Talk:Guy Lafleur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Quebec, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Quebec. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute to more articles. |
[edit] Name
Just in case people wonder, I moved the page from "Guy LaFleur" to "Guy Lafleur" because, in the French language, in Quebec or France, names like "Lafleur" do not take a second capital letter. Despite the fact that it seems widespread (probably based on the celtic Mc and Mac), the American custom of putting a second majuscule on the name of Franco-Americans, people with Quebecois descent, is not correct, at least not in the original French speaking context. --Liberlogos 00:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Article seems to have partiality problems
Hey there, sorry to do this anonymously but this is the first time I've ever made one of these comments. I was reading this article was troubled by some comments and lack of professionalism. For example, from the introduction "one of the greatest and most popular players ever to play professional ice hockey"; I just read the Gretzky article and the contributor there (eventually) admirably refrained from making hyperbolic comment like this.
- Well then maybe you should add that "hyperbolic" comment to the Gretzky page too. That fact is... A fact, at the opposite side of whatever mathematical slope you'd like it to take. Guy Lafleur was the best player of the 70's, the first one to score 50+ goals during many years in a row. He broke numerous NHL records, until Gretzky The Great One came in town... ;-). No offence, but this should be an encyclopedia, it is neither some stats magazine nor an editorial article trying to revision history towards the taste of the day... HawkFest
This also sets the tone for the rest of the article, with "he played with a thrilling style that marked him out as the most exciting professional hockey player of his era and, arguably, of all time". I think you guys call this a POV problem, implying that the author's Point Of View is interfering with imparting a neutral tone. Even if it's not, the subjectiveness of the statement makes it nearly impossible to prove one way or another. I would suggest either mediating the enthusiasm of these lines or simply removing them entirely.
- Well imho you're right : though I know for them to be true to reality, the article should illustrate its statements, or at least give some reference. On the other hand, the wording is quite clear : one of the best is a truth, and the most exciting professional hockey player of his era is also perfectly true, this is not some POV : stats are there to illustrate these facts with numbers, and myriads of different sources of articles, books, etc., can undeniably support these attributes. The same goes for Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. Note : correct me if I am wrong, but I guess you didn't have the chance to witness Lafleur's play during the 70's, else you would've not write what you wrote. HawkFest
The statistical and historical breakdown is fine, I have no problem with that, and for the most part it's a good, descriptive article.
In terms of lack of professionalism I think the line "he borrowed it for the weekend without telling anyone to show his friends back home in Thurso where he set it out on his front lawn for all his neighbors to see!" is at fault. I'm trying to think of any cases in an encyclopedia that would require an exclamation mark (outside of a quote) and can't think of a single one. Would remove the bang and potentially reword the sentence so it's a bit less admiring.
- I understand what you mean now : admiring does the job :). You're right, it looks like a newspaper article the day after a victory, or like a tabloïd biography... I think that modifying some details here and there would do the job (like exclamation marks, or the fact of not writing as an objective outsider who would simply depict how people adulated one individual, and why)...HawkFest
One last thing that someone might consider adding is Guy's attempts to re-enter the public consciousness with endorsements (some kind of juice) and maybe mention the "flower power" phenomenon.
- That would be interesting, though much more subjective than just writing that one of the most exciting players ever to play hockey was one of the most exciting players ever to play hockey... HawkFest
Yes, the punctuation issue is correct. Exclamation marks experience very little use in academic or objective writing. It is, however, difficult to discuss an athlete bearing such accomplishment without being a bit subjective. Perhaps a reasonable solution is to change "one of the best" to "considered by many to be one of the best" or "the most exciting professional hockey player of his era" to "many fans praised Lafleur as the most exciting player of his era," or whatnot. As much as I love Guy Lafleur, I retain enough rationality to realize that statements like "one of the best" or "the most exciting" are not facts. They are arguments. I certainly believe those statements to be true, but I'm sure many people would argue that Bobby Orr was the most exciting player of that era, or, in Lafleur's later years, Wayne Gretzky. Again, I would agree with those arguments supporting Lafleur, but I would never call them facts. It is a fact, on the other hand, that many people consider him one of the best players ever, so simply altering the statements in question in that nature will solve this problem.MikeFlynn 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
