Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ted Kennedy (ice hockey)/archive1

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 GrahamColm 05:36, 16 October 2012 [1].

Ted Kennedy (ice hockey)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Ted Kennedy (ice hockey)/archive1

Nominator(s): Heroman26 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all the criteria for a FA. Well-written, with a neutral POV, and excellent encyclopedic vocabulary. Many references are added and pictures are of great quality. Right now it's rated as Start-Class... Heroman26 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be withdrawn – As far as I can see, the nominator has not done any work on the article. User:BashBrannigan appears to be the primary contributor for this page. If this editor does not give approval for an FAC attempt, I think one of the directors should withdraw this per the instructions, which state that primary contributors should nominate articles. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded for withdraw: As Giants2008 states, the nominator is not the primary contributor to the article. Further, there is no indication that any discussion took place between the nominator and the primary contributor. The nominator is unlikely to be familiar enough with the intricacies of the article to successfully navigate the FLC process. While not always necessary, this article has also been fast tracked to FLC; it has not gone through WP:GAN or WP:PR. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although the nominator didn't contact me, I did appreciate the fact that it was thought good enough to be nominated. I can give my approval to the article being nominated and would be willing to do work on it. However, I would also defer to the above two editors if they feel the article would be better served by going through peer review first. Thanks, BashBrannigan (talk) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - have to agree with the previous recommendations for withdrawal, some quick general pointers:

While lead statements normally don't need citations, extraordinary praises and statements of opinion should be cited immediately, even in the lead. See "He was an essential contributor to the Maple Leafs becoming the National Hockey League's first dynasty", "He has been called the quintessential Maple Leaf and by some the greatest player in the team's history." and similar statements.
The second lead para describing his youth and background seems slightly too detailed in comparison with the rest of the lead. Detailed descriptions of his family situation are better left to the main text.
Why does "Ted "Teeder" Kennedy was born December 12, 1925, in the small village of Humberstone,[1][2] Ontario,[3][4] which in 1970 was amalgamated into the city of Port Colborne.[5][6]" need 6 sources? Several other occurrences of multiple citations for relatively common statements throughout the main text - needs a complete check.
Avoid slightly PoV-ish phrases like "[Although young], Kennedy was successful ...", "In [only] his second NHL season, Kennedy finished 1944–45 regular season ..." and similar. Just state the facts as neutral as possible and let the reader judge.
Retirement (and a few other sections) has a lot of one-sentence paras. Try to merge those into larger themes with a more narrative, less listy structure.
Focus - from an admittedly quick read the article seems to loose focus (the player Ted Kennedy) sometimes and strays into history of Canadian ice hockey or of his team. Statements not related to the article topic should only be included, when needed as background information to increase reader's understanding of the main topic. A lot of team internal development information could be trimmed without loosing information about Ted.

The article certainly has some very good content, but would benefit from more preparation before a FA-nom. GermanJoe (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.