Talk:1985–86 Calgary Flames season

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

1985–86 Calgary Flames season has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 31, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1985–86 Calgary Flames season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had to wait so long for a review. The article is quite good, some finer points to pick out.

You'll probably be told at WP:FAC, should you go there (I always do GA reviews with the thought that the nominator has eventual FA in mind, even if they don't) that back-to-back wikilinks should be avoided. I don't love them, personally. Constructions like "sixth season" and "1985–86 Calgary Flames" make it look like sixth season and 1985–86 Calgary Flames are the linked terms. There are several of these constructions in the article. "1985–86 Calgary Flames" probably isn't so bad, because if it linked to anything it'd be this article, but someone could click on either "sixth" or "season" and not really know what they're going to. In fact, I'd recommend 86'ing the link to Calgary Flames seasons altogether here, as it's rightfully present in a navbox on the bottom of the page.

Not planning an FAC, but always appreciate tougher reviews - makes for better articles. Anyway, I killed both links in the lead - the first on your suggestion, and the second because "season" is a low value link in this context. The latter example is controlled by the infobox syntax, so won't change that unilaterally. Checked and changed other examples of this.

The word "points" is used several times in a way that's not obvious to someone with only a limited knowledge of hockey or, lest we forget, sports altogether. Neither refers to points on a scoreboard, the most obvious meaning of the term. Appropriate wikilinks at "Though he scored 99 points the season before," and "The Flames ended the season in second place in the Smythe Division, sixth overall in the NHL, with 89 points" would be very helpful, as they are the first instances of the term.

Linked to Point (ice hockey) on first use, which describes the term's usage in both contexts.

Avoid anthropomorphic phrases like "The playoff run saw the Flames upset the heavily favoured Edmonton Oilers." A playoff run cannot "see" anything, it does not have eyes. Also present in "General Manager Cliff Fletcher completed a six-player trade with the St. Louis Blues that saw the Flames add Joe Mullen" and "The Campbell Conference Final against the St. Louis Blues was also a back and forth affair that saw the Flames take a 3–2 series lead."

Fixed

"some players anticipated that 1985–86 would be a transitional year for the Flames" Any specific players make statements? Specifics are always better than a weasely "some."

The article indicates it was a general sentiment, but as Doug Risebrough was quoted directly, I've changed it to reflect his opinions.

"It ended with an 8–3 victory for the Flames but not before a bench-clearing brawl resulted in the ejection of five players" Comma after Flames

Fixed

"After the Hartford Whalers obliterated the Flames 9–1" Ditch the informal "obliterated" in favor of something like "handily defeated."

Informal or not, that is the best word for a result like that. That said, changed per your suggestion.

"a player who had scored 40+ goals each of his previous two seasons." Why not just "over 40?" "40+" seems laughably informal and inexact.

Because one year was 40 exactly. Reworded.

"As Smith collapsed to the ice in shock, the Flames celebrated the goal that was ultimately credited to Perry Berezan." The video in the external links says the goal was credited to Lanny McDonald. Was the initial ruling changed? If so, that's probably too trivial to include in this article, but I'd include it in Berezan's and McDonald's (I looked to those for some clarification, but didn't find it).

It was changed. McDonald was the closest Flame to the puck when Smith put it into his net, so was announced in the arena as the scorer. League rules say the last player to touch the puck gets credit, and Berezan is officially credited as the scorer of that goal.

"Already missing three key players in Carey Wilson, Colin Patterson and Nick Fotiu, the Flames lost their top scorer in Joe Mullen" Wait, what? If this was explained, how these players were "missing," then I missed it.

"*Guess I kind of forgot "...due to injury" Fixed, and clarified how Mullen went out.

"Montreal stormed out to a 4–1 lead in the fifth game, at Calgary, before the Flames made a valliant comeback attempt" NPOV, please. Also I'm pretty sure "valliant" isn't a proper spelling in any flavor of English.

Heh, fixed.

"Montreal celebrated the 23rd Stanley Cup championship in their franchise history as the fans loudly chanted "thank you Flames, thank you Flames" in appreciation of their team's efforts." Doesn't show up in my copy-n-paste, but why is the quote in italics in the text?

No reason, I suppose. Fixed

"The Flames then embarrassed the Oilers 9–3 in their final regular season meeting, a game that ended with another brawl and accusations by both teams that the other was sending their "goons" out after talented players." POV again with "embarrassed," and surely a link to Enforcer (ice hockey) would be better than "goons" in quotes like that. I'd recommend putting it in even if "goons" is to stay (but lose the quotes).

Goons is the right term here, but duly linked.

What's the context for the entire third paragraph under the "Battle of Alberta" heading? Did I miss a description of a major brawl?

poor word choice on my point. "battle" in that context was meant to refer to the rivalry in general. Changed to rivalry.

No, I'm aware that the "Battle of Alberta" is not some kind of military conflict, but why did Bearcat Murray's son Al need 'rescuing?' The text refers to an escalating fray, and Murray getting wheeled off in an ambulance...what was the major brouhaha? Just Suter losing his stick? That seems...odd...that that would end up in violence. Also don't link Gary Suter twice within the same paragraph like that. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded. Hopefully that helps. And yeah, as odd as it seems, the intensity of the Calgary-Edmonton rivalry, which is well over 100 years old now, has seen some pretty innocent seeming things touch off major incidents. Here's another memorable incident with the Edmonton crowd: [1]. Reso lute 13:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the little bio of Gary Suter under "Awards and honours" really necessary?

I think it lends context into how unlikely Suter's Rookie of the Year award was. 9th round picks never win, much less 9th rounders who were passed over two years previous.

GA review (see here for criteria)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Good enough. Some nitpicks above.

B. MOS compliance: I'm going to check about that back-to-back wikilink thing. I think there may be guidelines against it.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research: I'd still like some clarification given the two instances of "some players."
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: A few spots need to be NPOV'd.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions and alternative text: No images are present in the article
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Just about there. A few bolts to tighten. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, thanks! Reso lute 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. You're cleared for takeoff. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate, thanks! Reso lute 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1985–86 Calgary Flames season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]