Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)

Notes on the article

I thought it'd be a bit more appropriate to have it on the talkpage:

Rough timeline:

Background

• Gary Bettman replaces Gil Stein << Gil Stein scandal? see HHOF page
• Owners emphasis on southern expansion (went with Bettman's general guidelines instead)

Pre-lockout

• Canadiens 1993 title
• Rangers 1994 title
• Sens and Lightning
• North Stars relocate
• Ducks and Panthers
• 1994-95 lockout

late 1990s

• Devils trap to championships
• World Cup of Hockey
• NHLers in the Olympics
• Brett Hull's controversial SC winning goal
• Gretzky retires
• Lemieux's battle with cancer/retirement
• Jets, Nordiques and Whalers relocate
• Canadian Assistance plan - NHL's first revenue sharing

Early 2000s

• Large-small market disparity
• Southern teams winning Stanley Cup
  • Flames 2004 run

Lockout

• 2004-05 lockout
• draft lottery

Post-lockout

• Carolina over Edmonton in small market final<<WHA matchup, mention it in 67-92?
• Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin

Rules and innovations

• Trap
• Overtime format changes in 1999 and 2005
• Post-lockout rules changes

Maxim (☎) 23:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note #2

I've done some math, and based on the size-year ratio at the 67-92 article, this one should be around 20 000 bytes in total, as we're covering a shorter span of time, thus we want the articles balanced. Maxim (☎) 21:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it will come in north of that, but probably in the 25-30k region. I'll be writing a paragraph or two about the 94-95 lockout, then we have your mid 1990s section, then the 2000s, probably focussing on the lead into the 2004-05 lockout. Then the aftermath. Rules and changes will be larger than usual though. OTL in 1999 then SOL in 2005, other changes post-lockout. Resolute 21:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It only makes sense that it would come in proportionately larger than the others. The more recent history is much more well-documented, and most of us can remember the recent history better, so it is easier to write about. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the inherent bias towards recent news, there is also 24-30 teams for the entire scope of this article as opposed to 3-10, 6 and 12-24 of the previous articles. More teams, more games, more events. Resolute 22:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts

Just very briefly scanned the article, as in I haven't acutally read it yet. However, two things jump out at me: There is no mention of the 10 day player strike in 1992. This was quite the thing, showing that the NHLPA was no longer a pawn of Eagleson, and through extension, the NHL. Rather, Goodenow and the players had control of themselves for the first time. For that timeline, what colours should be used for teams that made drastic changes to their colouring. Being a Canucks fan, the orange colouring really stands out as wrong, post-1997. I'll add in LA, Buffalo, Anaheim, Washington and the Islanders, not to mention the Devils have a colour that doesn't suite them at all (green). I'll look over the article in the next few days, and offer a more through review. But for now, this will do. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is a paragraph about the strike in the Background section.  ;) As far as the colours go, Several teams have changed uniform colours throughout history, and it breaks continuity to change the colours each time. I went with colours that represented the team for a significant period of time that also were different than those of the teams immediately around them. With that in mind, I will have to update the 1917-42 image to change the St. Pats/Leafs all to blue.

That was, of course, my comments. Not sure why sinebot didn't pick up that I forgot to sign this. Resolute 04:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Post-lockout section, "The Sabres hosted the 2008 NHL Winter Classic on New Year's Day 2008, losing to the Pittsburgh Penguins in a shootout before a crowd of 71,217 at Ralph Wilson Stadium[46] The second Winter Classic is scheduled to be held January 1, 2009 at Wrigley Field in Chicago between the Blackhawks and Red Wings", is a period missing between "Stadium" and "The"?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, it would be best if "Dallas Stars" is linked once, per here. In the Background section, fix the link to "Gil Stein". In the Post-lockout section, link "Pittsburgh Penguins" once.

   Half-check. You missed this part. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Didn't read your comment carefully enough... Fixed now. Maxim_(talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed. The missing period was most likely as a result of a botched copypaste... Maxim_(talk) 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Maxim for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My rvs

I believe it unbalances the article; I don't believe the Rangers' win is so important that it deserves that it will take up such a big portion of the article. Maxim_(talk) 11:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, as soon as we let one team add specific information, the rest will want to follow. The great thing is that all teams are notable enough to have their own history written; on their main team article if not a specific team history article. Blackngold29 13:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The information is good, but too detailed for this article. Resolute 14:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to understand that this was NHL's most-watched game. The Rangers' win was hockey's greatest moment since the Miracle on Ice, according to The Globe and Mail. I wanted to make those points clear. Because ice hockey is Canada's sport and it was NHL's most-watched game, the news of the Rangers' win was common headlines appearing on every newsstand and every newspaper in Canada. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 21:46, 9 October, 2008 (UTC)