Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:24, 17 March 2009 [1].

History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Resolute, Maxim(talk)

Well, here we go, the fourth article in the NHL history series, bringing us to the present day. After nearly a year of work on the series, I am hopeful that this installment will be viewed as reaching the same standard as the first three. Thanks go out to the editors that helped Maxim and I write these articles, and to the three editors who were kind enough to review this article against the FA criteria in advance. We look forward to all comments. Thanks, Resolute 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two dead links and a disamb problem with 'Power play.'-- Myosotis Scorpioides 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
  • Like Myosotis Scorpioides stated, fix the dabs and external links found using the checker tools in the toolbox.
  • Using WP:REFTOOLS, a couple issues were found.
  • There are refs (copy-and-pasted below) that are duplicated and appear as such in the ref section, they should have a ref name instead.
  • {{harvnb|Pincus|2006|p=178}}
  • {{harvnb|Pincus|2006|p=180}}
  • More than on ref has the following ref name, a ref name should only belong to one specific ref
  • Comments Good to see the final article up for promotion. While I didn't do much, I've supported the initiative. Anyways:
  • In the lead, Sweden and Czech Republic are linked, but not Japan or England for some reason. I would also consider using United Kingdom over England, but that's a more personal thing and not a major issue.
  • oops. Fixed
  • Says where the two Winter Classics were held in the lead, but not where the Heritage Classic. Mentioning Edmonton being the host would be a good idea.
  • Fixed
  • In the 1991-92 and 1992-93 seasons the NHL had each team play 2 neutral site games. That should be mentioned, as I believe it ahd to do with promoting the game and expansion and the like.
  • Man, I've been trying to forget those games after the gruesome injury Al MacInnis suffered in one of those bad ice locations (shudder). I have, however, added a mention in the paragraph discussing the resolution of the 1992 strike, since that is what brought it about.
  • The Chelios threat from 1995: "Some crazed fans, or even a player [...] might take matters into their own hands and figure they get Bettman out of the way." The word some shouldn't be capitalised there.
  • fixed
  • Perhaps a mention of the NHL program from the mid-1990s that was designed to keep the Canadian teams around. I don't remember the details or even the name of it, but I think it came about after Quebec and Winnipeg left, and helped keep the remaining Canadian teams in Canada by giving them revenue from wealthier teams, or tax breaks, or something.
  • The Canadian Assistance plan. I was concerned about taking a canada-centric pov by getting into such minutae, but it might work as a statement of historical context as part of the 2004-05 lockout section. I will add it in.
  • when mentioning the addition of the Wild and Blue Jackets, it says the NHL returned to Minnesota and moved to Ohio. I may be getting a little to detailed here, but the NHL had tried Ohio before, with the Cleveland Barons. So a possible change of wording, though not really important.
  • Heh, I already reworded that once on one of my final passes. Guess I'll try again.  :)
  • Is there a date when the NHL decided they would allow the players go to the Olympics?
  • As in a specific date where the decision was made? I'm not sure Is it important to note though? Or just that they went beginning in 1998?
  • Reference to Crosby and Ovechkin being expected to be faces of new NHL is needed.
  • Added two.
  • In the Post-lockout section, Stanley Cup Final should be all capitalised in regards to the Oilers and Hurricanes meeting.
  • Fixed
  • While the NHL has said they don't want to go to the 2014 Olympics, the NHLPA has said they do. Probably should include that, as it is a major topic right now.
  • Agreed, added.
  • About the Olympics: It isn't that big of an issue, I just think having some type of date as when the NHL decided they would join the Olympics would be helpful. In a way, it could be seen as significant, given that the league just got out of a lockout and all. But I'm not going to hold it against the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! I knew you were going to ask about that link. :D I would argue the reliability of the link based on two factors: First, the author, Jamie Fitzpatrick is a commentator with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and CBC Radio. Second, the cited statement in the article surrounds the multitude of opinions as to why offence declined in the NHL during the 1990s. As such, I believe an opinion piece written by a journalist with a highly reliable media outlet would qualify as reliable. Resolute 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little radar that pops up when About.com is used (snickers). I'd feel better if there was another opinion piece or two with this one, or if it was made more apparant that it's an opinion of a hockey commentator. I guess I'm saying it can be used as one of a couple of sources saying critics were bemoaning the decline of offense, but as a single source claming that it's a bit suspect. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been fixed. Maxim(talk) 16:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Before I go into more detail - THANKS for all your hard work on this topic. If my criticism seems passionate, it's because I'm passionate about hockey and I want this to be the best article it can be. So don't pull my sweater over my head and start punching. I made some minor prose changes but I outline some prose, sourcing, and neutrality issues below I didn't sort out.
    • Please get rid of the ugly red link in "Background". Can you get someone in the WikiProject to create a stub?
  • Writing an article on the 1992 strike is already very high on my priority list. It will be a blue link fairly quickly.
    • "However, it has also been argued that scoring has gone down due to there being too much talent." Odd present tense sentence in the middle of past tense explanation.
  • reworded
    • "... followed by the Atlanta Thrashers the following year" Too many follows.
  • Oops, fixed.
    • "For marketing reasons, the NHL decided to have its players play ..." Too many plays. Maybe "players compete"?
  • Fixed
    • "The tournament was won by the Czech Republic, which was led by goaltender Dominik Hasek, who finished the tournament ..." Ungainly string of clauses.. I can't think of a way to rephrase it at the moment.
  • Broke into two sentences and reorganized. It should be better/
    • "It began a career that has led to debate on whether he was the best player in NHL history." Ick.
    • "... while Mike Gartner said that if he had remained healthy, Lemieux would have scored 1,000 goals." This doesn't mean much out of context, since we have no idea how many goals he actually scored.
  • I must have been drunk when I wrote that. Reworded and put that at the end of the section. This also takes care of the context issue.
    • "On December 31, 1988, Lemieux put on what has been considered the greatest individual offensive performance in NHL history ..." This section is troublesome for a couple reasons. First, it is barely paraphrased from the source, making it borderline plagiarism. Second, the source states "most people think was the greatest individual scoring performance in NHL history" which is the sort of fantastic language I've gotten used to from the HHoF but isn't necessarily backed up by any research. How does a HHoF web site copy writer know what most people think? When you translate that into "Lemieux put on what has been considered the greatest individual offensive performance in NHL history", I assume you mean considered by notable hockey journalists in general. The source doesn't support this.
  • Simply removed the first half of that statement. It is enough, I think, to state that this was something never done before or duplicated.
    • Now that I think about it, I have a problem with there being an entire section about Lemieux. Sure, he was unquestionably one of the most dominant players of the 90s, but did he really stand out enough from other prominent players to warrant his own section? I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that equate his influence with other players like Jagr, Messier, Bure, Yzerman, and so on.
  • Throughout the series, this has been a concern of mine. When focusing on individuals, I limited myself to players who, at the time, were considered to be the best player in the game's history... Morenz, Richard, Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Given the very real debate over whether Lemieux was greater than Gretzky, I felt he belonged. He was also the first player-owner in NHL history.
    • "As a result, on September 15, 2004 Gary Bettman announced that the players were again locked out to start the 2004–05 season." Misleading. Bettman didn't lockout the players because the league lost money, it was because the collective bargaining agreement expired.
  • True enough, reworded.
  • Reworded
    • "and Crosby's presence saw Pittsburgh's attendance increase by 33%, over 4,000 fans per game." Needs revision for clarity. Are you saying Crosby's presence caused the increase in attendance? Does the source support this?
  • The source does: "[Crosby] had instantly stamped himself a franchise player off the ice as well as on, adding 4,000 fans per home game for a last-place team whose 33 percent attendance jump would be the league's biggest."
    • The "Post-lockout" section is a sea of blue due to all the team wikilinks. Can we settle on linking the first mention of team names and then not again?
  • Fixed, and I will go through the article to ensure teams are not overlinked
    • "... as the league attempted to open the game up after the lockout." I think "open the game up" is too colloquial.
  • good point, reworded.
--Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " spread its footprint" faddish figurative language. The writing looks opposable on 1a grounds, but I won't be the one doing it. No time to discuss. I saw one particularly twisty sentence last night; I'll scan and see if i can find it. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Looks like I'm needed here, since this is off to a rough start.

  • Reference 50 (Goodenow's resignation, from TSN) is dead.
  • while NHL players first competed in the Olympic Games in 1998." Watch for "easter-egg links" such as the year, which looks like a meaningless link until you mouse over it.
  • "the NHL has played regular season games in Europe and Asia, including Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Czech Republic." I feel the sentence structure can somehow be improved, but I'm having trouble figuring out why. While you look at this, please get rid of these country links, which are of limited value.
  • Consider a comma after Winter Classic.
  • "had been diluted by 1990's expansion plan." A year came up with a plan, or a league? :-)
  • Background: Non-breaking space for the dollar amount.

Have to go now, but will be back later with more. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Couple of access issues to report. The bottom of the Roy photo is forcing the edit tab in the next section to the left, a situation that is not ideal; perhaps consider moving it up a paragraph. Photos shouldn't be placed on the left side directly below second-level section headers, such as the Lemieux photo.
  • Fixed the Lemieux picture, but not much can be done with the Roy picture short of resizing it smaller.
  • Expansion: Not crazy about starting a sentence with 1993.
  • Reworded
  • Is "powerplay" all right as one word?
  • Either way works, I think, however I expanded it to two words as that is how its assoicated article is spelled.
  • 1994: As a Rangers fan, I naturally looked at this closely, and found two things that I'm putting up for discussion. One, we need to watch the use of "famous". It kills me to say that about Messier's guarantee, but if I don't say anything then someone else will. Second, the publisher of reference 14 isn't showing up.
  • Neither Maxim nor I wrote that section. Revising to fit the tone of the rest of the article.
  • 1994-95 lockout: Sentence ends with a number (48).
  • Fixed.
  • "with defenceman Chris Chelios famously issuing...". Noun plus -ing and another "famous".
  • Fixed the noun-plusing, though in this case, Chelios's threat easily qualifies as famous
  • Why is dollar in Canadian Dollar capitalized? Same for American Dollar. Also two Canadian dollar links.
  • Most likely because I am crazy. Fixed.
  • Dead puck era: I'd like to see hyphens for "NHL sanctioned" and "three game".
  • Well, since you asked nicely...  ;)
  • "One year later, the Red Wings ended a 42-year drought". This is the first mention of the team, so their name should be given in full, with a link.
  • I thought they were mentioned before. That might have been edited out at some point. Fixed.
  • Another sentence ends with a number (30).
  • Fixed
  • I was about to tell you to put one of those symbol letters in Dominik Hasek's name, but then saw that his section is messed up. Take a look at it and you'll see what I mean.
  • Fixed the gramattical error, however per our convention and WP:ENGVAR we don't use diacritics on North American specific articles.
  • Two Brett Hull links in the section. Also a pair for the Devils.
  • Oops, fixed.
  • Comma after Heritage Classic?
  • Fixed
I'm setting all-time records for FAC pickiness here, but I feel that's necessary if others are saying that things are questionable. Couple of other points before I go: I don't see Martin Brodeur's name anywhere. He has been such a great player over the years that I would love to see him mentioned somewhere. Also, I feel like the Devils and Red Wings are getting short shrift here, considering what they've done. New Jersey gets one sentence, in which they are blamed for reducing offense in the NHL. Detroit could also receive a little more space, with their four titles in the period. Previous articles in the series had sections on great teams, and I feel that's missing here. Also, does Mario Lemieux deserve as much space as the lockout that almost destroyed the league? Half of his section details events from before the time period in question. Anyway, I'll work on it a bit when I get a chance to lighten the load here. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brodeur certainly does deserve mention. I will add him in. The Lemieux section includes a paragraph that predates the scope of this article for completeness and context. And yes, the lockout was a momentous event, but it was also only a one year event, where Lemieux's career spanned 20+ years and involved a historical comeback, and being the first player-owner in league history. However, in answer to some of Ling Nut's concerns, I expect the lockout section will expand. As far as being picky goes, go nuts. Obviously this article was farther away than I expected, so all feedback is very much welcome. Resolute 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tumultuous" according to whom? I'm not looking for a cite. I'm actually looking for a bit less colorful adjective... The lede contains a series of sentences that start with "It.. it..". "It" is a poor way to start a sentence in the first place; compounding its use is not an form of parallelism...again, opposable on 1a. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworked the various statements in the lead that begin with "it", and will go through the rest of the article to check for this as time permits. As with Laser brain's comment, I do believe the use of timultuous is justified, however am open to suggestions on a better word to use when describing a fairly brief period of time that involved three major labour conflicts, four franchise relocations and the addition of eight expansion teams. Not to mention one franchise going bankrupt, which is mentioned, and the owners of two others going bankrupt, which wasn't. Resolute 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, it occurs to me that I probably should add a paragraph to describe the Penguins recent relocaton fears, the Predators issue and Balsilie, and how the economic crisis might impact the league. Resolute 19:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider simply killing "tumultuous" (which is imprecise, and leans to POV) and writing some version of "the season included included three major labour conflicts, four franchise relocations caused by lack of revenue, the addition of eight expansion teams, one franchise going bankrupt, and the owners of two others going bankrupt..." That syntax needs improving.. but it is clear, precise and no-nonsense. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly am open to such a rephrasing, however given how the NHL went from a quarter century of absolute calm in in the Original six days to the big rush to 21 teams by 1980, then nearly complete calm until 1992 only to have the game explode, I do feel that the present statement has merit. Perhaps opening with something along the lines of "The National Hockey League has experienced considerable growth and change since 1992...." then listing off the chagnes as you suggest? Resolute 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong (and everything right) with somehow saying that many of the changes have come under adverse circumstances. I... just want the overall tone of the article to be matter-of-fact. The word "tumultuous" is, as others have noted, not completely unacceptable. It is, however, a step or two away from "matter of fact" and a step or two toward POV (in the name of making the article interesting, that is.. I am not saying that you or any other editors are trying to put a POV forward. I am just saying that I'm not sure Wikipedia should have a voice that adds adjectives that carry too much flavor one way or the other).
  • Meanwhile, after the modest jawing over revising WIAFA, you may wanna look at other sources just a bit. It seems you have only two books, and one of them is by "Readers Digest".. is it a coffee table book? But anyhow, I'm not saying this solely to be grumpy. You can find tons of good info. Forex, The Business of Sports By Scott Rosner, Kenneth L. Shropshire has a very interesting table of all major sports bankruptcies since 1969 on page 100. Five of the eight listed teams are from hockey, and four are within your date range. This adds perspective, especially the bit about the predominance of hockey teams in this list... Is it significant that in hockey only the home team gets all gate proceeds (as that book discusses)? And on and on... Hockey was the first sport with a salary arbitration system (in the 1970s, so maybe not relevant to this article, but maybe yes for other articles..)... I.... I don't know if I will continue to edit Wikipedia. I am weary of it all, weary of arguing over things that should not even need to be discussed, and the demands of real life are calling. But if I could just soapbox for one moment, I hope that the FAC process will instill in its nominators a desire to dig deeper for more information. Dig. Deeper. Don't skim the surface for facts and factoids, then process that (often shallow) info into a prefabricated, MOS-compliant whole that will fly under FAC radar. The goal is to make an excellent article, not an FA article (the two things are often not the same). Take pride in the research, not in the bronze star. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used only two book sources for this article as I needed only two as for this time period, online links were very easy to find. This is, however, only one article of four that make up the entire history, and taken as a whole, we have used 17 different book sources. Not to mention the easy availability of the New York Times and Sports Illustrated archives for this time period. And don't let the fact that Readers Digest was the publisher of the one book fool you, that book is remarkably in depth for a publication that attempts to look at 90 years of NHL history. While I agree with your point in general, I find it off base in my case.
