Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nikita Filatov/archive2

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 promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

Nikita Filatov

[edit]

Nikita Filatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is finally there. I got some excellent feedback during the last run at FAC, which I really appreciated. The main issues from the last nomination concerned the lack of information about his playing style (addressed with the addition of a new section), and two references to Yahoo! blogs (both removed, and the material covered with other sources). The article has also been updated briefly with news about the upcoming season and Filatov's arrival in North America, but I think it still meets the stability requirements. Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: The sources were okayed at the previous FAC. There have been a few changes, but no problems, all still OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have a few problems with this article. It seems to contain a lot of hockey jargon which makes it hard for the general reader to understand and the prose is choppy. I've read as far as the end of "Professional" so far.

  • "Nikita Vasilyevich Filatov (Russian: Никита Васильевич Филатов; born May 25, 1990) is a Russian professional ice hockey winger currently playing for CSKA Moscow of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), on loan from the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League (NHL).": This is a really long opening sentence, lots in it; could it be broken up a little?
    • Adjusted, he is in Columbus for the 10/11 season, so I removed the part about being loaned to CSKA.
  • "He was the top-ranked European skater by the NHL Central Scouting Bureau and was selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft." Why is this important? A word about who selected him would be good here. And "top-ranked skater by" sounds clumsy; what about "The NHL Central Scouting Bureau ranked him as the top European skater". And as a non-hockey person, "selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft" means nothing. Sixth out of how many? Selected for what? From who? The main section on this does not make it any clearer: "top-ranked European skater by the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau in both their mid-term and final rankings" does not really explain what is going on. And "selected by the Sudbury Wolves of the Ontario Hockey League": selected how? To play for them?
    • I have clarified the sentence about central scouting. I am not sure how to address the other concerns. I don't think it is being too technical or exclusionary with the way the draft info is presented. I don't really want to go into an explanation of how teams use drafts to ration talent coming into the leagues. I didn't add in how many players were selected in the draft, as that information isn't commonly included in hockey articles, but is readily available from the 2008 NHL Entry Draft page which is WL'd.
I think the problem is that these parts come in a section which is (understandably) stats heavy and so make it very dry. Such info may not be commonly included, but I think even one explanatory sentence on drafting would help the general reader (like me), asell as giving some context for this being (presumably) a notable achievement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to clarify the drafting process, without getting too wordy, let me know what you think.
Fine now. I've copy-edited a little to clear one or two things up and to make the prose flow a little. If I've made any mistakes, simply revert them. The drafting process is clear enough now without going into too much detail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems short and does not really give a summary of his career.
    • Fixed the lead to add a bit more detail of last season.
  • "Farm team": Could it be linked, or better yet, expanded.
    • Removed, as it didn't fit with the common usage of the term in hockey hockey parlance.
  • What is an "entry level contract"?
    • Standard hockey terminology for a player's first hockey contract, set out by the collective bargaining agreement. I think the term explains itself.
I don't agree that it explains itself, and I'm still not entirely clear. Presumably it is based on a certain wage which increases, as implied by the next sentence. Could a sentence not be added which would clarify and imporove the flow to the next sentence about his salary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find a good way to explain it, nor could I find another article with it explained well, so I removed the 'entry-level' portion.
  • "2008 Canadian Hockey League (CHL) Import Draft" What is this?
    • Added a WL.
  • Does General Manager really need abbreviating to GM? Is this a hockey convention?
    • Fairly common sports vernacular, its spelled out on the first occurrence, but it could be switched if it is an issue, I feel it makes the article flow a bit better.
I think that's my point. Should an encyclopedia use sports vernacular? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a problem, but it was easy enough to remove, and I did so.
  • The prose is bumpy. Lots of sentences start with "Filatov", "he" (21 sentences up to the "International play" section begin with these words) or a season ("During XXXX", "After XXXX").
    • Its somewhat the nature of the beast when writing about a single subject, but I will take a run through and try to clear some of these up.
      • Tried to clean this up a bit, let me know what you think.
Seems better now, and I've tried to copy-edit the prose a little to make it flow. The later sections seem fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it very hard to follow this; I think more concessions to the general reader need to be made. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to make this a bit more user-friendly, let me know if there are any further suggestions. Canada Hky (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • You have used scratched and wikilinked it; the dictionary link does not really make clear the meaning. I imagine it is a regularly used term i hockey, but the general reader may be confused. I would prefer a more formal choice of word in a FA which clarified: did the coach ignore him, did he not make it onto the pitch. Simply "the coach left him out of..." would work better.
  • "unhappy with his ice time" Very slangy; "playing time", "time on the field", even "time on the ice" would be preferable.
  • I've tried to link the sentences with the coaching staff improving his defence to returning him to Russia. The chronology needs sorting out: did they try to improve his play, decide it wasn't working and let him go back, or tell him to go back and improve his defensive play?
