# Talk:Logan Thompson

This review is transcluded from Talk:Logan Thompson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't usually review sports articles, but this looks pretty straight-forward, so I'll give it a go.  RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


### Lead
I'm guessing from your spelling of "honours" that {{Use British English}} would be appropriate to add.
You should explain what U Sports, ECHL, and IIHF are, just like you do for WHL, NHL, and AHL.
Per MOS:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"; I don't see where "the first former U Sports goaltender to start an NHL game in over 30 years" is covered in the article. Never mind, I found where it says that.
"Thompson received significant playing time in the 2021–22 season due to injuries".  That's a weird way to phrase things.  I think you mean "due to other players' injuries".
"Thompson was named an All-Star in 2023"  All-star in what league?  This comment applies generally to the whole article; there's lots of places where I'm not sure which team or league is being talked about.
The first and last paragraphs are each just one sentence.  That's generally frowned upon (not sure where it says that, but somewhere in the MOS).  Somehow rearrange things to not have these short paragraphs.  It might not be unreasonable for the entire lead to be a single paragraph.
"After playing junior in the Western Hockey League", should that be "junior hockey" instead of just "junior"?


### Playing career
"Thompson began in bantam junior hockey", I assume "bantam" means some specific age range?  You should add that.
"with the Calgary Bisons": add "of the XXX league"
"midget level", as per "bantam"
"CBHA" Define what that acronym means.
You say he's a goaltender in the lead, but that should be stated here as well.  Probably up front in the first sentence: "Thompson began in bantam junior hockey as a goaltender for the Calgary..."
".905 save percentage" => "0.905" per MOS:DECIMAL
"3.36 goals against average" this needs to be punctuated better.  Maybe "3.36 goals-against average", or in quotes, or something.  As it stands now, it parses ambiguously.
".934" -> "0.934" (and similarly wherever else)
"After the conclusion of Brock's season" I think this would work better as ".. of the Badgers' season"
"try-out contract" Is there some article that could be linked to which would explain more about what a "try-out contract" is?  If not, don't worry about it.
What does "amateur try-out contract" mean as opposed to "professional try-out contract"?  I'm guessing in the former, you're signed to the team for some short period of time but not getting paid?  Some explanation would help.
"however, he spent the entirety" given the semi-colon, I don't think you need "however".  Maybe the semicolon should be a full stop?
"serving as one of the Pacific Division's goaltenders", link to Pacific Division (NHL).


### General notes
I'm not sure this is strictly a WP:GACR, but the convention with article titles in references like BEARS SIGN GOALTENDER LOGAN THOMPSON TO AHL CONTRACT" is to convert them to title case per MOS:CONFORMTITLE


### Sources
I'm not convinced eliteprospects.com is a WP:RS.  There's a very short discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238#rs for sports, which drew a single vague opinion from user who eventually got banned, so not a lot of confidence there.
Overall, I'm concerned about the over-reliance on what appear to be press releases.  For example, these selected more or less at random:
Knights, Henderson Silver. "LOGAN THOMPSON NAMED CCM/AHL GOALTENDER OF THE MONTH - Henderson Silver Knights". Henderson Silver Knights. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
"VGK Sign Goaltender Logan Thompson To Two-Year Entry-Level Contract | Vegas Golden Knights". nhl.com. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
"Goaltender Logan Thompson Named to 2023 Honda NHL All-Star Weekend | Vegas Golden Knights". nhl.com. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
"Trio Of Golden Knights To Represent Canada At IIHF World Championship | Vegas Golden Knights". nhl.com. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
"2020-21 AHL All-Rookie Team named". theahl.com. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
What we're really looking for (WP:GNG) is 1) secondary sources which are 2) independent of the subject.  Press releases don't meet either of those requirements.  This is the most significant issue I've seen so far.
There is extensive duplication with https://www.osdbsports.com/nhl/players/logan-thompson/39865351-af7a-419c-8db6-5b270c2dd3ec.  I'm still trying to figure out who copied from who.  RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll take care of the rest later, but regarding the OSDBSports entry, which I find more concerning - I can assure you this article, and those passages specifically, is originally written by me; it appears they’ve rather blatantly copied it. The Kip 05:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
A further search makes it appear they've done so for a variety of NHL player pages, including several others written by myself. I've sent them a polite email requesting either attribution or removal. The Kip 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Going to go through this point by point:


#### Lead
Template:Use Canadian English has been added.
IIHF has been elaborated on. U Sports and ECHL are respectively a pseudo-acronym and orphan initialism; they officially don't stand for anything.
Rephrased quote.
Simplified link to clarify NHL.
Condensed lead into one paragraph.
Added "hockey."


#### Playing career
Linked Minor ice hockey#Age categories for bantam and midget.
Reworded sentence to clarify league. the AMHL (now AEHL) is split into multiple age divisions; Wikipedia's article only covers the U18.
Clarified CBHA.
Added "goaltender."
Re: save percentage - MOS:DECIMAL states that sporting performance averages are excluded from the leading 0. Goals against average is also properly formatted by sporting norms.
Added the Brock conclusion item.
Linked ATO and PTO article for clarity.
Turned semicolon into a full stop. Feel like the "however" is necessary to clarify that he never ultimately played for Hershey.
Linked Pacific division.


#### General notes
Converted titles into normal capitalization.


#### Sources
As for EliteProspects, the NHL itself considers it a reliable source to use for players' non-NHL statistics as evidenced here (scroll down to "Stats," change the drop-down menu from "NHL" to "All Leagues," and scroll to the bottom of the chart). Less-importantly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey considers it one of several definitively reliable sources for a player's basic career statistics, history (teams), and awards, as it's effectively the internet's premier hockey database. It and HockeyDB are used for virtually all hockey players' non-NHL statistics.
Press releases from the AHL/AHL teams didn't seem to be an issue for Dustin Wolf, which passed GA review recently; however, I've attempted to find alternative citations to the best of my ability.
Hope this clears things up! The Kip 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept eliteprospects.com as a WP:RS as far as raw data goes.  And the OSDB copying explanation seems totally plausible, so OK there as well.  But I'm still having a lot of trouble with the overwhelming preponderance of first-party and/or press release sources you use.  Here's a few more I found:
"Thompson of Golden Knights named NHL Rookie of the Month for November | NHL.com". nhl.com. Retrieved 7 January 2024. :
"Thompson named OUA Rookie of the Year, Goalie of the Year - Brock University Athletics". Brock University Athletics. Retrieved 17 November 2023.
"LOGAN THOMPSON SIGNS PTO WITH BINGHAMTON DEVILS". Adirondack Thunder. Retrieved 7 January 2024.
At a minimum, these sources should all be cited with {{Cite press release}} to make it clear what they are.  These kinds of sources are OK for occasional use for specific facts, but I think the extent to which you rely on these sources, rather than independent secondary sources, goes beyond what is acceptable.  I'm going to request a second opinion on this. RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
All three of those were supplanted with secondary sources by the time of my first response; I’m not sure what more I can realistically do there. The Kip 16:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Those last three are refs 35, 8, and 11, respectively, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/1194117229). RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but they’re all paired with a secondary source and I figured it would be best not to remove the other entirely. Would that be a better course of action?
Also, to put it rather bluntly, it’s near-impossible to find a secondary source about an ECHL tryout contract. It’s a miracle I found one for Binghamton in the first place. The Kip 16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm OK with your bluntness, but if you can't find a secondary source, perhaps that means nobody thought it was important enough to write about, so it shouldn't be in the article.  That's really the gist of GNG. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, I was able to find one that at least described him taking the ECHL deal. Every press release in the article has been doubled up with a secondary source, and again, Dustin Wolf used a fair amount of press releases from the AHL and his AHL team and passed GA review just recently, without secondaries.While I appreciate the review, I legitimately do not understand what more needs to be done to meet GA standards. The Kip 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Logan Thompson, not Dustin Wolf.  What some other reviewer allowed in some other article  isn't germane to this review, but if you're telling me that Dustin Wolf passed GA while depending on press releases and without secondary sources, then my first guess is that it had a defective review.  I'll repeat what I said above: "At a minimum, these sources should all be cited with {{Cite press release}}", with emphasis on "at a minimum"; doing so is a requirement, but by itself doesn't guarantee that whoever provides the 2nd opinion will be willing to accept them. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I would once again like to also point out that everything attributed to a supposed press release has also been doubled up with a secondary source. Once again, short of removing the supposed PRs entirely I don’t know what more you want me to do. The Kip 05:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Removing the PR sources would be a good thing.  Any such sources that are left should be cited using {{cite press release}}.  I'm not sure how I can be any more clear about this. RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


