The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:07, 22 June 2008 [1].

Eric Brewer (ice hockey)[edit]

I've been working on this article on and off for quite a while now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dates like "13 September 2002", etc. in the references
  • Unlink years like "in 2003 for" per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • "defense" → "defence" for Canadian spelling; ensure all spelling is Canadian

Gary King (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Blackngold29 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance, during the 2004–05 NHL lockout,
  • There were a few peacock terms "a respectable mark", "had an impressive playoffs". They should be eliminated.
Overall, good job with the article. Blackngold29 05:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good to me. Blackngold29 06:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

P.S. What happened at the end of his career that he did not suit up for three years? What is the state of his career now? I am not quite clear. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment - Since the article is being worked on as I type this, I won't provide a full review yet. I do want to point out one early concern of mine. None of the newspaper citations have page numbers for verification purposes. Is it possible to add these? Giants2008 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, I removed the IMDb ref on his name, since that's not a reliable source. Plus one's name doesn't need sourcing. Wizardman 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

< Content moved to talk page> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote
"*For the win-loss record, that's not a range, so I'm fairly sure it should just be a hyphen, not an en dash.
No, win-loss record requires an en dash. 7–9 not 7-9. See WP:DASH. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify for all of us. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As correctly stated by Nishkid, scores require endashes. They do not require html endashes; the hard-coded endashes that this article used were fine. It is not necessary to change a direct endash to an html endash. Further discussion on the talk page please, or please see WP:DASH or Dash to understand an html endash in relation to other completely acceptable ways of entering an endash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link is not helpful for those of us who do not know html as it does not discuss the difference between "html" endashes and others. It just discusses when dashes in general are used. Perhaps you can recommend some more explanatory links. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance, I believe the hyphens and endashes are correct now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not happy with what I've seen so far. There are some other rough patches in the first few sections, but these should get you started. Please attempt to procure the services of a quality copy-editor, who can help smooth out the entire text. Giants2008 (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—much improved 1a. I find too many glitches at the top for this to be considered "professional"-standard prose. Can you get someone new to copy-edit it carefully throughout? New is important, so they're relatively distant from the writing/editing of this text.

Then in the first section:

And lots more. TONY (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I am working on a large copy-edit of the article and will also look into finding a "new" copy editor. – Nurmsook! (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently looking over the article. I'm a bit busy in real life though, at the moment, but I hope to be done with the copyedit in a few days, at most. Thank you for your patience, Maxim(talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

giggy (:O) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to the top three points, I usually save the lede for last... ;-) Maxim(talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maxim(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, giggy (:O) 01:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I do not know anything about hockey, but I was able to figure out, to a decent degree, how good this player was without too much trouble. I did not have to do too much clicking and I did not have to painstakingly reread the article. The statistics were clear and many of them were compared to some sort of benchmark, so it was clear even to someone like me what they meant - thank you! I have just a couple of quibbles:

  • Brewer has six points; Oilers lost 4–2; thus, Brewer has a point-per-game. That's the intended meaning. If you can make a bit less clumsy, I'd highly appreciate that. :-)
  • I must be really dense today, because I still don't understand! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how more simply that can be explained... OK, let's try again. ;-) Brewer and his Oilers are in a best-of-seven playoff series against the Stars. The series lasts six games; Stars win four, Oilers win two. Thus, the Oilers lose the series 4–2. During that six-game series (4+2=6), Brewer has six points. Thus, Brewer has a point-per-game average; on average, he had one point per game (6÷6=1). Clearer now? :D Maxim(talk) 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think "a one point-per-game average" or "a point-per-game average of one" would be clearer? The lack of the "one" was what was throwing me. I thought I was missing something. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made "one point-per-game average". Is that better? Maxim(talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • There are still quite a few uses of the word "top" throughout the article. Could we reduce those? Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am relying on the source assessment above that indicates all of these sources are reliable (thanks for that!) and I checked the images which seem to be licensed under a CC license from flickr, so everything looks to be in order! Nicely done! Awadewit (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maxim(talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You finish copy-editing, I come back for another review. Simple system, isn't it? Here goes.

I asked for a quality copy-editor, and Maxim is probably the best hockey writer we have. The page is much better and with these fixes it will be well on its way. Giants2008 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt on that one, what a help Maxim has been to this article. I've also just addressed all of the concerns you listed here except for the injury. I've looked up and down but can't seem to find straight proof of the exact injury. I would assume it was a spained knee (such as his injury with Lowell), but obviously this does not meet WP:V. And as a heads up for anyone in general, the numerical system I'm using in this article (or have been trying to use) is to spell out any one-word number (ie: 1-20, 30, 40, etc.) If I simply put in numbers I think this article would look terrible as it largely includes stats, and my method seems to be fine per WP:MOSNUM, although let me know if this is a problem. – Nurmsook! (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much-improved since it first came here. A little work by a fresh editor can make all the difference sometimes, and I think this is a textbook example. Giants2008 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More