that talks about trading and such. There isn't a page that really deals with trading, I linked trade (sports), but it does not talk about negotiating rights.

• The former Calder Trophy winner had struggled in consecutive seasons and the Blue Jackets signed Mark Dekanich as the back-up who had only 50 minutes of NHL experience prior to the start of the season Not sure how these two fragments tie together using an "and"

they were both in response to the criticism of Columbus not signing a veteran back-up goaltender. I tend to have run-on sentences so they probably don't need to be joined. Changed to two sentences.

November December

• With Carter out the Blue Jackets had a chance to end their losing streak in a game versus the Ottawa Senators. This is implying that Carter was the cause of them losing (maybe true, but doesn't gel with the star signing). Also borderline BLP, my experience of team sports is that it is rarely a single players fault.

I see your point, it wan not my intention to put the blame on Carter. Re-worded as part of the below point.

• The loss helped set a franchise record for futility with a 0–7–1 record to start a season. This doesn't make sense, losing the first five games then having a chance to win but losing the next game would make it 0-6-0(assuming I got the system right). Is something wrong with my maths? Or are there other games that are not mentioned? if that is the case they don't all need to be reported, but there should be some indication that the Ottawa game is not directly after the five losses (maybe add an "in season #" to the end of that sentence).

I skipped some games which I have made a slight mention of during the re-word of the above sentence. It still won't make sense math wise from what you would expect. The records aren't win-loss-tie, but rather win-loss-overtime/shootout loss. So 0-7-1 is actually 8 losses. Its weird but the NHL awards 2points for a win and 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss (this was done to eliminate ties). I added a note to the records about the NHL point system at their first mention (I know you asked about it later in the review). let me know if that will work.

• The first move was the acquisition of second year center Mark Letestu from the Pittsburgh Penguins Second year center? Does this mean he is in his second NHL season?

Yes that is what it means if it is confusing I can remove second year and just say center.

If you don't mind that would make it a bit easier. Or you could clarify it by adding "playing" or something similar somewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Before any of these rumors came to fruition the Blues asked Columbus for permission to hire Hitchcock. I had to read this twice, it seemed like they were asking permission from themselves to hire him. Maybe put St Louis in front of the Blues will help, but no biggie.

Added in St. Louis.

• The Blue Jackets agreed and St Louis proceeded to hire him. "and St Louis proceeded to hire him" seems a little redundant. In fact this whole sentence does a bit.

Hmmm, I'm not really sure what to do here. The sentence was added as clarification that Columbus allowed St. Louis to negotiate with someone under contract and that he was hired as opposed to negotiations breaking down or permission not being granted. I can remove it, but the way it is currently written never verifies that Hitchcock was hired away, I could change the way its written but the rumors were based on the fact that he was still under contract. Tried to make this less redundant, let me know how this works

• What is a Nash shot? Is it a shot from someone named Nash or some hockey slang? I am guessing the former. How about "a shot from Rick Nash"

Changed as suggested to clarify.

January/ February & March/April

• He added that action would be taken around the trade deadline, the Entry Draft, and free agency to indicate the new direction of the team. What does this mean?

Basically the team was going to be overhauled at the three most opportune times and that the philosophy for team building they started with in the off-season was again going to change.

• They proceeded to win their next game against the Phoenix Coyotes 5–2, which marked the first time that the Blue Jackets posted back-to-back regulation victories. Surely just this season

noted that it was for this season.

Other

• I was guessing the 29–46–7 meant win-loss-draw, but looking at the table that doesn't work. What is an Overtime loss? Why is it different than a normal loss?

I added a note that explains the NHL point system after the first mention of the record both in the lead an in the body.

• Could you have a short paragraph introducing the conferences and divisions. They finished last in both obviously, but it is confusing to have it just presented as a table for us non hockey players. Maybe also with the stats. What is a +5 rating mean? You seem to be missing a few stats if the legend is anything to go by.

I'll try to put something together soon for the division. Put together a couple of sentences, not sure how in-depth you were thinking.

Stats note was a template so I converted it into a standard note for what is listed, other stats aren't as common and would have resulted in a lot of additional 0s for most players. Fix the +5 rating wording it was just another way of saying plus-minus.

Put a slight into for the stats, not sure what you were looking for let me know if this works.

• The last section also confuses me. Why is it at the end and not under off season? Was it during the season?

Which section, the draft? The draft is kind of it's own animal while it happens in the off-season the overall specificity of the event is given it's own section and while parts of the off-season are shaped by the draft players taken in the draft can take years to develop if they ever do.

Yep the 2011 draft. It seemed strange to be talking about drafting at both the start and the end of the article. Personally I would have it as a subsection of the off season, but it is not really a GGA requirement and I am happy to pass this as it is if that is the standard way these articles are arranged. AIRcorn (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The Blue Jackets' record of 29–46–7 was the worst record in the NHL This is a little ambiguous. I think you mean for this season, but it could mean the worst ever or just the Blue Jackets worst ever.

Added in the seasons worst record, not sure it flows quite right. Could you read it over and share your thoughts?

Yeah thats much clearer. AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Consequently, they had the statistically best chance to receive the first overall selection in the 2012 NHL Entry Draft, they lost the lottery to the Edmonton Oilers and received the second pick. This sentence needs work. I know what it is trying to say from the rest of the article, but the lead should stand on its own. Would suggest either
  • "Consequently, they had the best chance to receive the first overall selection in the 2012 NHL Entry Draft lottery, but lost out to the Edmonton Oilers and received the second pick instead."
  • "Although they statistically had the best chance to receive the first overall selection in the 2012 NHL Entry Draft, they lost the lottery to the Edmonton Oilers and received the second pick."

Changed

• After an 11–25–5 start I was guessing win-loss-draw, but it should probably say so for us antipodeans.

added a note that explains the NHL records and brief point description.

• The poor season prompted several personnel changes including the trade of Jeff Carter, I feel this needs a bit more info about Jeff Carter. A position at least, but maybe there is an easy way to justify the fanfare (does he have any accolades).

Added that he is an all-star forward.

• I believe I have addressed all of the above questions. Please let me know what needs further changes in the article. Thanks again for the review. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Just let me run through the pictures and spot check a few of the sources and I think this will be good to go. Sorry about my slackness. AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   All issues dealt with

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Happy with the referencing and spot checks check

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Very detailed and does not stray from the season.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As neutral as a last placed team can be

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Nothing on the talk page except these two reviews. Edit history shows no edit wars

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All photos either flickr or uploaded by known wikipedians (except one I didn't recognise, but it looks like a good faith one).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: