Jump to content

Talk:Ottawa Senators (original)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Debatable

As of October 16, 2007, the main article here for Ottawa Senators (original) has a section with the word "Debatable?" in its section title, which discusses the 1906 and 1910 Stanley Cups and states that the Senators and Wanderers tied for the 1906 CAHL regular season championship. I believe it ought to be changed to read ECAHA regular season championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.48.39 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. I've fixed that up. Alaney2k 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How old is the Ottawa team?

According to this site [1], the Ottawa team has been around since 1884. Is this accurate or is this site lumping different teams together? The site says: "The Generals were restructured as the Ottawa Senators in 1902". Masterhatch 03:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While the site has some facts wrong (Lord Stanley returned to Britain for good in July 1893, and the term 'Generals' nowhere appears), I've double-checked sources and they're right: the team has proven continuity back to 1893 and the founding of the AHA. Ravenswing 06:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Ottawa Senators go back to 1884. That was the year the club was created. From 1884-1902 they were simply the nameless OTTAWA HOCKEY CLUB. From 1903-1934 They were the OTTAWA SENATORS HOCKEY CLUB. It's the same organization. Giantdevilfish 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been researching the Sens for quite a while, this is what I gathered for their history

  • 1884-1885 MONTREAL WINTER CARNIVAL
  • 1886 DOMINION CHAMPIONSHIP
  • 1887/1889 AHAC (inactive in 1888)
  • 1890-1894 AHAC and OHA (possibly played in the Ottawa City Hockey League in 1891)
  • 1895-1898 AHAC
  • 1899-1904 CAHL
  • 1905 FAHL
  • 1906-1907/08 ECAHA
  • 1908/09 ECHA
  • 1909/10 CHA then NHA
  • 1910/11-1916/17 NHA
  • Joined NHL in 1917/18Giantdevilfish 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do recall reading about the Ottawa team in the AHAC however I dont know any evidence whhich suggests the teams playing in 1884-1885, 86 or so are really the same team. Theres no document which specifically links those teams as the same. Further the shoulder patch on the senators jersey recongnizes the founding in 1894. To be honest I dont think 1884 is the correct founding year. I do know it is likely that it is the same team after 1889 based on dan diamonds total hockey edition 2 book. providing his research was done correctly, since the same players in that book can be linked to the ottawa club after 1893. I think for clarity where there is no doubt and supporting evidence shows the date should stay at 1894. Which provides consistancy with the modern day Senators jersey shoulder patch (MDCCCXCIV 1894)

It is the same team. I was working with an Ottawa historian named Douglas McLeod who was doing research via newspapers on microfilm on the history of the Ottawa HC. He followed the trail of that team from its inception, year by year up, until around 1900. It was the same players that carried over on a year by year basis, and the papers themselves never refer to the Ottawa team disbanding and a new one taking their place. It seems to be the same club going year to year with for the most part the same rosters. I used to run a website called The Hockey Sweater Museum and I was asking him if he came across any descriptions of their uniforms, and he supplied me with the info about the history of the team as he researched the papers as far back as 1882. I doubt that Dan Diamond researched the newspapers of the various cities to confirm how far back the clubs go. He only starts at 1893 because that was the year the AHAC began to keep records. But the league itself goes back to 1887. The Ottawa HC were created in 1883 after the success of the first Montreal Winter Carnival's ice hockey torunament and first began play in 1884 at the Carnival's next hockey tournament. When the tournament was cancelled after 1885, they (along with the other clubs Quebec, Montreal AAA, Montreal McGills, Victorias etc) created their own tournament called The Dominion Championship. The following year the clubs created the AHAC. The Ottawa Club that helped founded the AHAC (who was the same club from 1894) were in play long before then. The team in 1894 (who challenged for the Cup) was the same club (with the same players) from 1893. There is no way the Ottawa team from 1894 and 1893 were different organizations, since they had the same uniforms and had the same roster. I think the whole 1894 date on the patch of the current Senators is either a) to honour the fact that that was the first year that the "senators" name was ever used. At the time the "Capitals" or "Ottawas" was used to describe the team, or b) just innacurate. Just like the fact that the Toronto Maple Leafs and the NHL refer to the 1917/18 Toronto team as the Arenas when at the time the club was still called the Blue Shirts and didn't get the Arenas nickname until the start of the 1918/19 season.

Heck if you go the Ottawa Senators website and click on their history section, they have the club originating in 1901(!).Giantdevilfish 18:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that relying on a NHL team's marketing department or webmaster for accurate historical information is somewhere to the left of farcical.  Ravenswing  18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So in terms of this is the team 1882 now and not 1884?....I still think if these are the claims some published complimation needs to accuratly say this. Dan Diamonds book did look at historical newspapers i believe from 1887-1892 to look at the AHAC which would be a published document, but says nothing to truly link the ottawa clubs as the same. For that matter people can argue the Detroit Redwings are in fact founded before as the Victoria cougars because their players were the same, but we know it was just the players that were purchased not the franchise. My point is there needs to be a published source where this linkage can be made, and for the time being the only thing i can say is 1894, which is known to be wrong because the 1893 team is clearly the same team, and that its a patch thats saying it, heck the ottawa senators today even claim the 1906 stanley cup as a championship year even though the lost to the wanderers that year, yet a banner still hangs in the scotia center. It would be nice though to think that the ottawa club existed for more than 50 years before it was disbanded.....

No. I said the Ottawa historian who was researching this team started reading the papers from 1882 onwards (actually if I recall he started in 1894 than went backwards to 1882). The team was created in 1883 after the success of the Montreal Winter Carnival's ice hockey tournament. They first played in 1884 at the second annual tournament. The club carried the same players year after year with the same uniforms. Its the same club. The Ottawa HC started off as independant in the 1880's, eventually joined up with the O.A.A.C (even adopting their logo which kinda looked like a running sun) in the early 1890's. In the late 1890's they broke away from the O.A.A.C and became independant again (replacing the O.A.A.C logo with a simple "O"). But this was the same organization year in and year out.

As for a published source I can't think of any books off-hand that chronicle the complete history of the Sens, but the newspapers on micro-film clearly show that this team was around in 1884 and evolved into the Senators at the turn of the century. There is a paper trail that follows this team year by year. This is how I obtained the info in my earlier post chroncling what leagues they played in from 1884-1934. I can't put faith in the modern Senators because (as you said) they claim the team was founded in 1894 (when that's not the case) and even thier website contridicts that with them starting in 1901.

BTW not to sound anal but you should really sign your posts. You see this symbol here ~

Just hit that 4 times after you finished writing.Giantdevilfish 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks actually new to this, that helps(the 4~). As a side interest id kinda like to read up on the carnival and other information directly on the microfilm, would you happen to know some specific dates to narrow the search? thanks very much Jgale061 03:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Here's some info

  • The Montreal Winter Carnival: Montreal, Québec, Canada. A week long promotional event held for seven consecutive years starting in 1883, in which a hockey tournament was contested in each of the first three carnivals. Three teams were involved in the first tournament - Montreal Victorias, McGill University (AKA The Montreal Mcgills) and The Québec City HC (who would eventually become the Bulldogs). -Québec City won the round robin event. McGills won the title
  • In the 1884 competition there were five teams - Montreal Wanderers (no relation to the latter team that played in the NHL), Montreal Victorias, McGill University, Montreal Crystals and Ottawa HC - Ottawa won the round robin event. Victorias won the title.
  • Six teams played in 1885 when the event was held at the indoor Crystal Rink -Montreal AAA, Montreal Football Club, Montreal Victorias, McGill University, Montreal Crystals and Ottawa HC - Montreal AAA won the round robin event.

The 1883 tournament advertised it as "the novel new game of ice hockey". This was basically the first time hockey got some major exposure to the masses. Despite its popularity, the tournaments were cancelled after 1885. This is why all those teams did thier own tournament in 1886 called The Dominion Championship. The following year the clubs put together the first hockey league in Canada, the AHAC.

As for dates, the Carnivals were held in early Feburary of the respective years. Feb 1884, Feb 1885 etc.

You might find this link very fascinating. http://www.classicauctions.net/cgi-bin/site/viewlot.cgi?lotnumber=573#1

Giantdevilfish 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That link is interesting. I wonder who bought it?

Possibly, it would be best to split this article, and have an Ottawa Hockey Club (1884-1902) and have the Senators focus on the 1902 to 1927 period. This might be best because the play was in various leagues, etc. for that period. While there was indisputably an Ottawa connection back in 1884 and 1886 with the AHAC, continuous play after that time period until 1893 seems difficult to prove.

PS Are my additions to this article on this topic okay? Thanks for putting in 'Official founding' someone, but as I suggested it might be best to start the Senators in 1902 and have an Ottawa Hockey Club for the years prior.? Alaney2k 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ottawasenatorsoldl.gif

Image:Ottawasenatorsoldl.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of Stanley Cups?

The current team claims that the original Senators won 11 Stanley Cups [2]. Is this controversial? Should there be a mention of the discrepancy? --Chancemichaels 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The discrepancy comes in two directions; first, that the way the Cup was awarded in challenge cup days doesn't fit neatly into our one-Cup-a-year modern day paradigm, and second, that the Senators management (as is the case elsewhere in the NHL) is neither stocked with nor reflects the viewpoints of hockey historians.  Ravenswing  20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not controversial. That is the 'NHL count' nowadays. The HHOF counts ten. In the years of 1906 and 1910, the Sens won challenges. The 1906 one is recognized by the HHOF, but not the 1910. The NHL recognizes both. I would argue that eleven is the correct count, because the wins came in eleven seasons of play, but that's my point of view. Alaney2k 18:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought the 11 cups was pretty accurate. I understand that they lost it midway through 1906 to the Montreal Wanderers, but they did successfully defend it earlier that calender year against Queen's University, and the Smith Falls Fusiliers. So shouldn't that count as a Stanley Cup victory since it was successfully defended?

And while they did give the cup up fairly early in 1910 to the new NHA (the plan was to have the NHA champions upon season's end get awarded the Stanley Cup. In this case it was the Montreal Wanderers), they did successfully defend it early that calender year against the Edmonton Pros (the original Edmonton Eskimos) and the Galt Professionals. So since it was successfully defended in 1910 shouldn't that be considered a Stanley Cup victory?Giantdevilfish 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Its completely understandable that their is confusion as to how many stanley cups the team should have. Its arguable, yes they defended the champioship, but by seasons end according to the stanley cup trustees rules,lost the stanley cup. Winning the stanley cup at the time didnt just mean defending the challenges but winning your respected league title as well. But that being said its arguable, there will always be two positions to this, and the article needs to reflect this, further, Kudos points must be given to Alaney2k for his extensive work on this article, its fascinating to see how its grown the last 6 months and since they made it to the final. But I would ask even though the article reflects this confusiion we need a seperate section in dealing with this debate on how many stanley cups were won. first it was 8, then 10, then 11, next thing you know it will be 12. Or one for each challenge that was won. Jgale061 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I understand it is that the HHOF doesn't count a defend as winning. That you only won it if you didn't already have it. But thats just what someone explained to me once so I have no references or anything. --Djsasso 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's as straightforward as that. I don't know of a published source for their determinations. There is no official count from the trustees. The only way that I have come up with that is indisputable (I think) is to say "The Sens won it outright nine times and won challenges in two other seasons." It's only two years in dispute, I don't know how people could come up with 8, which would deny one of the outright wins. Anything beyond eleven can't be defended either, I think. Alaney2k 20:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just because the current team only claims 11 Stanley Cups, doesn't mean the rest of the cups they won should be omitted from the article. They are a 19 times Stanley Cup champions. Why wouldn't you want to claim that? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I just took a quick look at the page and if I were to review the article, I would likely fail it due to a huge lack of citations. Entire sections have no sources whatsoever, so the sourcing will have to be improved if this page is ever going to become a GA. -- Scorpion0422 19:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you be specific on what you think is needed/required for proper citations? Or do you have a link as to a clear guideline on that? Alaney2k (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:V are the two big ones. The amount of citations needed depends on the reviewer, but I believe that every statement should have some kind of verification (if you use a book, then you should include the specific page). But since this is only a GAC and not an FAC, it should be adequate if you make sure every section has at least one citation. However, you should make sure you specially have a citation for the potentially controversial and questionable statements so that this information can be easily verified.
Some stuff I found from a quick look through:
"The Senators won the Stanley Cup four times in the NHL, three against western league teams. Up until the win in 1926-27, against the Boston Bruins, they had won more championships, more games, and had more Hall of Famers than any team to date in organized hockey."
"The Stanley Cup Final between Montreal would be left undecided as an influenza outbreak killed Joe Hall of the Canadiens."
"Despite winning the Stanley Cup, the Senators were already in financial trouble. They sold their star right wing Hooley Smith to the Montreal Maroons for $22,500 and the return of former star Punch Broadbent."
"The last active player of the (1917-1934) Senators was William Hollett, who played his last NHL playoff game in 1946. Teammate Syd Howe also played for Ottawa, but didn't play in the 1946 playoffs."
"The Auditorium was the site of Morenz's first NHL goal."
Another issue I found is "Notable players of this time period included Percy LeSueur in goal, Marty Walsh, Bruce Stuart and Dubby Kerr." Basically, if a player is really notable for their team, they should be mentioned in the paragraph, you should not have to go out of your way to link to them. As well, there is a free image of Frank Nighbor with the Hart Trophy, it could be used on this page. -- Scorpion0422 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. This is useful stuff. I know of sources for all of the above examples. I'm not sure about this idea of one cite per statement. You don't do that for thesis papers. Alaney2k (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review - February 2008

