Talk:South Carolina Stingrays

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This article was assessed as Start class for WikiProject Ice Hockey due to significant expansion since the above date. Further information is required and desired. Cjmclark (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article assessed as B class for WikiProject Ice Hockey, WikiProject District of Columbia, and WikiProject South Carolina based on significant expansion and cleanup since the above date. Cjmclark (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Team history

I've been mining the Post and Courier archives for info to supplement the team history. If anyone digs anything up there or elsewhere, please feel free to help me flesh it out a bit. Cjmclark (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linked articles

Major help is needed in developing linked articles, especially for players who meet the notability requirements for WikiProject Ice Hockey per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Mark Bavis, David Seitz, and Brett Marietti in particular require articles. Cjmclark (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hockey Night in Dixie

After editing the title of this book in the references, I realized that it was published with two different subtitles. In the US, it was released with the subtitle Playing Canada's Game in the American South, while it was published in Canada with the subtitle Minor Pro Hockey in the American South. Both were published by Heritage House under the same ISBN in 2006. I have restored the title to include the Canadian subtitle as originally used. The only edit that stands is the author's name, which is Jon C. Stott vice Scott.  Cjmclark  15:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Team name origin

A reference is needed for the sentence in "The early years" claiming the team's name was selected by a local naming contest. The name of the individual who allegedly won is questionably notable at best. I have not been able to find a supporting reference and will be removing the sentence tomorrow if one cannot be found.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm a bit behind. 5 days have passed and I have been unable to find a supporting reference. The ‎editor who added the sentence has not provided one subsequent to my attempt at making contact (as much as anyone can with an IP address). Additionally, the name of the contest winner is not particularly relevant to the topic, IMO. I have removed the unverified claim due to it not meeting WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Two Hearted River (talk · contribs) 02:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I'm going to review this section by section if that's all right with you. What you're going to get from me is a copy edit and a review against FA criteria, but a decision based on GA criteria. Editors who wish to make the kind of contributions we can all be proud of are usually amenable to this, and you seem to be that type of editor, so off we go...

Birth of a Franchise

• This subheading is fine, but I think some later ones get a little too colorful for an encyclopedia.

I've wrestled with the subheaders for a while. I changed them to reflect the head coaching eras. Let me know what you think.

• More information about the team's founding is warranted, although I see the local newspaper's online archives only go back to 1994. Factiva doesn't have anything from the Post and Courier, either.

I have run into this very problem. Unfortunately, there simply doesn't appear to be much in the way of information surrounding the team's founding out there. I'm still looking, though.

• You might begin with, "The South Carolina Stingrays were founded in 1993 as an expansion team in the East Coast Hockey League (ECHL). Its management team...."

Done.

• "Late 1994 saw..." This tone is not encyclopedic. (Three other instances of this.)

Tried to improve the wording on this and the other instances. Let me know how it looks.

• "...and found himself replaced..." – I think "was" works in place of "found himself".

Done.

• When did the Dionne assault accusation occur?

February 1994. Added.

• "Dionne remained as the franchise's..."

Done.

• "In early 1995, the team was offered an expansion spot by the AHL..." – This is the first instance of an acronym, so expand and include the acronym in parentheses.

Done.

• You might want to explain that the AHL is a higher level of competition.

Done.

• "However, team management decided at that time to remain in the ECHL..."

Done.

• "Later that year, Dionne left the Stingrays organization, stating that he wished to attend to personal matters." – "Personal matters" is pretty much meaningless, so unless you can be more specific (and it's even relevant), you can probably drop the reason and just say he left/resigned.

Not specific, and likely not relevant (again, coverage is sketchy). Removed.

• "In addition to his coaching duties..." – I'll suggest instead: "Vaive succeeded Dionne as director of hockey operations while retaining his head coaching position, thus giving him more control over personnel decisions."

Done.

