Talk:Jared McCann

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: XR228 (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yojo98 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning on reviewing this. Thanks! Yojo98 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've finished my review! I am a new GA reviewer, so will be waiting for an experienced review before proceeding here. Thanks! Yojo98 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yojo98: I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Great! These all look good to me. I'm changing to approved pending review by an experienced reviewer Yojo98 (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm happy to be the experienced reviewer here for the ongoing GA drive. @Yojo98: good job with the review so far. At first glance most of it looks good. One thing that I would recommend is a more explicit source spot-check. You mention a couple of text-source integrity issues in #2B and #2C below, so presumably you did check at least a few sources, but I prefer to see a list of specific sources that were checked (anywhere between 5 and 10 should suffice, though some people do more). I'll perform an abbreviated check here to show you how I do it:

DrOrinScrivello's source review

I'll be looking at ref #'s 14, 38, and 79 as of this revision.

• 14. (a) Y (b) Y

• 38. ? Ref #38 says McCann could return, and ref #39 at the same sentence verifies the 5-4 OT loss, but I don't see where it confirms that McCann actually played in the game.

• 79. Y

@XR228: one item here to take a look at. Yojo98, if you'll just list the sources that you've already checked I think that'll be fine. Ping me if you have any questions, or when you're done and I'll come back to take another look. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DrOrinScrivello, thank you so much! The source spot-check makes sense, and definitely helps the review feel somewhat less intimidating when going over an article like this with 100 citations. As part of my review, I checked the following sources

• 22
• 33
• 49
• 70
• 99

I also reviewed the source for the jersey number claim, although I believe that was removed now that the actual sentence is gone too (since it was not supported by source and bordered on OR) Yojo98 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. I'll give XR228 some time to take a look at the above, after which we should be good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: Fixed the source. XR228 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The above fix looks good, thanks. And with that, I'm satisfied with both the article and the review, nice work to all. Yojo98, I'll let you wrap things up here at your convenience. In case you're not aware, this handy script automates the review closing process and is easy to use, otherwise follow the instructions at WP:GANI#PASS. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Florida Panthers section, "due to Nick Bjugstad being placed off of injured reserve." - I think "activated from" would feel more natural and better match the phrasing commonly used in the NHL and other professional sports.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   "McCann was expected by both Pittsburgh and Toronto to be an expansion draft casualty to the arriving Seattle Kraken" - the phase "draft casualty" doesn't feel encyclopedic to me.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Present at the bottom

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   In the "Vancouver Canucks (2015–2016)" section, the claim "Following an impressive showing at training camp" is not supported by the cited source, which only discusses his play in the OHL

   Also in the Vancouver section, there is not citation for the final sentence: "McCann played 69 games with the Canucks that season, totaling nine goals and nine assists."

   "McCann finished the season with nine goals and 19 assists in 68 games." has no source

   C. It contains no original research:

   "Upon joining the team, he deferred to Calle Jarnkrok and changed his jersey number to 16." - the cited source seems to imply that Jarnkrok got priority because of his greater number of career games played. I think this phrasing is bordering on OR.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing seems to be offensive here

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   While I recognize that the article was submitted for review in December 2025, I would say that the scope of the article is missing his performance in the 2025-2026 season. His stats are updated in the table, but there's no text about his performance (or injury) anywhere in the body of the article.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes, everything feels appropriately covered without puffery or additional detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yes, no major issues with giving undue weight to certain topics, or individual games without proper reliable sources.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable, no edit wars or other disputes.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Everything is tagged CC. Looks good.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All looks good here, lead picture is him with his most recent team, roughly and one image per professional team looks good. All are appropriately captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fail: Very close, I think this just needs a few more WP:RS and some wording adjustments to better match sources cited.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.