Talk:Frank Patrick (ice hockey)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Patrick (ice hockey)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this one for a while. I take a look shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources

2. Verifiable with no original research:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
3. it contains no original research; and
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

2a. Easy win; the article has short and long references in appropriately titled sections. Some non-GA recommendations below:

• Ref #93: "Whitehead 1980, p. 226–227" should have "pp" instead of "p".
• Bibliography, "Norton, Wayne (2009)"and "Zweig, Eric (2015)": Most of the book sources include the publisher location, but these two don't.

2b. All references appear to be to good, reliable sources.

2c. Mostly fine, but one minor query below.

2d. All good, no concerns.

• Most of the sources used are offline, but I carried out spotchecks on those online sources I could access:
• Article: "Patrick, along with his brother Lester, is credited with helping shape modern hockey. His Hockey Hall of Fame biography notes that he is "credited with 22 changes that remain in the NHL rulebook". Sourced to ref #99 "Frank Patrick Biography". In the source we see "Brothers Frank and Lester Patrick ... shaping the modern game", which I'm happy is just about different enough to avoid any close para-phrasing concerns, and the quoted section is present. All good.
• Article: "The following year the ECHA was replaced by a new top-level league, the National Hockey Association (NHA), which was openly professional." Sourced to ref #18 "McKinley 2000, p. 73". In the source, I see "On December 2, 1909, ... to form the National Hockey Association". I don't see a clear indication that this replaced the ECHA, nor that it was openly professional (The closest I see is "Ambrose's millionaire father, Michael, shouldered financial responsibility for all franchises save the Wanderers".)

I reworded that to be more clear.

• Article: "The National Hockey League (NHL) was formed in November 1917 to replace the NHA as the top league in Central Canada." Sourced to ref #66 "McKinley 2000, pp. 97–98". This checks out in the source, with no concerns of close para-phrasing. All good.

Images

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

6a. A few issues below:

• File:Renfrew.jpg – no indication of when this image was first published. The blog it was published on was from 2010, so based on that date of publication (which clearly isn't the earliest, but in the absence of any other evidence is all we have) it wouldn't be eligible for US-PD. Also, as the image was presumably taken in Canada, it should have a Canadian tag too.

I swapped that out with an image we have clearer copyright status on.

• File:Leter Patrick C57 Card.png – this needs a Canadian tag, as from what I can see it was first made available in Canada.
• File:Denman arena 1913.jpg – The VPL page for this gives the photographer as "Stuart Thomson", which should be added to the description page. If you can link to the VPL page that would be great. (This might work?

6b. A nice selection of images which are relevant to the article and well captioned.

I'll continue with a full prose review soon. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Prose

1. Well-written:

1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• 1a. Generally well written; specific points below.
• "..who also served as president of the league, would take control of the.." and "It was in the PCHA that Patrick would introduce many innovations.." It might just be a "me" thing, but I dislike this construction, particularly in the first instance, where we switch tenses. I'd prefer "..who also served as president of the league, took control of the.." and "It was in the PCHA that Patrick introduced many innovations.."
• "..Patrick began playing hockey there with his brother Lester. He began playing in.." The close repetition of "began playing" is slightly jarring.
• "..proceeds to establish the PCHA, establishing teams in Vancouver, Victoria, and New Westminster. The league soon established itself.." And close repetition of establish/establishing/established.
• "..and later renamed the Western Hockey League.." Feels like this is missing "was" before "later".
• "schoolmarm" It might be an ENGVAR thing, but I question whether this is an encyclopaedic term? It feels like a colloquialism.

This was the term used by the source, and I'm hesitant to adjust as a result. I added a link to Wiktionary for the term though which I think should help.

• "..had been allowed in the ECAHA at that time.." The "ECAHA" acronym has been used with explanation. What is it?
• "..the ECHA was.." Same as above.
• "..were over anyways." Change "anyways" to "anyway", which is more appropriate for formal writing.
• "In a separate transaction Patrick also sold a private interest he had, earning a further $35,000." It is unclear which member of the Patrick family this refers to.
• Establish the "PCHA" acronym on the first use of "Pacific Coast Hockey Association".
• "The signing of Taylor to the PCA.." Is this a typo?
• "..netting the WHL owners a total of $267,000." It seems odd we've been given details of $217,000 of this, but not the rest.
• "..and a major penalty for.." Wikilink "major penalty"?
• "..to take over for Calder as president of the league.." This should be "from", not "for".
• "That off-season Ross, who.." The last "Ross" mentioned was the historian, so you should probably include his first name here.
• "However the two did not work well, .." I think this would read better if you added "together" after "well".
• "There was also allegations that.." This should be "were", not "was".
• "..Patrick's daughter Francis instead thought he may.." This should be "that", not "thought".
• "After the WHL disbanded in 1926, Patrick spent the next two.." Because the last time-frame we read about was the 1930s, I think this would read better as "After the WHL disbanded in 1926, Patrick had spent two.."
• "..to stop a puck anyway they wanted.." This should be "any way" not "anyway".
• Wikilink "Canadian Car and Foundry".
• 1b. No relevant MOS issues.

3. Broad in its coverage:

1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• 3a. No concerns.
• 3b. No concerns.
• 4. No concerns.
• 5. No concerns.

Nice work, I'll stick this on hold to give you time to work on the fixes, but there's nothing major. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 17:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I should have everything taken care of by the weekend, but if I need more time I'll be sure to note it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

An update: most concerns addressed, just need to check a few things before I finish. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Everything should be good now. I added a few notes above about specific things, but otherwise everything should be straightforward. If you have any other comments or queries please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The changes all look great, happy to pass this, good work. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.