Talk:Alex Burrows/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Brad78 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Watch out for links like 2005 linking to 2005–06 NHL season. I don't particularly like them as they're akin to easter egg links, especially on non-web formats.
Do you think you should expand ECHL? I've had a look and realise it's official title is ECHL, though I'm not sure whether the casual reader will be helped simply by ECHL. It is linked though, so I'll leave it up to you whether to leave as is or not.

The league used to officially be the East Coast Hockey League, but because it has since expanded past the East Coast, yes, the league is officially known by the acronym. I'd prefer not to expand it. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Junior leagues

"He debuted in two AHL games for Manitoba" Can you debut in two games?

Changed to "appeared" Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vancouver

What's a two-way contract?
What's a two-way shutdown duo?

I created a footnote explaining a two-way contract, along with a reference for it, while changing "two-way shutdown duo" to "defensive forwards". Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Others

No disambig links
No dead links
There's a lot of dates. I'm not sure if they're all necessary. I realise they add extra information, but it does read a bit boring and sounds a bit like WP:PROSELINE to keep saying he did this on October X, then this on November Y and then this on December Z. I'll leave it up to you, but I feel removing some dates will liven the text up, especially when they are close together. Sometimes dates are joined by phrases such as "he went on" or "early in the season". I personally prefer the latter, because it's more interesting text and the dates are a little redundant with that qualifying text. The worst example is "...on January 2. Eight days later, ..., on January 10." Eight days later equals January 10. It's akin to writing the date twice.

I've removed the dates from five sentences to alleviate this. Let me know if you'd like me to remove more, although I do like having dates on some of the important facts, such as contracts. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it looks good. There's a couple of minor points above that could do with addressing. My only other real issue is the amount of dates. Where the dates are less prolific, the text reads better and is more engaging. I'll leave it up to you. Once these points are addressed, I reckon this should be a pass. Brad78 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! I hope I addressed all the above issues to your liking. I really appreciate your time.. Cheers, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Everything is in order now. Don't get too bogged down by the dates issue. I just found it a little bit repetitive at times. As you say, the detail is important, but at times, it did read a little proseline-esque. It's not a major issue - perhaps just give the article a read over a couple of times. Even "In January 2010," rather than "On January 2, 2010," might help if the exact date itself isn't so important. Brad78 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]