Talk:1992 Stanley Cup Finals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could we ratchet down the vandalism talk?[edit]

The removal of the suspect sections by 99.192.118.141 and 142.68.235.244 are perfectly legit, and GoldDragon's repeated reversion of them without any explanatory edit summaries (except to claim that one removal - which carried an explanatory edit summary - was "vandalism") illegitimate.

This should be a no-brainer. The second paragraph is trivia, pure and simple. The first?

Despite the Penguins sweeping the Blackhawks, it was actually a close series that could have gone either way. Game 1 saw the Blackhawks squander leads of 3–0 and 4–1, and would eventually be beaten 5–4 after a Lemieux power-play goal with 9 seconds remaining in regulation. The Blackhawks most lackluster game was Game 2, losing 3–1. A frustrating loss of 1–0 followed in game 3, and a natural hat trick from Dirk Graham and stellar play from Dominik Hasek (who showed indications of the goaltender he would later become) could not secure a win in game 4, which ended in 6–5 final in favor of Pittsburgh.

First sentence: POV. Second sentence: "squander?" Third sentence: "lackluster" = POV. Fourth sentence: "frustrating/stellar play" = POV. The paragraph is written in sportswriterese, and plainly from the POV of a Blackhawk fan; I doubt, for instance, that a Penguins fan would characterize any element of a sweep of the foe in the Cup finals "frustrating."

Obviously a summary of the individual games is needed. This one isn't it, and edit warring over this isn't helping.  RGTraynor  10:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]