Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States/archive1

• "Canada and the United States dominated the preliminary round of the 1998 tournament, and in their head-to-head match up, the United States won 7–4." - could you clarify that this match up was in the early stages, as you go on to mention that they meet in the final?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "The two teams met in the gold medal final" is 'gold medal' necessary?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "In thirteen games played between the two teams in 1997, Canada won seven and the United States won six." Could you provide a reference for this?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Jenny Potter is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics, with 11 goals, 19 assists and 30 points." and this?
  • Unfortunately there's no cumulative reference; it's comprised of adding up the stats from each Olympics. It's no less valid, you just have to do a little math. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's okay; just to clarify then; do you mean that she is the all-time leading scorer in the women's tournament at the Olympics for the United States? Because I read it as her being the all-time leading scorer overall.? Harrias (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added "American" in front of scorer to clarify. Anthony (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Table looks fine and sortability works well. But, shouldn't someone with a Gold and a Silver sort above someone with just a Gold?
  • If I knew how to do that, I certainly would. But I dont't know enough about Wiki-formatting to pull that off. Anthony (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I agree with the comments in the previous review on sorting in the Medals column. Check out my list List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft for some ideas. You could use {{ntsh}} and come up with a point system for sorting. I.e. 3 pts for a gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. So Jenny Schmidgall-Potter would have 8 points and you would use {{ntsh|8}}.
  • I managed to figure out how the Canadian page did it, and copied it thusly. They're now sorted by number of medals; in case of a tie, they're further ranked by the types of medals. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Notes column in the goaltender table is center justified while in the skaters table it is left justified. I suggest fixing the goaltender column.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Notes" section are actually references (see WP:FOOT). I suggest separating out the "References" section into "General" and "Specific" references (again, see my list earlier in the review).
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Double period in the Podnieks reference.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No categories? Surely you can find an applicable one.
  • Fixed. When I was working on it in my userspace I did not have categories; when I copied it over I neglected to add them. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Might I suggest using WebCitation to archive some of those references? It would be a shame to lose some of them as they probably contain data that would be difficult to find freely elsewhere. (Not a requirement.)
  • Not a bad idea; I might look into that. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been hit before because the templates at the bottom of my lists did not contain a link to the article it is being used on. However, since I am unable to find a specific MOS requirement, I'll just leave it at that. (Not a requirement.)
  • The templates contain a link to the United States women's national ice hockey team, which is the primary page. This is but a small subsection of that page, and is not really worthy of being included in a template. Perhaps if additional pages are created one might come up, but for now, there's no applicable template or link for it. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a good list. Just a couple comments/issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Caitlin Cahow won bronze with the American women in 2006, and added a silver in 2010." - No comma here.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Erika Lawler posted 2 points in her first Olympics, and helped the Americans to a silver medal." - Same.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kerry Weiland made her Olympic debut in Vancouver, and finished with 2 points in 5 games." - Same.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Molly Engstrom has 7 points in 9 Olympic games." - Not being familiar with ice hockey myself, I find has to be an awkward word choice here. Could you replace it with something like earned, received, or was awarded?
  • "Has" is a perfectly fine word, since you said yourself you are not familiar with ice hockey, but I changed it to "scored" (which is not entirely correct, since you only "score" a goal, you don't "score" an assist, but whatever.) Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be sure, has is used in ice hockey related, reliable sources in exactly this way? Personally, I find neither word to be an optimal choice. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Angela Ruggiero has 6 goals and 9 assists in 21 Olympic games." - Same.
  • This one I'm leaving, because there's no other way to say it without sounding awkward for hockey; again, you not being a hockey person would not understand, and that usage is fine across dozens of featured lists and articles on Wikipedia. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it rather presumptuous of you to tell me I wouldn't understand something. Whether or not I'm a hockey person is irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not personal experience. Unusual word usage such as this is no big deal, and I'm not insisting that you change it. The point is, before I can support this nomination, I have to be convinced that the usage is fine. You can convince me of that by showing me reliable sources (not other Wikipedia articles) using the word that way. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologize for being presumptuous; I've just never needed to explain word choice to someone before when it comes to hockey. Having said that, "Bergeron has five points in four games", "Christiansen has 3 points in his last two games", "Benn has five points in his last five games" are just three examples. I hope this convinces you of proper word usage. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The third general reference states its title as "Results database", yet when I look at the page, I cannot find those words anywhere.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The second specific reference is giving a dead link.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The third specific reference gives "Canadian Press" as the author of the source. Sounds more like the name of a newspaper to me.
  • Fixed. The name of the paper is the Waterloo Region Record, the publisher is Canadian Press. To be honest, I copied that one direct from the Canadian page. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Though it is not exactly part of the criteria, I must say I find the choice of images to be less than stellar (same goes for the captions). List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada does a way better job in that respect.
  • May I inquire what is wrong with the photos? They're all high quality, color, action photos of the women's ice hockey team, playing women's ice hockey. I'm afraid I don't understand what your issue is with the photos. The Canadian women's page has the same set, except for a few where the women are not playing hockey. If that's your issue, I say you've got it backwards; if anything, there should be MORE pictures of them playing hockey, since it's a list about hockey players. If it were baseball, I'd want pictures of them swinging a bat or throwing a pitch. Standard shots of people standing around does not a good list make. Anthony (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the new lead image is better already. As for the rest, pictures of them playing ice hockey are obviously better than pictures of them doing something not at all related to ice hockey, but the priority of the article is the players, not the game. The pictures should convey what these people look like and that's simply not what images like this one do. Then there's the captions. The captions of all the pictures of individual players in the Canadian list explain how that particular player stands out, while the captions in this list are mostly just restatements of what's been said in the respective player's list entry. Goodraise 05:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That Tueting image is the only free one I could find of her. As for the US captions vs. the Canadian captions, I honestly do not see much difference between the two. Canada mentions how many medals the players won (except for Wickenheiser and Campbell, who obviously are special players). USA does the same, except it focuses more on the stats. Both lists summarize what's in the list. At any rate, I added an image and made slight alterations to the captions on some of the images. Anthony (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Might be back with more. Goodraise 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't like a two-sentence opening para. I'd try to merge it with other essential info.
  • I added another sentence, but there's not much else to add that's related; the similar Canadian article had 2 sentences, so I figured as an opener it would be OK. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Until 1998, women's hockey had been " you mean international hockey?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Canada won seven and the United States won six" no need to repeat won.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Americans would end up taking bronze in the tournament. " prefer "The Americans ended the tournament taking the bronze medal" or similar. Not keen on the "would.. ing.." stuff.
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "in the gold medal game, and in a repeat of 2002 the Canadians took the gold," don't repeat gold, perhaps say "in the final, and in a repeat..."?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "gold medal winning team was" surely one or two hyphens here?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Jenny Potter or Jenny Schmidgall-Potter?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref. in the tables should be Ref(s).
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Skaters list sorted by medals... typically one gold exceeds any number of silver. So when sorting descendingly, Mounsey should come ahead of Darwitz and Chu etc...
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 3 isn't specific enough - which page is this referring to?
  • Fixed. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " In 2006" would prefer "In the 2006 Olympics" (linked per our link).
• Not sure where you're referring to; the only "In 2006" links to Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just saying you could link it like this: "In the 2006 Olympics..." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "(1g, 2s, 1b)." dislike this enormously. Write the words please. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just took out the parentheses; they can look to the left if they want to see the specific medals. I wasn't married to that idea anyway. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]