After spending a considerable amount of time rewriting and citing this article, I believe it is nearly ready to be a Featured Article candidate. There is still some work to go (i.e.: removing the red links for the Flames' owners), but at this point, I believe the article is ready for any advice on what may be missing or require changing to bring this article fully up to FA standards. Thanks! Reso lute 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good job, this is definitely a good article, and it's quite close to FA. Now I have few concerns just by taking a small glance:
- Section names like "Decline" and similar are POV. A rename is in order.
- The lead looks choppy; four very short paragraphs. That should be combined.
- A copyediting looks useful. I might do help out with that.
Cheers, -- Maxim (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- A copyedit would be most appreciated. I'm great with lists, not a much with prose. I had thought about the POV nature of the section titles. Without titles though, I feel that the dates come across as completely arbitrary. That said, "Growing pains" and "Decline" are probably the only two section titles that are POV, I would think. Not sure how else to name them, but I'll think on it. Same with the lead. I might just remove that "only team to retain its name" bit and combine to three paragraphs. That really is just trivia, and hard to source. Thanks, Reso lute 05:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I worked a bit on the lead, hope you like it. Resolute finished up. Alaney2k ( talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- A script has been used to generate a semi- automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten about this, I have been very busy, unfortunately lately, but I will get to this. Maxim (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)