Talk:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games/GA1

GA Review

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

Overall this is a well-written article, so I only have a few suggestions:

Per WP:DASH, wins/loses and scores should be written with endashes. 6-2 --> 6–2
- Done.
Prepositions shouldn't be at the end of a sentence. In the lead: winning seven of the nine tournaments they participated in. --> winning seven of the nine tournaments in which they participated.
- Fixed.
The event needed to be approved by the Nagano Winter Olympic Organizing Committee (NWOOC), which was initially reluctant to include the event because of the additional costs of staging the tournament. - source? or is this covered by the source a few sentences later?
- Yes, it is. Citation added.
The tables need some sort of general reference or something.
- All of the table information is covered by [1], I added it to the general refs section. Would you like me to add a note, like "all statistics are from [insert source]"?
  - I think it would make it clearer. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be on hold for seven days to allow for improvements. Nikki♥311 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have a couple of questions for you because I would like to take this to FAC eventually and I need some opinions:

What do you think of the formatting of the page? Would you like to see all of the prose bunched together in a history section, or even more sections? I almost added a "status of professional players" section, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
- I thought it was pretty easy to understand as it is. Other than the "status of professional players", what other sections were you considering? Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Rules" and "format" were two, but I think I've addressed that with the "men's" and "women's tournament" sections. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
- I don't know much about hockey, but I felt that I understood what the article was talking about. However, it might be good to discuss why the "Bergvall System" was adopted, and why they stopped using it. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Soviets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
- Canada is definitely mentioned more than any other country, but as you said, that's because they were the dominate team. When taking that into account, it is okay, but it definitely wouldn't hurt the article to add more info about the country's teams...if that sort of info is available. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
- Not in my opinion. That's part of the history of the sport and its participation in the Olympics. The backstory is needed for the article to make sense. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
- If available...yes. Because of its short history, though, I don't think the women's history can be expected to be too much longer. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions you have on the above questions would be more than welcome and extremely helpful. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only last comment is that in the first two tables, can it be made clearer that the numbers in the top row (20, 24, 28, etc) are dates? It took me a second to figure that out the first time I looked at them. Nikki♥311 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first one "1920", so it will seem a bit clearer (I would add a row above it, but that would screw up the sortability). Does that help? And I've added a bit about the "Bergvall System". -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That helps. Nikki♥311 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechoslovakia, Sweden and the United States were also powerhouses during this period." — powerhouses links to a disambiguation page. None of the items listed at that page are relevant to its usage here. You may want to link the word to wiktionary instead. Teemu08 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link removed. I was thinking of removing the word "powerhouse" as it seems a tad jargon-ish too me. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and pass the article because it meets the criteria, but I am going to keep this page on my watchlist for a couple of days if you want any more opinions on anything. Good luck at FAC! Nikki♥311 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]