Talk:Calgary Cannons

	Calgary Cannons has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

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

Lead

• All the facts are there in the lead, but I think at the moment it looks like a collection of either loosely linked facts or unlinked facts. It needs a re-think and several changes to make it flow far better. I would perhaps even ask for a copy edit from an indepedent editor.

History

• Why was the Cannons name chosen?
• "On their fourth attempt, the Cannons finally played their first game on April 22 against the Tucson Toros." It says above the first game was on April 11. I'm confused.
• "The first no-hitter by a Cannons pitcher was hurled by Frank Wills on May 31, 1985 against the Tacoma Tigers, also a seven-inning game." Shouldn't this be in the section above?
• "(see below for details.)" I don't think you need this.

General

• Month and years should not have commas per WP:DATE. E.g. "December 1983" not "December, 1983".
• Numerals and units should be broken by a non-breaking space per WP:MOSNUM.

A couple of things to do, but nothing substantial. The main change is to try re-write the lead. I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look to address these concerns tomorrow. Thanks for the review! Resolute 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed most of your concerns. On the choosing of the Cannons name, neither my 1985 media guide, nor the articles I have from that time mention why the name was chosen. Only that Parker and the local media chose Cannons. All I could offer as to why is speculation. Resolute 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious, so I contacted one of the Cannons' long-time announcers. He said that it was chosen as the winner of the name-the-team contest for two reasons: (1) the hope that it would reflect the team's hitting power, and (2) Russ Parker, the owner of the team, also owned Calgary Copier, which was the Calgary franchise for Canon. I don't know that a print or web source exists, though, so I don't think it can be used in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't show a direct cause-and-effect relationship, the information about Parker, Calgary Copier, and Canon can be found here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been the speculation I was referring to. I've also heard that it didn't have much to do with Parker's ownership of Calgary Copier. I'd have to really search over newspaper articles from 1984 to find when the name was chosen, and hope it is mentioned then. It is something I'll add to my long term planning, but wont be looking up in the near future. Resolute 04:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Everything's done so I will pass it. It's a nice little article, and may need some expansion if you were to head to FAC. Obviously one area of expansion will be to find a reliable source to back up the team name. But it's omission is not enough to fail the GAN. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]