  • OK, have looked enough now to Oppose. You guys didn't do enough research to explain things in a coherent context, causing problems with both the existing wording of 1b and the proposed wording of 1c. I can give a couple examples, but then a dire process will ensue: you'll add a sentence or so about a couple of those few examples (intended to be merely representative), take issue with the importance of a couple others, and then claim that you are done. That shouldn't be the way it works. If you bring 1b-deficient articles in here, I have to spend waste from two to four hours familiarizing myself with a topic that I know absolutely nothing about, and finding enough dribs and trickles of info to draw the outlines of what's missing..or at least, of some things that are missing. So, where's the discussion of attendance? Of television revenues? Of overall revenues? team-by-team revenues? What were the financial shape and attendance figures of the teams that relocated before relocating? How has expansion (perhaps) diluted the average attendance per team, while (perhaps) raising total attendance? Since this article purports to cover the time priod to the "present" (NOTE: WHen will you need to page-move this? I dislike the whole concept of claiming that the article goes to the "present").. where is the discussion or at least mention of the current recession's impact on revenues? Why is the following comment parachuted into the middle of the text, and left completely unexplained: "...the NHL's attempt to regain a U.S. network television presence". When and why did they lose the TV contracts? I found some articles that mentioned that violence is increasing.... yes, no, maybe, and if no, why did those articles say it was? They linked the increase to the boredom of low scoring & a desire to attract viewers etc. Trends in ticket prices? Use of the Internet as an alternative to TV?... this Wikipedia article is a perfectly good example of what I have been flailing and railing about for a while now: you follow a flawed process and rush to FAC. Here's the process: You glom together a number of facts (many of them important, I agree), and then take them as a ball of wax and pound it into MOS-compliance... thinking (probably correctly) that "several important facts plus complete MOS-compliance = Bling! the bronze star", but you never sit back and think about what you're writing. This cost-benefit analysis leads you to skimp on research and thus to shortchange the public of any depth or context. I'm hoping the revised 1c will improve this, but... unless reviewers push for compliance, there will be no incentives to comply. The bronze star is the goal, not excellence—but that's bass-ackwards. So: Is Wikipedia a world-class encyclopedia, or is it the Encyclopedia Game? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ramble, your ramble, etc. and if the crux of your message the article's crap (as well as harping on about some non-existent criterion). If you think reviewing this is a waste of time, get lost. For the issue of missing financial troubles--surely you can't pretend there's no mention of it. For example: "By 2004, the owners were claiming that player salaries had grown much faster than revenues, and that the league as a whole lost over US$300 million in 2002–03.[47]". If you want us to expand over the financial troubles part, that's certainly possible (McCown, Bob (2007), McCown's Law: The 100 Greatest Hockey Arguments, has some sections on this). You are assuming Res and I are playing a game for some reason--quite strange for gamers to ask another experienced editor, with an interest and knowledge in hockey, to do a review on the talkpage--in other words, we asked someone who can actually look at the exact content of the article to see if there's anything missing that should be there, and not just put a comma there and cut a comma here. To summarize (and make my point clear, an ability which you clearly lack), I am willing to look, think, and do if simply give, for example, a request that there should be more on the NHL's financial issues; if you ramble, moan, and to be honest--insult me and Resolute--then get lost, as from an aspect from the process, your concerns--if there any valid ones--are buried in a heap of dung making me unable to address them or outright notice them, while from an interpersonal standpoint, you're just a plain unpleasant character (as evidenced by this FAC and the exchange on my talkpage), who should really give a deep thought about what he is trying to accomplish and whether a collaborative project like this is the best place to devote his free time to. Maxim(talk) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I might actually attempt to address some of that rambling this weekend, I do tend to echo Maxim's feelings somewhat. If you want to give a fair review, that is awesome. If you want to sit on your pedestal and proselytize in such a condescending fashion, do it somewhere else, as this is not the forum for you to whine about your opinions of the FAC process or the people who submit articles. Your entire rant reeks of bad faith assumptions (I could fire back with a couple of my own if I so chose), and it thus becomes incredibly difficult to treat your complaints seriously. I would tend to simply ignore you, except - and I am certain you will fail to see the irony here - for the fact that it is my full intention to write a complete article. Resolute 16:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take it easy, everyone. Given some recent events at FAC, I would hate to see the situation deteriorate any further. To keep this on topic, I see a great opportunity to make a new section on business matters, mixing some points above with the proposed paragraph on recent financial developments. The only problem is that it would break the mostly linear structure of the article, but I'm sure it can be done effectively. Oh, and I left picky stuff up there. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 23:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Ling Nut's suggestions are little more than throwing darts at the wall and hoping one stick. What he wants would completely break summary style and won't be added. There is some opportunity to add some minutae throughout the article though. I will look into it. The recent economic issue will be tricky, as I don't want to get too far into recentism, especially over situations that may not have any lasting memory for the league. Resolute 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) So you see how it is. I point out critical, huge, glaring omissions, then am accused of rambling, ranting, throwing darts, etc. etc. No one cares about presenting an article that actually explains the situation, they only want a few minor MOS omissions pointed out, then a nice smooth ride to the bronze star. Reviewers who offer anything more challenging than this are obviously just ranting troublemakers.... What can I say? Between you and me there is a huge gulf affixed. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. I'll let you decide who's who, and of course I know what your decision will be. :-) ... So... Good luck in all things!  :-) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut.Public (talk • contribs)

Good god... do you actually believe the self-important garbage you type, Ling Nut? If all you did was point out your concerns and got that reaction, then you would have a point. Instead, you have been wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous bad faith assumptions about "playing games" and wanting "smooth ride". Nobody here is stupid enough to believe that you were simply pointing out omissions, not when your ranting is still plainly visible. Based on your singularly-focused contribution history (both this account and your main), and the fact that you came here directly from Maxim's talk page where you are already in disagreement, I would argue your entire presence here is to push a WP:POINT. Doubly so when you, if you chose to read anything other than your own writing, would see that we're already discussing things that could be added. Things that would also address your concerns. I think Maxim has you dead to rights - you have no idea how to work in a collaborative environment. If you want to be treated with respect, learn to treat others the same way. Resolute 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. I'm okay with the prose now, per our rounds above. However, I have spent time over the last couple days reviewing the meat of Ling.Nut's points about sourcing. I am concerned that we haven't researched and represented the business side of hockey very well, nor given it its due weight. There is good on-ice coverage, and good coverage of the lock out, but what about all the information about about failing teams, lost revenues, TV contracts, lost fans, and so on? I (unfortunately) subscribed to The Hockey News during the lockout season. In addition to mind-numbing stories about semi-pro and international hockey, and even an issue dedicated to hockey wives (they were really scraping the bottom of the barrel), there were many stories about the business of the NHL.
    • How did the lockout affect the business side of the NHL?
    • How did the new rules affect old school players that retired en masse once the league came back?
    • There is one sentence mentioning television.. what about all the research about how people don't hockey on TV in the US and the league has trouble maintaining TV contracts? They've been on more networks than I can even name since I was a kid.
    • What about the teams that are in financial trouble today and borrowing from future revenues? And can't pay their arena leases?
These are just what I thought of off the top of my head. I realize that we must maintain summary style, but I think there is a terrific over-emphasis on players and game/tournament results to the detriment of providing comprehensive coverage. It seems like the biggest story in hockey in the last few years is that it is failing as a business, and we've completely glossed over it. I think this needs to be withdrawn and a serious look taken at research and organization, beginning with a fresh article outline and bibliography. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly some good points to consider. I'll admit that I hadn't put too great a consideration into the business side, as up until the NHLPA began to assert itself in 1992, it really wasn't a big issue for the NHL. It does seem fair to state that the dominance of business issues do need to be looked at. I've already begun to consider where to interlace some business points throughout the argument per Giants2008's comments, however it looks like it is back to the drawing board. Even so, all further feedback is most certainly welcomed. Resolute 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate this response. As I said beginning my first round of feedback, I'm really interested in seeing this be the best it can be. Let me know if I can be of help digging up sources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldnt be too hard to find - certainly not for the Canadian team relocations, an hour at the library would solve that, but all ideas help. I have briefly touched on business issues throughout the article, but obviously did not find them to be as important as others. It will mostly be a matter of going back to the right sources and adding them in. I might take a brief step back from the article before digging back in though... always helps to go in with a fresher perspective.  ;) Ling Nut did offer some good suggestions on the FAC talk page, and while I don't think comparisons to the NFL are relevant, one of the other links definitely looks interesting. Anything you can add would also be a benefit. Resolute 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_the_National_Hockey_League_(1992–present)/archive1&oldid=1138463014"