Talk:Johnny Gaudreau/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: The Kip (talk · contribs) 06:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jordano53 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be conducting this review soon. Jordano⁵³ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Pre-review

Prior to an in-depth review, I will analyze the article for any criteria for immediate failure.

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
• Nah, this looks to be pretty close at least in all of them.
2. It contains copyright violations
• Earwig is satisfied and no plagiarism seen by the naked eye.
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags (See also {{QF}})
• None present, none needed.
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page
• Nope, page is stable!
5. It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article
• N/A.

Splendid! This article is not a quickfail.

Review

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   Some things I noticed:
   • "He played college ice hockey for the Division I Boston College Eagles for three seasons"
     • Would you be opposed to "He played Division I collegiate ice hockey for the Boston College Eagles" instead? I think that reads better.
   • "As a child, he played in the Penns Grove Little League"
     • Specify baseball, maybe also include Mike Shawaryn tidbit
   • "He attended Gloucester Catholic High School in Gloucester City, New Jersey, and later graduated from Dubuque Senior High School in Dubuque, Iowa."
     • Any reason for the move?
   • In the USHL section, could you include a couple notable statistics that put into perspective those accomplishments?
   • "Gaudreau was one of the shortest players taken at the draft."
     • The source says he was the shortest, along with Rocco. I would phrase it that way to be more specific.
   • "ACHA"
     • first instance of acronym, link to the association
   • "bowing out of the NCAA tournament", "Although the U.S. bowed out of the tournament in a quarter-final loss to the Czech Republic"
     • This more commonly implies voluntarily dropping, at least in my experience. I would recommend using "was defeated" or a related synonym.
   • How did Gaudreau perform in the 2019 IIHF World Championship? Even if he didn't play that much, I would still mention something beyond the fact that he was merely selected. Also, didn't he play in 2024?
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
   One thing:
   • "highlight-reel goal", "For his tremendous season,"
     • WP:PUFFERY-adjacent phrasing
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;
   All is well.
   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);
   Just a few things:
   • "controversial and unlikely write-in candidate enforcer John Scott."
     • The source really only shows the "unlikely" aspect of this and not the controversial. Either find another source or remove the "controversial" aspect.
   • "Gaudreau's Flames failed to live up to high expectations bestowed upon them"
     • The source doesn't do a good job in showing that expectations were high for the Flames. Would like to see a preseason review or a similar piece of content to better support that claim.
   • "Gaudreau missed the entirety of the Flames' training camp due to a contract dispute."
     • Not cited.
   3. it contains no original research; and
   No OR.
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
   No copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   Sure does! Standard outline for hockey bios.
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
   Doesn't delve into the irrelevant. Focused.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Neutral and encyclopedic.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Stable as can be.
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
   All info in Commons.
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
   Photos of Gaudreau make sense and are properly captioned.

In summary

Overall, a well-written article with a few issues. I believe these can be sorted out in a reasonable amount of time. Jordano⁵³ 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)