This artile needs quite a lot of work.

  • In the notes section, you don't have to create a tag lie "[Robinson]" in teh book list and then use that as a tag throughout the shortform notes. Simply remove the tag IDs and then put "Simpson, p. 63." and so forth. For MacGregor, just use "MacGregor (1993), p. 1." or "MacGregor (1996), p. 2." to disambiguate.
  • The Finnigan book - the page numbers need to be given rather than simply citing the book at large
  • Page formatting needs to be consistent, p. and pp. for single and multiple pages respectively
  • why does it refer to some players as "Mr." This should not be used, simply use their surname on these cases
  • Some sections are still unreferenced and need referencing. The article is strong underreferenced
  • The article does not seem broad enough in that the article is almost entirely based on the on field aspects of the clubs, whereas little administration, uniform, fan following is included in teh article
  • Please use ndashes in the fields for the years and the score margins
  • It is against the MOS to have such deep level headings, such as level five and headers like "Champions in in 1906 and 1910? Debatable" and "first dynasty" introduce POV into the article
  • Single line paragraphs need to merged and integrated.
  • The "see the article..." tags should be moved to the fonrt of the section.
  • In the list of SC appearances, past tense should be used to recollect a histroical event.
  • Some discussion of the strenghts and weaknesses and the playing style would be good.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ottawa Senators (original)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article has been waiting a long time for a review, so I'll give it a shot. With that said, it's pretty long, so I'll review a section or two at a time. Please feel free to respond to my comments and/or address them by editing the article at any time. You don't need to wait until I'm finished reviewing the whole thing. When I finish reviewing the last section, I will place the nomination on hold to allow for everything to be addressed and/or discussed. The normal hold time is seven days, but I can be flexible as long as progress is being made. And so, without further ado, the beginning of the review...

Lead

  1. an amateur, later professional, senior men's ice hockey team" - the phrasing of "amateur, later professional" is awkward, and only hockey fans would understand what is mean by "senior men's".
  2. "The Club had several..." - capitalizing "club" seems unnecessary, and it is inconsistent with later in the article.
  3. The list of nicknames implies that there were several years in between with no nickname. Is that the case?
  4. "Generally acknowledged by hockey historians as one of the greatest teams..." - this might be a case of weasel words. I'll come back to this later after reading more of the article. The sentence also seems to have two distinct thoughts and might be better split in two (at any rate, the punctuation needs to be changed or a word needs to be added, as it currently reads as two sentences joined with a comma).
  5. "Ottawa HC" - can this be included in the parentheses in the first sentence: "(officially the Ottawa Hockey Club, or Ottawa HC)" or explained in the second mention: "during the period of 1903 to 1927, the Ottawa Hockey Club (Ottawa HC) played in..."?
  6. It seems strange to contrast the Hall of Fame recognizing them as 11-time champions with the NHL recognizing them as 11-time champions. Perhaps this will become clear as I read through the article.
  7. The lead is quite short for an article of this length. According to Wikipedia:Lead section#Length, three or four paragraphs is recommended.

Early amateur era (1883–1902)

  1. "Nelson Porter is recorded as the scorer of the club's first goal, at the 1884 Carnival" - first goal in the team's history or first goal at the carnival? If it's the first at the carnival, no comma is needed.

