Wikipedia:Peer review/Ice hockey at the Olympic Games/archive1

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to eventually take this article to FAC and all input is welcome.

These are my main concerns with the article, so any thoughts, input or opinions anyone has on any of these are more than welcome.

1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([1]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
5. 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 Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? There really hasn't been anything major, José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments - First, I like the current formatting better, for the reason you gave above. This looks like a great read, and I look forward to reading the entire page. For now, I'll comment on a couple of your points, as well as some of my usual nitpicky things.

• The women's event does come off as an afterthought. Part of that is due to the lack of much history, but I'd still like to see more. I recommend aiming for one paragraph per competition; given that 2002 is covered in one sentence, that should be possible. Also, I think general readers would be interested in why it took so long for a women's hockey competition to be added to the Olympic program. I'm guessing IOC leaders thought it was too violent for women, but have no way of knowing for sure. This would provide a great deal of context for readers, in the same way that professionalism is explained here.
  • I'll see what I can do but I doubt there will be much. I've already scanned Newsbank and Proquest. I remember seeing a CBC article a while back that said that women's hockey was picking up before world war II, but kind of faded off after that and didn't become popular again for a while. I'll see if I can expand on that and relate it to the Games. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I actually think the drugs section could be cut back a little. There's more about banned substances than the actual rules. Maybe Pound's comments could be added somewhere, as that sounds interesting.
  • That section was added after I made my above comment. Do you mean the examples of caught players could be cut back or the section in general? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I lean more toward the former. It seems like a lot of details for the number of players who have actually been caught. Imagine how big a similar section on track and field would be if everyone who failed a test got three sentences each. Also, I saw "but had exempt NHL players in 1998", where "exempt" should be "exempted". Giants2008 (17-14) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I trimmed the section a little. I'm actually considering trying a table, but the problem with that is that one would expect it to include all issues, rather than just the notable occurances. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the rules section, what do you think about providing more information on how the rule differences affect the game? The rink size in particular is of great impact. You also might want to mention what rules European leagues use, or if they are the same as IIHF regulations.
  • A similar article I expanded, Ice Hockey World Championships#Game rules does have a more expanded explanation of how the rules affected things. Is there anything there that should be added here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That looks like good content, but most of what isn't in here is about the World Championships, not the Olympics. Is there anything on how the size of the rink affects the game, in comparison to the smaller NHL rink? Also, I see "narower"; is this a typo? This is also in the World Championships article. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I recently got a book that breaks down the rule changes from tournament to tournament. I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• In the lead, this is missing a word: "However, an agreement was reached and NHL players were allowed compete starting in 1998."
  • Done.
• Make the spaced em dashes unspaced or change them to en dashes.
  • I've given up on trying to figure out how to properly do dashes. It seems like once a week someone comes through and changes all of the dashes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Just change them all to hyphens and watch everybody's reaction :D Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Anyway, I fixed them. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
• "The Nagano Organizing Committee was initially reluctant to include the event because of the additional costs of staging the tournament, but an an agreement was reached...". One of the two "an"s needs to be dumped.
• "and the winning team is crowned World Champion." I thought the IIHF World Championship tournament was different. Are they going back to having the Olympics decide the world champion?

Hopefully these will help. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• • And the above two are done and done. Thanks for your comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• I am not enamoured with the NHL-centric paragraph in the lead. I think it can be broadened to a more general paragraph on pros in the olympics, wish a sentence noting that the Soviet Union's top players were argued to be amateurs in name only. That would feed well into Canada's withdrawl from international competition, and later the opening of the games to pros.
  • I've generally tried to avoid mentioning the questionable status of Soviet amateurs, because it could be mistaken as POV. But I'll see what I can do.

Inception as an Olympic sport

• I don't see the relevance of noting that the NHL was formed in 1917.
  • Why not? It proves the statement that organized hockey was new in 1920 and the NHL is discussed quite a bit later on.
    • It seems entirely random, and given the NHL had no involvement with the olympic movement until the 1990s, this seems like an utterly random statement. It also doesn't prove that organized hockey was new in 1920, since the NHL was hardly the first organized league.
• "The first World Championship that was held as an individual event in 1930." There is a word or two missing here
  • Fixed.
• "Following the 1921 Olympic Congress in Lausanne, the first Winter Olympics were held in 1924 in Chamonix, France, though they were only officially recognised by the IOC as such in the following year." This statement has me completely confused. First, the statement seems to say that a congress was held, and then later, a winter games were held. It feels like there should be a sentence stating that the creation of the winter games was agreed upon at that congress. Second, if there was an Olympic congress held in 1921, why wouldn't the IOC recognize the 1924 games until 1925? Was the congress not affiliated with the IOC?
  • The first Winter Olympic Games was endorsed by the IOC but were known as the "International Winter Sports Week." They only became known as the 1924 Winter Olympics after the finish of the games. I agree that it seems somewhat unnecessary, so I removed much of it.
• "although following the 1992 Winter Olympics further Winter Games have been held on the third year of each Olympiad." While I know what this means, a layperson would not. It would probably be better to state that until 1992, the winter games were held in the same year as the summer, however that was shifted by two years beginning in 1994.
  • Fixed.

Back with more later, Resolute 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1920 Summer Olympics

• "Using the "Bergvall System",[13] the tournament started with an elimination round to determine the gold medal winner.[13]" - Already stated above how the tournament worked. This sentence is redundant.
  • Fixed.

1924-1948

• "Britain became the first non-Canadian team to win gold, with Germany taking bronze" I presume Canada won silver?
  • Yes. I didn't mention it previously because I was trying to cut back on casual mentions of Canada.

1956-1976

• I know you had concerns about the POV of the status of Soviet players, however given Canada's accusations were closely tied to their withdrawal from competition, it would make sense to state that this accusation was a major reason for Canada removing itself from competition, imo.
  • There is more about that in the "status of professional players" section.

1984-1994

• "Prior to the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia the Soviet Union won their sixth gold medal." - huh? How did they win a gold prior to the games?
  • I can explain that, there used to be a few sentences about another professional player dispute. I moved that portion to the relevant section, and I forgot to fix that bit. Fixed.

1998–2006

The NHL era

• I don't like the usage of a subtitle here since no other historical section uses them, I would just title the section 1998-2006
  • Then you have a problem because you would have two sections with the exact same title.

Women's tournament

• "In November 1992, the NWOOC and IOC Coordination Committee reached an agreement to include a women's ice hockey tournament in the program in 1998." Mixed spelling usage. The rest of the article uses the British "programme", where North American "program" is used here. It is the only case of mixed usage I have seen thus far, but you may wish to go through the article to ensure that it uses one dialect (probably EN-UK) exclisively.
  • Fixed.

Overall, an excellent article. Good luck at FAC! Resolute 05:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, do you have any comments about the "Rules" section? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • What makes http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/ a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)