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 18:03, 4 June 2007.

---

Joe Sakic[edit]

Self-nom It passed GA a few days ago, and since then, I've strived to get it to FA status. Cleaned up the article, nearly doubled the references used, and added another photo. Now has plenty of references, is completely neutral, and describes everything about Sakic. Kaiser matias 22:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Kaiser made the article a truly encyclopedic. It looks great, has plenty of sources, is well-written, and should be a basis of other biography articles. Jmlk17 22:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, yes! Too bad there aren't a few good quality free images...--Phoenix 04:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I know the images are not the best quality, however, it is difficult for me to get photos of Sakic being a few thousand miles away. And the ones that are on have a completely free license, with no restrictions, being that I was the one who took the pictures. Kaiser matias 04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware of that for the most part, I wasn't blaming you for the lack of images. The prose is good anyway, and I think this article is ready to roll. --Phoenix 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything to help improve Wikipedia. Kaiser matias 05:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well made bio. Just one thing, couldn't you convert the "awards" section from a list into a table. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 08:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but:
  • Would change the main article templates to see also. The main article templates is to use for example, when you have a resume of something that is expanded in a different article. That's not the case. The Colorado Avalanche or the Nordiques article do not expand on the career of Sakic at the clubs. Fixed those
  • Early on in the season, Sakic first proved himself as the leader of the team, commenting on the Eric Lindros situation. While Lindros was busy holding out against the Nordiques, who were again doing poorly. When asked about Lindros, Sakic stated,(...) - That While Lindros (...) sentence doesn't really make sense. Or am I just missing something. (English is not my first language, I apologize if I'm wrong) Changed the wording, hopefully it's cleaer
  • Although I have corrected some, I'm not sure there aren't anymore. I mean this: references should be after the comma or the period, never before. Corrected
• And that's all I think. Very good work. I edited this article a few times before and I was surprised to see how it has improved. Congratulations.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 14:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Records and achievements is listy; needs to be converted to compelling prose. WP:DASH attention needed throughout. A one-paragraph lead? Pls see WP:LEAD — it should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article. Publication dates (not just years) should be given when available in the footnotes; for examples, see ^ Zeisberger, Mike (2007). Sakic is no ordinary Joe. NBCSports.com. Retrieved on May 14, 2007. The correct publication date is June 15, 2001, but the source says 2007 ??? All of the sources should be checked for accuracy. Since retrieval dates are wikilinked, publication dates should be as well. What is the data source for the tables ? For a bio, there is very little info about his personal life. Why are important awards piped in the lead ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the achievements there could even be merged into the prose, if not all of them. I'll consider tackling that. -- Phoenix2 05:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Sandy, abbreviations also need proper formatting when they initially appear, see here. Also dates shouldn't use "th" and didn't should be did not ("The Avalanche didn't repeat as Stanley Cup champions"). Quadzilla99 13:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the International play section is close to proseline, it need re-writing. Quadzilla99 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also going to have to point that this also probably also fails 3. It's unfortunate, but an infobox pic that shows the back of someone's head unfortunately does not represent the best of Wikipedia's work. Quadzilla99 03:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to point out on that, there are few images of Sakic on Wikipedia at all, so it is indeed one of the better of Wikipedia's work. And considering the fact that it has no restrictions on its license, I don't see how it is that bad. Yes, it is a back view of Sakic, however it is better than no image of Sakic whatsoever. Kaiser matias 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I understand that these photos are the best we can do at the moment. However, they are undeniably weak, so I recommend keeping just the first one and omitting the other two, which are quite similar. MaxVeers 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose needs more citations for me:

  "Swift Current Broncos" section 2nd para needs some citations

  "Quebec Nordiques" section which citation references his captaincy (if any)? I am confused because in 89 he became captain which is usually only given to one player and then in 92 he became captain again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Object very good start to build on, especially given the extensive references, but the prose is way below FA standards. Take the lead: the first sentence can be shrunk to avoid the "who is". The second sentence "One of the most successful players ever, Sakic is known for having won two Stanley Cups, various NHL trophies and being named to play in 13 NHL All-Star Games, as well as one of the strongest team leaders to ever play in the NHL." also has to be rewritten. First, the peacock terms need to go (also applies in many other places in the article). Then note that the phrase "as one..." is incompatible with "known for". The whole article similarly needs a lot of polishing: one sentence paragraphs need to be merged to improve the flow, fanboyish sentences like "It is with this excellent skill that he has managed to be one of the highest scoring players in the history of the NHL." have to go, bulleted list should ideally be rewritten as a coherent section, etc. Pascal.Tesson 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment was waiting for to hear what was wrong with the article. Getting everything fixed up will take me a couple days, so don't be suprised to see nothing happening on the article in the short-term. Kaiser matias 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is obviously going to fail the nomination, as I don't have the time right now to fix up these objections, but I would like to make some points. First of all, the bio section is more or less consistent with Martin Brodeur, which is already FA, and Dominik Hasek, which is also a FA-candidate and has not had any objections on its bio. I don't understand what is needed about WP:DASH, which could be a policy I'm not aware of. Tables are not referenced in the Brodeur or Hasek articles, so I don't see why it should be here. Again I'm going to contest the opposition to the images. They are the only ones on Wikipedia, and they have a free license. Quadzilla99 said they don't represent the best of Wikipedia; however, as the only ones, they are the best of Sakic by default. Aside from that, it needs a lot more retouching, and has no chance of getting fixed in the short term. Kaiser matias 04:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Two concerns:

• Use of peacock terms throughout the text. An example: "scoring an amazing 120 points in 82 regular season games and 34 points in 22 playoff games." Do we really need to tell the reader it was "amazing"?
• The free images of Sakic barely show the subject. There's no way you can get in contact with Sakic (or his PR team) and ask for a free image? CloudNine 11:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.