### 2nd opinion needed
Please see the section on sources above.  This article uses a large number of sources which do not meet the WP:GNG requirements of being independent and secondary.  Many of these are websites run by the individual teams or leagues.  Some are clearly press releases as evidenced by wording such as " The Adirondack Thunder ... announced today that ..."  My feeling is that use of such sources is acceptable on a limited basis to cite specific facts but the extensive use of that kind of source is inappropriate for a GA article.  If I had to cite a specific WP:GACR, I'd say it fails item 4: Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.  I am requesting a second opinion on whether the degree of reliance on these non-independent primary sources is acceptable.  RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a note, mostly to my future self, I still need to perform the spot check required by WP:GAN/I#R3, but I was going to hold off on that pending the result of the 2nd opinion. RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith are you concerned the topic isn't notable? Ajpolino (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on the rest of what you wrote I'm going to assume not. Besides notability, there's no need to cite WP:GNG. As for whether those sources are reliable, I think it's a case where context matters. For match stats and other uncontroversial facts, I think citing primary and/or not-fully-independent sources is widely accepted for sports articles. E.g. see Paige Bueckers and Angel Reese which were both recently through FAC. Is there a particular source(s) you're concerned isn't a reliable reference for the claim cited? Ajpolino (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on notability, which is part of what I'm looking for somebody else to evaluate.  I wouldn't think that by the time an article gets to a GA review, notability would still be in question, but here we are. RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I listed 8 specific sources above which all appear to be press releases, but once I found that many, I didn't do an exhaustive search of the rest. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Alright well let's deal with those two separate issues separately:
Notability - the guy has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, e.g. [1] and [2]. Also he's a starting player on a National Hockey League team (and named an "All-Star" last year to boot) so I can't imagine this article would be deleted at an AfD. That said, you needn't take my word for it; you're welcome to nominate it at AfD and see what folks think.
Press releases - 4 of the articles you highlighted are press releases from the team, hosted on NHL.com. The reason I pointed out the pages of those two college basketball players is that both articles were recently scrutinized and passed at FAC, so they might give a better sense of what the consensus is on acceptable sourcing in sports articles. On the Bueckers article, for example, I see 8 citations to University of Connecticut pages/press releases, the team she plays for. Hence, my impression that press releases are seen as acceptable for stats and uncontroversial facts. One of your examples is this source used to cite On July 13, 2020, Thompson signed a two-year entry-level contract with the Vegas Golden Knights of the National Hockey League (NHL). My understanding is this is the kind of uncontroversial fact we consider the team to be a reliable source for, even though they're not independent of the subject. So the context matters. Press releases aren't good for everything, but are probably just fine for certain facts. That's why I asked if there are particular claims in the article you don't think the cited source is justified for. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
As a less important aside, I'm not aware of any requirement that folks cite press releases with {{cite press release}}. The two FAs I reference above don't seem to. Ajpolino (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ajpolino I'm assuming the above is your 2O, so if you could set the status back to 'onreview", I'll pick it up from there.  Thanks for your input. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting back to this sooner.  I was watching the /GA page but not the talk page so I didn't notice the state change.  My bad.
I asked for a 2O and it would be disingenuous of me to not listen to that, so I'm going to call this a pass.  I do however feel the need to express my amazement that this level of reliance on press releases and primary sources is considered acceptable for a sports article. RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Overall:  Meets eligibility requirements. Recently promoted to a GA. Nominated within the 10 day period. The hook is sourced to The Hockey News which seems to be WP:RS. I find it amusing that the parent company Roustan Media has a Wordpress favicon, but, I think that can be. Hockey News seems to have a partnership with Sports Illustrated fwiw. Overall, I feel good. Hook is interesting. I would have thought the university system would have produced more NHL players. The nominator has a question regarding the use of "is" vs "was". I am in favor of using "is" because the player is currently active. The promoting editor can change if need be. Earwig shows no major concerns. I will note that there was a sourcing conversation as a part of the GA review. I wanted to acknowledge that one and note that the consensus seems to have been to go with the second-opinion provider. QPQ is pending. I would request the nominator to wikilink goaltender. It took me a moment to make the association. However, if the nominator has avoided wikilinking goaltender to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE, I can understand. Passing back to nominator. Ktin (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Linked goaltender, don’t think it’s too close to SOB. I believe I’m exempt from QPQ, though - this is only my second DYK nom. I do also wonder if I should add “former” before U Sports; I’d appreciate your opinion on that as well. The Kip 04:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@The Kip:Updating to QPQ requirement not being required. Also, image looks good. Represents work by the nominator. One could make the case that the subject's photograph is not visible, but, I think that is to be expected when the goalie wears the helmet. I think it is good to go. Re: the use of the word "former" -- I am good without using the word. The promoting editor can add it if they so desire. Reads alright without it. Nice work on the article. Ktin (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)