Talk:Babe Siebert

Early life

The second sentence of the section says that "He became obsessed with hockey at an early age, playing the game nearly every day." By playing it every day, I assume it means playing it in the winter. There were no (accessible) artificial rinks in his era, right? Also, the S Line could perhaps be fairly easily made into a Good Topic, so I posted a note about that on Talk:S Line (hockey). Maxim_(talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Summer and winter. IIRC, one of the articles (perhaps in the Gazette coverage of his death) says he and his friends played indoors on the floor when it was raining. And yeah, a good topic might be had on this. I'm certainly up for trying to bring them all to GA class. Resolute 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Babe Siebert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I have very little knowledge of ice hockey, so forgive any slips on my part, although I have reviewed another ice-hockey article. A very nice article, informative, interesting and easy to read. Should pass easily, but a few minor points.

• Lead needs expanding, as it is a little short for the length of the article. No details about his moves and certainly should have something on the comeback.

• Done

• Is it known where the nickname "Babe" came from?

• I would speculate that it was because he was the youngest child in his family, but looking for something concrete.

• "good enough for second place on the team": presumably this means second highest goalscorer

• Clarified

• "scorer on the line": forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean?

• The player who typically scores the goals, as opposed to a playmaker who typically assists on them. I've attempted to clarify

• "led Siebert afoul of league president": not sure about afoul. Possibly better: "led Siebert into confrontation/dispute..." or"displeased league presient Frank Calder..."

• Reworded

• "finished eighth in league" Is this an ice-hockey expression or should it be "in the league."

• It is a typical expression in North American sports terminology

• "as part of a contract dispute with the Rangers" Could this be expanded? What was the nature of the dispute and how was it resolved?

• Removed entirely, actually. As I was looking for specific sources, I came across a story from the time that says it was Earl Siebert, also of the Rnagers, who was the holdout. Even then there was confusion, heh:[1], [2]

• "became a target of trade rumours": Does this mean that there were rumours he would be traded?

• Yes, attempted to clarify

• "Frequently remaining on the ice for entire games as one of Boston's key players..." Again, excuse the ignorance, but I'm assuming this was rare? Has that always been the case?

• It is completely unheard of in today's game. At his time it would have been a fairly rare occurrence.

• "but tensions between Siebert and Shore were evident" Could this be expanded to explain more. Was it connected with Siebert playing in defence? It slightly reads that way to me.

• Both players were known for their on-ice temper and physical/violent style. The Legends of Hockey story notes that they had a "violent feud" as opponents, which it is implied they were unable to settle as teammates. I've attempted to clean up the wording.

• Why was Siebert traded rather than Shore?

• Unknown. I would speculate that Shore, who was a life-long Bruin at that point, was the more popular player with the fans than Siebert, who was in only his second year in Boston. I'm looking for source explaining why the Bruins made the decision they did, but I expect it is unlikely I will find one. Teams were not in the habit of justifying trades in those days.

• "He was immediately named him the team's captain" Either he or him needs to go.

• Fixed

• "one final, injury plagued season" Any details on the injuries? This sentence reads as if he had many injury plagued seasons. If that is so, could it be expanded? If not, it may be better to say, "after one final season, in which he was plagued by injury..." or ""Plagued by injury in his final season..."

• Reworded

• "Siebert's peers lauded his character and play..." Any details on who and how?

• Expanded.

• Could the details of his death be merged together? Part is in the Professional career section, the rest (about his daughters) is in the Family section. It may be better all the details were in one place, even if there is some duplication, such as moving the details about visiting his father and his death being witnessed by his daughters into the career section as well. However, if you prefer it as it is, leave it for I am not too bothered.

• I had intended for the commentary on his death to flow from his playing career section into the family section, however that paragraph on his wife does mess it up. I've reorganized it for better flow.

• I noticed looking at the refs that there is a bit more info on his death available which may add to the article.

• Could you provide examples? I think I have all of the important details already, but am interested in what you've found.

• I realise that it is normal not to give refs for statistics at the end of ice hockey articles, but I think it needs some indication of where they come from.

• We typically contain that in the external links section (i.e.:"Babe Siebert's career stats at The Internet Hockey Database") but I can move it to the references section if you prefer.

• Any more details about his playing style? I noticed there were some on the legends of hockey page in the refs.

• I've sprinkled a few more descriptions throughout. Generally he was regarded as a strong and physical player with a mean streak. I think that is fairly well reflected throughout.

• A really minor one, which you can ignore if you like. A few of the links to the Montreal Gazette do not go to the correct place where the info is to be found when it is spread over 2 pages.

• Looks like I forgot to update the link for each of three articles from the same edition of the Gazette. I fixed one, but the other does not have a link that isolates it so I left it at the closest link.

• Images have no alttext. Not needed for GA, but would be needed for FA. Images otherwise fine, as are links and refs.

• Done anyway.

I'll place this on hold for a week, but I don't see any problems. Let me know if it is not possible to expand any of the details, they are not essential to pass, but would be appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Resolving issues as I go along.... Resolute 02:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And I believe I have addressed your comments, though I have a question above about what you've found regarding his death that I'm apparently missing. Thanks again! Resolute 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The extra details on his death (such as the fact that he was swimming with his children) are on the page 1 article of the Montreal Gazette pg Aug 26, 1939 but if you think they are too trivial, that's fine.
• The death section reads better now, but the sentence "He was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1964,[7] and is an honoured member of the Waterloo Region Hall of Fame.[18]" seems a bit out of place and breaks up the flow.
• Everything else fine now. My only suggestions, thinking about any possible FAC, would be changing "He finished second on the team" (which is OK if you know about sports but may confuse people unfamiliar with the terminology) to "He finished as the second highest goalscorer on the team with 16 goals..." and adding the reference to the stats, just to make it explicit. But you can leave it as it is if you prefer.

The only one that really matters is the second one of these, and I'll pass as soon as that's done. Great stuff! --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved the HHOF stuff to the end. And I added that he was swimming with his daughters. It was implied already, but not outright stated. Thanks! Resolute 23:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

All fine now, well done.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Resolute 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)