"Bourdon anonymously donated $10,000 to the local minor hockey association for families who could not afford equipment." This doesn't make sense. How can it be an anonymous donation?
It needs to be inclusive to more than just hockey fans. Articles shouldn't contain sport-specific jargon, and I'm afraid I don't have a clue what this means. It does need to be clarified.
Peanut4 (
talk)
11:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Added talent analysis from
HockeysFuture.com as well as being known for his shot. Also added how he was perceived as an underachiever for most of his short career, but showed strides in his last season (references to support).
Orlandkurtenbach (
talk)
09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The reasoning for the season's is that they are the same season, so convention says you indent the 2nd 3rd instance etc. Personally I like them unindented but that is the reasoning for it. -
Djsasso (
talk)
21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)reply
General
Scores and years should have dashes not hyphens, e.g. 1–0 not 1-0, per
WP:DASH.
It generally seems quite short, but that's not entirely surprising for someone who died so young. However, do you have any more info that could be added?
It's been a fantastic improvement in the article since the first review. Great work. However I've one more point arising from the work. "Shortly after the trade, Bourdon seriously injured his ankle. Although he returned to join Moncton in the playoffs, he was told by doctors at the time that it would take two years to fully recover." Obviously he continued to play despite the injury. Was he playing while not fully fit? Was their diagnosis wrong? I certainly think this needs a bit more explanation, if possible.
One other minor point, rather than using acronyms, I prefer a prose alternative. NHL and to a lesser extent CHL and AHL are certainly fine. Though I'm not sure about the use of QMJHL. If it's widespread then you will probably be fine using it. I'd say something like Quebec League is easier for someone to read. However, I'll leave this up to you, whether you want to change it.
Peanut4 (
talk)
22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Image - The new image is of fairly poor quality and doesn't seem to show much that the infobox doesn't already show. Do other editors think it's necessary?
Peanut4 (
talk)
21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Neither am I fan. But it's difficult to get or find images on here full stop, and I admit it is of a significant game. At the moment I'll leave it as it is, though if you push for FAC, there may be calls for it to be removed.
Otherwise, more great work done to improve the article. It's a fully deserved GA pass.
If you wanted to push the article on further, more expansion would be more than likely needed, because it's potentially on the short side, though it does seem to cover all the aspects in the correct depth. Secondly, I would also recommend a peer review, if you were to go down the FA step. All in all, great work. Well done.