I'll be back with more when I know you're available to participate in the review. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I appreciate the help. One of the things with which I have struggled is minding the line between engaging narrative and un-encyclopedic tone, something I find especially difficult to do in sports articles where there are only so many ways to say "This team won, this team lost, this guy scored, et c." I'm available on a pretty regular basis, so I'll continue updating as you review. I look forward to the next section!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'll suggest looking at Grand Rapids Griffins for an example of how I've done it...not to hold it up as a paragon of a hockey team article or anything. Granted, I had more source material to work from, but you can do similar things from statistics. For example, you can insinuate that Sylvain Fleury was an important player on the team in their first year by stating he finished tenth in league scoring with 95 points in 68 games. You can mention that Andy Bezeau finished second in penalty minutes. If you have the information, you can include details about winning/losing streaks and important player transactions. (I see a six-game win streak here in which the team outscored its opponents 43–14...maybe worth mentioning.) I made a couple minor changes in Birth of a Franchise and am now satisfied with that section. I will tackle the specifics of a few more sections later today. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

After skimming the rest of the History section, I think some expansion is warranted, even if just from hockeyDB.com. I'll hold off on the copy edit until you've either done it or said you're not interested in doing it now. (I'm happy to keep this nomination open as long as progress is being made.) A general problem: overlinking and the "Further information" hatnotes. I would suggest not linking to any Stingrays/ECHL season anywhere in the prose, just because links are supposed to exist to help me if I'm not familiar with the linked subject. Well, I don't really need to gain further understanding of a certain ECHL season before reading about its specific, relevant facts in this article. Do you see what I mean? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 22:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've managed to mitigate the overlinking. A lot of that was from my early work on the article when I was a bit overzealous. I've expanded the Rick Vaive section utilizing hockeydb and ECHL records. Let me know if it's too much. I'll wait to expand the other sections until after I hear back from you. Thanks!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Vaive (1993–98) Great work on the expansion – more than I was expecting!

Thanks!

• Maybe "Rick Vaive era (1993–98)"? I'm not sure it would be better, just something to consider.

Done.

• Similarly, I'm not sure the summarizing sentences that open the first and last paragraphs are necessary. I would open the section this way: "The Stingrays finished sixth in the East Division in their inaugural season and were eliminated in the first round of the 1994 playoffs by the Hampton Roads Admirals."

Done.

• "skaters in the league" –> "league skaters"

Done

• "scored a league-high five goals" – Was that a record for that season or all-time?

Done.

• "352 minutes in only 36 games" – "only" is POV and you've helped the reader draw the intended conclusion with the subsequent parenthetical anyway. Two other instances of POV "only"'s in this section.

Done.

• "11 points" – eh, even if the word "goals" comes up a lot, it probably doesn't need to be substituted. "Points" has another meaning in hockey, too.

Indeed it does. Done.

• "Goals Against Average" – lower case

I've seen this a couple of different ways...folks seem to like to capitalize it as that seems to be a common usage for the stat, but I'm pretty sure the MOS defaults to lower-case. Done.

• "December 23, 1994 and March 19, 1995." – An often-overlooked rule: [date], [year], constructions not at the end of a sentence require a comma after the year because the year is an appositive clause. Same with [city], [state], constructions.

Done.

• "who would later serve" –> "who later served"

Done.

• "maintained" -> "drew"

Done.

• I think it would be better to change years that refer to seasons to the year range over which the season occurred. "Returning to the East Division in 1996–97", for example.

This is one of those things that makes perfect sense but still feels a little awkward. Done, let me know what you think.

• "Returning to the East Division..." –> "The team returned to the East Division in 1996–97 and finished third..."

Done.

• "...in which they accumulated 48 goals for with only 27 goals against." –> "in which they accumulated 48 goals and [gave up/surrendered/etc.] 27 goals against."

Done.

• "The Stingrays finally lost the top attendance spot this season, falling fell to second place in the league attendance with an average 7,447 fans per game."

Done.