Formation of the AHAC

  1. Is the end of the first paragraph covered by the reference in the next paragraph? I generally like to have references at least at the end of each paragraph.
  2. Is there any record of how the club did in the 1887 challenge?

OHA Championships

  1. "...P. D. Ross, would be a trustee..." - could we say "...P. D. Ross, became a trustee..." to avoid the conditional verb tense?
  2. Again, is the information at the end of the first paragraph covered by the citation in the next paragraph?

Silver Seven era (1903–1906)

  1. There are a couple of point of view issues in the first paragaph: the "possibly the most famous" (unless a source can be cited), and the "shellacking".
  2. Is the information at the end of the first paragraph covered by a source?

Style of play

  1. It sounds strange to refer to the team as "the Ottawas". Unless they are referred to that way in your sources, perhaps just "Ottawa" would work better.

Dawson City challenge

  1. "perhaps the most famous Stanley Cup challenge of all" - this is a point of view statement
  2. "catch a steamer to Vancouver" - Vancouver, British Columbia or Vancouver, Washington? A wikilink would help.
  3. "The first game started well for Dawson, being only down 3–1 at the half, but things turned ugly afterwards." - this is point of view in both "started well" and "turned ugly"

Stanley Cup Challenge win streak

  1. Some prose to briefly introduce this section would help.
  2. Are references available for the two paragraphs in this section? For the second paragraph, only the information about Jim McGee really needs a citation.

Transition to professional

  1. "cracked his stick across Ernie Johnson's nose, breaking it" - it should be more clear that "it" refers to Johnson's nose (at least, I assume it does).
  2. "Taylor was hired away from the IHL for the 1908 season at $1000 and a guaranteed federal civil service job" - the $1000 is an annual salary rather than a lump sum payment, right? This isn't clear in the prose.
  3. "leaving only Ottawa, Quebec, Wanderers and Shamrocks" - for parallel structure, it would probably work best to have the home cities listed rather than the cities for some and the team names for others.

National Hockey Association

  1. "O'Brien instead decided to form the NHA, and found the Montreal Canadiens" - I believe this should be "founded", not "found".
  2. It is confusing to have the seasons referred to inconsistently (eg. "The 1910 season" vs. "The 1911-12 season").
  3. Reference 53 has no page number.
  4. Is a reference available for the 1915-16 season?
  5. Wikilinks to places like Galt and Port Arthur would help, if articles exist.

Champions in 1906 and 1910? Historians' debate

  1. I'm not convinced that this is an encyclopedic section header
  2. Is the information in the first paragraph already referenced in this article? Most of it seems familiar, but I'm not sure if it has all been sourced already.

NHL Years (1917–1934)

  1. "The schedule was abbreviated by the demise of the Arenas" - who? If this is another team, I'm not sure "demise" sounds encyclopedic.

The 'Super Six' (1920–1927)

  1. Is a reference available for the information in the first paragraph (particularly the club causing the NHL to change the rule, but a reference for the trade would also help)
  2. "the Quebec Bulldogs returned" - to the NHL, or to another league from the NHL?
  3. "artificial ice" - I don't know that this needs to be explained in the article, but I would love to know what artificial ice is. I always assumed that freezing water was the simplest way to cover a rink.
  4. Are references available for Clancy playing all positions or the seating capacity of the arena (the reference for Clancy is the more important of the two)?
  5. Is a reference available for Benedict's drinking and trade?
  6. Was the Lady Byng Trophy awarded for sportsmanship at this time?

Decline (1927–34)

  1. "The team fell into last place for the first time since 1898" - what season is this describing?
  2. "club president Ahearn" - president of Ottawa or New York?

1934: End of the first NHL era in Ottawa

  1. It seems awkward to have the "See the article" tags in the middle of the prose. Could they be worked into the sentences (ie. "The city of Ottawa did not have an NHL franchise again until the 1992–93 season, when the new Ottawa Senators joined the league as an expansion team.")?

Logos and jerseys

  1. It would be helpful to have references included for the "barber pole" design (especially the "synonymous" part) and the 67s uniforms.

