Wikipedia:Peer review/New Jersey Devils/archive1

New Jersey Devils[edit]

I just did a lot of cleanup work on this page and I think it looks pretty good, but before I nominate it for FA I would like to hear what people have to say about it. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. --Sportskido8 14:23 EST, 24 August 2006

Note - Sportskido opened this PR page prior to submitting it for FA status; however, it was never posted on the main PR page and thus went uncommented. The page failed FA nomination the first time; this is in an attempt to follow the correct procedures before re-submission for FA status. Please comment on the page in its current status. Anthony Hit me up... 20:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally posted on the main page, but nobody responded to it. --Sportskido8 17:02 CST, 31 August 2006

Just like nobody is responding to it now. --Sportskido8 11:30 CST, 6 September 2006

Well, it looks pretty good; there is a lot of references (though some still need to be filled in, get that fixed before your next FA attempt), good impartiality, and good use of visual aids. To improve, you need some minor but thorough copyedit done; I'll try to get to that myself if I have time next week. ~~Also, some of your sections are not divided correctly.~~ Finally, I think that top of the articles formatting needs to be imporved - there is a big gap between your start paragraph and your first section. I'll see if I can come up with anything else after I copyedit. Didius 01:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed the section error. I noticed that at least one of your citations isn't working -- 8 or 9 I think -- the one supporting Gretzky's comments. I think you should delete the sentence clause stating the Gretzky stood by his comments in private; none of the refs I checked support that statement and it is a borderline POV issue.

I think you could expand Style of Play. Has that always been their style? How effective was it? How controversial? I am not a hockey expert, but if I were I am sure I could come up with more questions to be answered by this section. Since I am not, it would be more readable to me if you would more clearly [[WP:mos:Explain Jargon|explain jargon], at least briefly.

I agree with comments from the FA reveiw stating that row after row of tables at the bottom grate, but I don't have any real good solution. Maybe if you made smaller tables under each sub heading of the Franchise History section Didius 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]