Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joe Sakic

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 promoted 00:37, 3 December 2007.

---

Joe Sakic

previous FAC

Self-nom, sort of. I previously nominated this back in June, then gave up on it after being overwhelmed by the whole process. Now it has been improved, seems to pass all the criteria that failed it, and more. Plenty of citations, both written and web, very clean layout, and several excellent images. Kaiser matias 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support Even better than what it was last time around. Well-sourced, edited, and concise, but still useful and full of information. Jmlk17 09:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I see that the image issue has been solved, somewhat. Instead of having no images the articles has too many, in my opinion. I suggest removing these two (I & II) since they are of lower quality then the other images. --Krm500 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reply I got rid of the low res images, as they don't fit in at all now, what with the high res images in place. Kaiser matias 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support excellent work. Perspicacite 06:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative support
  • Could you clarify within the article and templates the distinction between being Captain and being Co-Captain. It seems like you use these titles interchangeably. Also in the templates at the bottom you handle Co-Captaincy differently in different tenures. Please clean this up in both the text and the templates.
  • Also, this article is really well-cited. It would be preferable to me if each paragraph at least had one citation. It seems to me that the article would better represent, WP as a tertiary resource, if it was clear everything in the article is really attributable to a reliable source. I am not challenging WP:V. I am just saying that in order to really read like everything is being said by someone else, each paragraph should have a citation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reply Cleared up his co-captaincy issue, including a reference. Every paragraph now has a source, although if you see anything that should have a citation that doesn't, I'll see what can be done. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment One more little thing about the co-captaincy issue. The succession box should say something like co-captain with Sylvain Lefebvre shouldn't it. It seems like he was co-captain for a second time during a stretch. In fact, you might want to make one succession box into three for clarity, but I am not sure what is best. Others may have an opinion. It should say "Co-captain" somehow for the time that this was the proper title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reply I removed Lefebvre from the list, seeing how he was only a temporary captain. Standard convention for ice hockey articles was to not include temporary captains, and the NHL Record Book, and to that extent, the Avalanche article, only lists Sakic as being captain of the Avalanche, and makes no reference to Lefebvre. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Nothing to do with it being a FA but I think a cropped version of Image:SakicWarmup2.JPG would be a better lead image. Buc (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have any experiance in dealing with images and the like, but if someone were to go ahead and try it out, I'd be all for it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Cropped Buc (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article has improved a lot since the last FAC, but I think it misses something about his style of play and why he's the most respected player league-wide. I mean, I don't believe there's anyone who does not think Sakic is a class act. You could even mention a recent poll made by the Hockey News magazine to NHL players, who elected him as the most respected player. NHL.com must have some good articles of people saying things about him, at least there were some good I used for Peter Forsberg (like this and this).--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Reply I just spent several hours doing it, but I added an entire new section about Sakic's leadership. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Milestones section has the looks of a triva section and I don't think it should be under Legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Reply To set precident, the article about Martin Brodeur, another hockey FA article, is set up in the same way, with the milestones under the legacy headline. Also seems to be written up in the same style. Looking at the FA nomination, it was passed without any comment in regards to that section, so I can't see this being an issue here. The only difference is that Sakic has more information written under his section. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And looking at the Brodeur one I'd say the same thing about that. Maybe it it didn't get any comment because no one noticed it. Buc (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through it several times, and had others go through it for me as well, but I just can't see anything with it. Not that I'm saying there isn't, but if someone else is up to it, go for it. And I would think that his milestones should stay under the legacy section, seeing how they are his legacy. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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.