Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)/archive1

History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first of what I intend to be a four part history of the National Hockey League. I intend to have this listed as a GA shortly, and eventually a FA. My primary concern is the quality of the prose, and the layout of the article. All feedback is welcomed, and will be acted on

Thanks, Reso lute 17:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this could use a copyedit... It begins rather awkwardly. I think I can help out with this, especially with the copyedit. Thoughts? Maxim_(talk) 21:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. The first goal was getting it written. Reso lute 21:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have just read it through, and I find it impressive. Notes: 1) Might be good adding subsections below the current section headings (unless MOS recommends otherwise). I managed to read it anyway, since it was interesting enough. 2) Interesting to learn about the development of offside rule, replacing the Rugby-style forward pass rule. I wonder, was this also the time in history when linesmen were introduced alongside the refree? I'm not sure if refrees and linesmen development is in the article scope; might be related or not, and even the hockey official article lacks a history section. 3) The timeline image provides a great team overview (much more readable than the one on the main timeline article). The Toronto green colour is explained in a note, but Detroit and NY Americans are the same colour all the way. Easily filled in, I guess. Thanks for writing! --Bamsefar75 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! None of the books I have discuss how officiating has evolved, so I'm not certain when or how that's changed. I think rather than subsections, I can divide the article into more sections overall. (makes no difference, really), but in that case, I'll probably pull the rule changes bit from the 1920s section into its own and expand. And I agree on the timeline, but it is a lot easier to display eleven franchises over 25 years than it is about 40 over 90. I'll look at reorganizing the article into more sections tomorrow. Reso lute 03:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can add a bit about World War II and the controversy that surrounded the NHL at the time. It was basically "Why should all these young athletic men be entertaining civilians when they should be blasting Nazis in Europe"? I may also have a bit on goaltending in that era, but no guarantees.-Wafulz (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would anyone mind if I made a preface? I've found two particularly good sources: one on hockey during WWII ( For club or country? Hockey in wartime Canada, 1939--1945), and one on hockey and the history of the NHL in general (The Development of Professional Hockey and the Making of the National Hockey League). My second source would be useful for laying out the history of the NHL in terms of the social, historical, and economic environment that led to its creation.-Wafulz (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

One thing at the end of the "Folley" section concerning the hit between Bailey and Shore. In one sentence you say that "While neurosurgeons were able to save Bailey's life" and then in the next you say, "the hit, though it was known that had Bailey died...". The second would appear incorrect, as they did shake hands afterwords. I was also kind of thrown off by the "...league allowed the use of the forward pass in all zones beginning in 1929." Maybe you could expand on that a little bit, I guess the game was more different then than I thought. I guess the most important part is that I learned quite a bit. Black ngold29 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above comment, it seems there is a greater desire for info on rule changes, so I think I'll pull that into its own section and expand. There certainly is enough source material for it. On Shore's hit, the statement is intending to state that Shore would have been charged with manslaughter if doctors were unable to save Bailey's life. I'll try to clarify that. Reso lute 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. The "Rules and innovations" section far surpassed my expectatations. Black ngold29 02:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]