    • I'll need to work on this section a bit. Basically, he's an offensive player, the coaches wanted him to play at least passably defensively. If he wasn't playing well defensively, he wasn't getting much playing time from the coaches. If he wasn't getting much playing time, he wasn't happy. When he wasn't happy, he wanted to go home. It will need to be changed a little bit from how you phrased it, because it kind of involves three parties (player, coaches, GM), and when shortened it makes it sound as if the coaches said it wasn't working and let him go, which isn't quite what happened. I'll work on getting this fixed up. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Your explanation here sounds good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have clarified this now, and it still reads OK to me, let me know what you think. Canada Hky (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. As an aside (won't affect FAC) how common is this sort of arrangement? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from the regulations about newcomer need an attribution.
    • Is this referring to the "Best Newcomer" award, and the definition in parentheses? Its not so much a quote as the league's definition of the award, and is from the same source at the end of the sentence. I can fix it up a bit, but I just want to make sure I am fixing up the right thing.Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the attribution is at the end of the sentence, that's fine, but I think the text should show it too: i.e. "according to the league's definition".
Added "defined by the KHL as" to the paranthetical statement.Canada Hky (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What comments did he make to the Russian media which annoyed people so much?
    • I haven't been able to find a direct quotes in English from a reliable site, the best I have been able to find is from that cited source saying he was 'dismissive' of the Blue Jackets.Canada Hky (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe make the section about people being annoyed a bit less prominent. The reader may be left wanting to know exactly what he said as it sounds quite controversial as phrased now.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Left in the part about his teammates being annoyed by his departure (which is supported by the cite) and removed the part about his statements and claiming to be misquoted.Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last part of the Professional section seems to be unduly concentrating on current events rather than reporting what was happening. This slightly concerns me about 1e, changing significantly from day to day. This was raised at the previous FAC, and this is obviously going to change fairly soon when the current season unfolds. One solution may be to shorten the part about his uncertain future, but I'm not too sure. It seems premature to have a FA about a 20 year old who has the vast majority of his career in front of him. Are there any equivalent sporting FAs?
    • The discussion about stability was covered somewhat in the last FA. I don't think it is possible to say if stability will be an issue, because it involves a lot of projecting. Really, for anyone who is still alive - things can change quickly. Filatov isn't involved in anything that would reasonably suggest that this article is going to be unstable from day-to-day, and I think that's all that can be said about most living people. It was a bit of a tumultuous season last year, but still not an unstable article. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that if he played for another 10 years, for example, that is an awful lot of content to add. If it is a FA now, is there a guarantee that the future updates will be up to scratch? It is slightly different for others: a sportsman at or near the end of his career is most likely to live a quiet life of retirement and do little else of note. Filatov could potentially have a lot more happen to him. I'm not saying that this means it can't be a FA or that I oppose, I'm kind of thinking out loud!
I understand the thought process, I just think its reasonable that this article won't grow at a pace that outstrips the ability of editors to keep it at a high standard. I think its easier to keep an article to high standards than to get an article there. The framework is in place, and a lot of the content is established. There are not any hockey FAs of players this young, but Henrik Sedin and Roberto Luongo could arguably be predicted to have their careers (and articles) expand at a quicker pace (they are established players in a bigger hockey market) than Filatov. As to whether there is a lot of content to add, that isn't necessarily a given. Both sides are saying the right things about the upcoming season, but things could fall apart and Filatov could become a journeyman (a journeyman with a well-written Wikipedia entry, but a journeyman nonetheless). Also, I think I clarified a bit of the problem with a lean to recentism, with the removal of some of the material about potential conflicts with teammates. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""the next best thing to Steven Stamkos." A bit of context here: a word on who Stamkos is? (I know he's linked, but it makes it easier for the reader)
  • "Off the ice, Filatov trains outside of a traditional setting, spending time outside running in sand and lifting trees and boulders." Could this be re-phrased? Not sure about "traditional setting".
  • If possible, is there any more about his personal life, particularly before his hockey career? E.g. education.
OK, if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. It may become available in future I suppose... --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playing style: A little brief, is there any more? I know almost nothing about hockey, but could comments be made about his technique? Also, there is very little in the whole article about the effectiveness of his performances, with the notable exception of the international section. We are given the goals and assists, but any media/coach comments on his success: e.g. a report saying he was really good/bad/indifferent? How good was he expected to be.

My main concern at the moment is 1e. I'm happy with the jargon and access for the general reader now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this, I accept your point above, and I'm fairly convinced 1e is fine. If you can find some more on playing style, assuming it exists, I will support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some additional material on his playing style and reception, in the professional section and the playing style section. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously more would be good, but I'm pretty certain that you will have everything available.

Support: The article has improved significantly, and I am happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – After providing a full review during the first FAC, I came back to look at the article and fixed a few little prose issues that I saw. The addition of a dedicated playing style section is something that, in retrospect, was really missing the first time around. I think this meets the standards following the improvements that have been made. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:54, 29 August 2010 (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/Nikita_Filatov/archive2&oldid=1089084028"