• "...the only member of the Stingrays to receive this distinction to date." – I think you have to say "through the 2010–11 season" here instead of "to date". That way, other editors can know whether the information needs updating.

Done.

• "This early success, however, was marred by allegations..." – verging on POV. Just say something like, "Following their Kelly Cup victory, ECHL management accused the franchise of circumventing the league's salary cap by..." The reader can decide for himself whether that constitutes marring.

Done.

• "$50,000" –> "US$50,000"

Done.

• "...and Vaive was handed down a six-game suspension for the start of the 1997–98 season" –> "...and Vaive was suspended for the first six games of the 1997–98 season"

Done.

• "Further review by the Internal Revenue Servicedetermined that no state or federal tax laws were broken. The incident sparked a re-evaluation by the ECHL of the teams' salary caps." –> "The Internal Revenue Service determined ... were broken, but the incident...."

Done.

• Mentioned earlier, but I would cut the first sentence of the last paragraph and begin, "Early in the 1997–98 season, the Stingrays won a league-high 12 consecutive home games from...."

Done.

• "but fell in a dramatic first round face-off" –> "but fell in a first round playoff series"

Done.

• Since this comes after a few sentences about the playoffs, "Defenseman Chris Hynnes finished first in goals...." should probably have something like, "In the regular season," in front of it.

I moved these to before the info on the playoffs and specified the regular season. Let me know what you think.

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the header titles to reflect the "era" nomenclature and moved the photos to try to find the best place for them in the layout. I won't be able to do much tonight, but should be able to work on expanding the Adduono section (which sorely needs it) tomorrow. Thanks for your help!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming along nicely. This section is done. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Turns out I'm going to be out of pocket for the next few days, so I won't be able to move forward on the remaining expansion just yet. If you'd prefer to wait until I can get back to expanding next week, that's fine. Otherwise, I'd be glad to hear your opinion on the current sections. I'll let you know as soon as I'm back (should be next Monday or Tuesday). Thanks!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I'm back and actively working on the Adduono section.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Noted! I may not be available to review new edits until Friday, so feel free to tackle as many sections as you're able. I am confident I'll only have minor tweaks to suggest in the prose. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How's the Adduono section coming along? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have sadly been a bit delinquent on it. I just started a new job and am working through establishing a new routine. I should be back into the swing of things in the next couple of weeks.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ideally this review should be closed one way or the other in the next couple days, as it's been under review for some time now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to keep it open until Cjmclark tells me he's unable to devote time to making progress. He nominated this article in good faith and expected to be able to address my concerns in a reasonable amount of time, but some real life matters have caused delay. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone is suffering because of this article's persistence at the top of its section on the GAN page. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cjmclark has been active on Wiki but has not edited this article since 30 October. This should now be failed no progress is being made. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, all right. Cjmclark, we can continue this outside the scope of a GA nomination whenever you want. Just leave a message on my talk page. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Franchise age

The Stingrays are the seventh-oldest operating franchise in the ECHL, not the fourth. They are surpassed by Wheeling (originally Carolina Thunderbirds, founded 1988), Greenville (originally Johnstown Chiefs, founded 1988), Utah (originally Virginia Lancers, founded 1988), Stockton (originally Cincinnati Cyclones, founded 1990), Reading (originally Columbus Chill, founded 1991) and Toledo (originally Toledo Storm, founded 1991). They were founded the same year (1993) as the Huntington Blizzard (now Ontario Reign). The current Cincinnati Cyclones are not a direct descendant of the original (founded in 1990); rather, they originated as the Louisville River Frogs in 1995. All of this is a bit too convoluted to explain in the lead and is probably not really germane to the article as a whole (as seventh oldest franchise is not particularly distinguishing). As such, I have removed it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Fan template

Is there a template for users that are fans of the team? Allen (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this userbox?

SCThis user is a fan of the
South Carolina Stingrays

Just add {{User:UBX/ECHL-Stingrays}} to your userpage.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know where to find it. I'm going to put it on my page now. Allen (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)