Ownership

  1. "clearly planning to derail Livingstone's plans" - this doesn't sound encyclopedic. The "clearly planning" makes it sound more like speculation (although I agree that it sounds likely). I'm also confused as to who Livingstone is.
  2. "Quinn would get further action from the NHL" - this sounds awkward. It's written in the conditional tense ("Quinn got further..." is correct), but "got further action" sounds awkward as well. Can a different verb be used?
  3. The information for 1929 to 1931 is uncited.

Fans

  1. Just a minor detail, but "quite wet" is repeated.
  2. It would be good to have a citation for Johnson receiving the hat.
  3. Was there any significance to the lemons? Were they chosen for a reason? I'm not convinced that such information exists, but it would be interesting if it did.

List of Stanley Cup final appearances

  1. This needs a bit of organizational work. I'm not sure if a table would help, but at the very least, a few things need to be considered: (1) after the year, is a spaced hyphen, unspaced hyphen, or en dash going to be used? (2) when Ottawa wins and the losing team has a name (eg. Vancouver Maroons), will it be "Ottawa defeats the" or "Ottawa defeats"? (3) when Ottawa loses and the winning team has a name, will it be "Montreal wanderers defeats" or "Montreal Wanderers defeat"? - my preference is "defeat" (4) is there a comma before the dates the games were played? (5) the 1904 results are confusing: (5–5– Montreal loses by default). This is explained in the "Stanley Cup Challenge win streak" section, but you should remember that some readers will just scroll down to the list at the bottom for quick information.

References

  1. Some of the online references are missing publishers or access dates.
  2. 26 should be "SportsEcyclopedia.com", not "SportEcyclopedia.com"

Images

  1. Information is missing for the Image:Ottawa Senators, 1914-1915.jpg picture. In addition, it is the only image that refers to the team as "Ottawa HC" instead of "Ottawa Hockey Club".

Team captains

  1. Is there a source that lists them all? Currently, only two have references.

And so ends the initial review. I see that you've already addressed some of these, so I will go back and see which ones have ben completed. I will place this nomination on hold now to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Thank you for your patience with the review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for accepting the review. I think this way of taking it piece by piece is a good idea. I will work on your points. Of course, some of the lead is explained in the body, (one of the greatest, e.g. is explained by NHL first dynasty, and being voted team of the first half of the 20th century) The HHOF and NHL point is also addressed in the article. It is due to the nature of the awarding of the trophy in the times. Alaney2k (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Second review
I am going over the article again (currently to the beginning of the NHL years) to ensure that all of my concerns have been addressed and that nothing was missed. The article is very close, but a few things have come up:

  1. In the "Re-entry into the AHAC" section, can a reference be provided for the first paragraph, and which team was "previously undefeated"?
  2. Which Montreal team did Ottawa play in 1893-94?
  3. Can a reference be provided for the information about McGee in the first paragraph of the "Silver Seven era" section?
  4. "perhaps the most famous Stanley Cup challenge of all" in the "Dawson Cup Challenge" section is a point of view statement.
  5. From the third paragraph of the "Stanley Cup champions in 1906 and 1910: Historians' debate" section: "However, they gave up the Cup to the Montreal Wanderers" - who are "they"?
  6. Is a reference available for the information in the first paragraph of the "Super Six" section (particularly the club causing the NHL to change the rule, but a reference for the trade would also help)?
  7. Is a reference available for Clancy playing all positions in 1923?

I should have this finished soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The Dawson City challenge is very famous in hockey history. What is a more appropriate wording for this? Or are you looking for a media quote/cite for that? Alaney2k (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you could provide a reference, that should work (especially if you can include a quotation in the reference template). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. Alaney2k (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I went through the rest of the article, and everything looked good. I did some copyediting and added a reference, but there was nothing major. The article now meets all six GA requirements, so I am promoting it. Thank you for your patience, quick responses, and hard work. You should be very proud of this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

The photpgraph of the 1930 jersey is not an 'own work' it appeared in volume 2 of trail to the stanley cup by coleman and should either reflect that or be removed from the article 130.15.40.172 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, an artist's rendition of the 1933 jersey appeared in Vol II, but it's not identical to that one. I just checked with my own volume.  Ravenswing  12:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I followed the Coleman illustration as a model, but used Photoshop to make the image from scratch. It's not a direct scan or photograph. Alaney2k (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottawa_Senators_(original)/Archive_1&oldid=1208491188"