# Talk:Calgary Cannons

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)

I will look to address these concerns tomorrow.  Thanks for the review! Resolute 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

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)