Started June 12/08

• The article seems to pass all the 'quick fail' criteria. I'll be starting on the detailed review of the article for the other standards shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm making notes as I go with this review, I'll post a note when completed so it is clear.

1. Well written?: I think a general once over would help clean up a few clarity issues with the prose. It might help to have a new set of eyes on the scene, just to pick out things that were understood by the writer but not expressed clearly. A few examples below:

• • After the Cleveland Barons left, Ohioans had to wait about twenty years to fulfill their hopes for an NHL team.
    • Maybe just say when the Barons left, and how long it was - 'about 20 years' is vague
  • The May referendum failed, but as Columbus' hopes for winning the bid were thinning, Nationwide announced on May 31, 1997, that it would be financing the $150 million arena
    • Run on sentence, and just generally not clear and concise. I'd try 'Columbus' hopes for winning the bid were slim after the May referendum failed, but Nationwide announced that they would finance the $150 million arena on May 31, 1997.
  • Just minor things like that. Not a major issue, but some cleanup is needed.

2. Factually accurate?: Well cited, from a variety of sources. Switching to a two column reference list would shorten that section of the page up a bit.

3. Broad in coverage?: Seems consistent here with other NHL team Good Articles.

4. Neutral point of view?: Seems fine.

5. Article stability? No recent issues evident from the article history

6. Images?: Lots of logos being used - not sure if this is necessary. Also, the jersey pictures seem redundant with all the logos, especially considering they are under 'fair use' They are on other team pages though, so for consistency's sake I understand their inclusion. Arena pictures, or other players might be a nice addition, but not a deal breaker.

• As this is my first GA review, I have asked another reviewer to take a look at what I've done here. I don't want to make final judgments until that is done. Leafschik1967 (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead is relatively short (see WP:LEAD) and doesn't seem to cover the article in whole.
• Is there really no more Team Information available?
• Check that ALL references include publisher info outside of the URL title (if using cite web, you need a publisher=)
  • Per request on my talk page, clarifying... sorry if I wasn't clear. Basically, and to take a random example, ref 2 (url) doesn't have a publisher listed. If you're using ((cite web)) (click the link for lots of info about that template), you need to fill in the publisher field, eg. |publisher=NHL would be it in this case. Does this clarify a bit? giggy _(:O) 09:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Are sites like hockey-fans.com reliable?
• hockeygoalies.org - reliable?

giggy _(:O) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that input in mind, I have placed the article on hold. It requires some work, but I think it is manageable to get it to GA status. Leafschik1967 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General comments. The headers are improperly capitalized. Only proper nouns should be capitalized. There are also numerous manual of style variations. Dashes don't conform to WP:DASH; the lead section uses line breaks to separate paragraphs for some reason; way too many sections in the "history" section, particularly for such a young team; "Franchise individual records" contains lots of needless capitalization; only full dates should be linked. "Team information" and "Franchise individual records" are completely unsourced. These is a very general statement about the article- there are many more specific problems. I wouldn't pass this article in its current state. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and getting some outside help on it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Did not pass requirements After taking into account the comments offered by other editors (thank you very much, BTW), this article does not pass the requirements for a GA. Many of the concerns raised have been addressed, but there is still the issue of the 'Team Name' section having only one reference that doesn't seem to adequately cover the content included. Also, while publisher information was added to the references, they are still haphazard - some have publisher wiki-linked, some do not, there is a red link in the references as well. I think the article is close, and reads very well but with these issues not fully addressed, I don't think it meets GA criteria. Good luck next time. leafschik1967 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]