Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Toronto Raptors
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 00:11, 12 May 2007.
Toronto Raptors[edit]
Per Sandy's suggestion, I've restarted this nom. (old nom) Raul654 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Chensiyuan 04:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Manderiko 04:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as before. --Phoenix (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I'm confident any remaining issues will be dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as on previous page :) -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 13:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Prose still needs a little work. If this passes, which looks likely, I'd keep it on the LOCE list and move it from the FAR/FAC section to the section for proofreading. Quadzilla99 13:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support igordebraga ≠ 17:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ô 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -凶 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; Just needs some copyediting, which is relatively minor. Zodiiak 21:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Random Say it here! 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Tomer T 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fantastic. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great now, and recentiism is also a non-issue now because the Raps have been eliminated from the playoffs :X. Prose is not perfect yet, but a sure FA imho. Onomatopoeia 07:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without wanting to be a stick in the mud amid all these supports, the List of TV commentators seems trivial. Plus, I would have thought many NBA games are shown internationally, presumably with different commentators. Oldelpaso 12:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are included presumably because they represent the official commentators for the Raptors franchise. If one lives in Canada for e.g., Swirsky does the commentary for the Raptors games shown on the Raptors network. Whereas someone like Martin Tyler for e.g. in the soccer context is more associated with a tv network than a football club. That's what I think at least. Chensiyuan 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assume that anyone who simply supported here did so at the old nom, or at least had a look at it to see if anything they saw as important was addressed. --Phoenix (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support already supported the first time. Kaiser matias 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not concise. The history section is longer than the one for the Chicago Bears (FA), even though that franchise has been around 75 years longer (I'm not necessarily saying that article length should be proportional to age; I'm saying that this article goes into unnecessary detail). Recentism still abounds. The writing quality is still poor in many places. The article confusingly alternates between Raptors and Toronto. I am troubled that all of the references are websites—with a strong emphasis towards nba.com—especially when Amazon says there are a few books available on the subject. Punctured Bicycle 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think the history section isn’t concise. The Chicago Bears article’s section is shorter because it lacks detail, not because it is concise. It also has its own history article, History of the Chicago Bears, which is actually longer than the Raptors article. If you see recentism in the article, can you please point out where you found it? Having books as references is nice, but I prefer Internet references because they are instantly verifiable and viewable. I’d think there’s a strong emphasis towards nba.com because it is the official league’s site, and therefore it is the most credible and preferable. —LOL 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not mainly concerned with the question "would this article be better if it used books instead of websites?" I'm concerned with the question "has someone taken the time to research the subject properly?" I am very troubled, for example, that the article used to say "The team was named as a result of a nationwide 'Name Game' contest instituted to name the team and develop their colours and logo" when NBA.com says "It instituted a nationwide 'Name Game' contest to name the team and develop team colors and a logo." It looks like the article is just regurgitating what NBA.com says, and in this case not even making the effort to reword it (plagiarism). I am skeptical of this article's integrity. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution" - my opinion is that it's clear that the history section heavily attributes the information to nba.com/raptors via the footnotes. Chensiyuan 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes attribute the source of the information; quotation marks attribute the source of the language. Failure to use quotation marks when duplicating the words of others—closely or exactly—is plagiarism. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- i entered "Toronto Raptors" into the amazon.com search field and none of the books that came up looked very likely to add value to this article. And yes, I would read the book if I could get my hands on it but I live in Asia, so help me there (that is why if a website is credible, using it a thousand times does not dilute its credibility. What is fundamentally creditable can't possibly lose its credibility for no good reason. In any event, this article does not simply use nba.com, nor does it use it a thousand times.) Chensiyuan 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Official does not automatically equate to credible (bias can play role for example). But there's also the issue of information breadth. The article is limited in perspective when it mostly just summarizes what nba.com felt was important to say; what Toronto newspapers, sports magazines, books, etc. felt was important to say is largely ignored. A more diverse survey of sources would increase the depth of the information and allow more flexibility in writing. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is clear the article uses more than nba.com. It simply uses nba.com a lot, but newspapers and electronic sports magazines are in the mix. Chensiyuan 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Official does not automatically equate to credible (bias can play role for example). But there's also the issue of information breadth. The article is limited in perspective when it mostly just summarizes what nba.com felt was important to say; what Toronto newspapers, sports magazines, books, etc. felt was important to say is largely ignored. A more diverse survey of sources would increase the depth of the information and allow more flexibility in writing. Punctured Bicycle 21:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution" - my opinion is that it's clear that the history section heavily attributes the information to nba.com/raptors via the footnotes. Chensiyuan 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not mainly concerned with the question "would this article be better if it used books instead of websites?" I'm concerned with the question "has someone taken the time to research the subject properly?" I am very troubled, for example, that the article used to say "The team was named as a result of a nationwide 'Name Game' contest instituted to name the team and develop their colours and logo" when NBA.com says "It instituted a nationwide 'Name Game' contest to name the team and develop team colors and a logo." It looks like the article is just regurgitating what NBA.com says, and in this case not even making the effort to reword it (plagiarism). I am skeptical of this article's integrity. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To address your last point, alternating between the Raptors and Toronto is a way of avoiding repetitive noun use. If every sentence talked about the raptors, the prose would be bad. Given the title of this article, I find it *HIGHLY* unlikely that anyone is going to be confused by it. Raul654 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. See elegant variation. Punctured Bicycle 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just googled for the raptors and guess what? The first two articles I came by - [1][2] - do exactly what you are objecting to. With sports teams, it's *quite* common (in fact, almost expected) to use the team and name city interchangeably. Raul654 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports journalists don't write for an international audience in the clear, formal quality expected of an encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Riiiight. The NY times does it. [3] The Washingotn Post does. [4]I guess they're not professional enough or international enough, right? This objection is patently ridiculous. Raul654 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your snippy attitude is what's ridiculous. Punctured Bicycle 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Riiiight. The NY times does it. [3] The Washingotn Post does. [4]I guess they're not professional enough or international enough, right? This objection is patently ridiculous. Raul654 01:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports journalists don't write for an international audience in the clear, formal quality expected of an encyclopedia. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just googled for the raptors and guess what? The first two articles I came by - [1][2] - do exactly what you are objecting to. With sports teams, it's *quite* common (in fact, almost expected) to use the team and name city interchangeably. Raul654 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. See elegant variation. Punctured Bicycle 20:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think the history section isn’t concise. The Chicago Bears article’s section is shorter because it lacks detail, not because it is concise. It also has its own history article, History of the Chicago Bears, which is actually longer than the Raptors article. If you see recentism in the article, can you please point out where you found it? Having books as references is nice, but I prefer Internet references because they are instantly verifiable and viewable. I’d think there’s a strong emphasis towards nba.com because it is the official league’s site, and therefore it is the most credible and preferable. —LOL 03:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd have to say I agree with LOL and Raul654 on this one. About the only thing I'd support in this oppose is the comment about the books and even that is minor, and I certainly don't think it's worth opposing this FA for. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing/research quality isn't a minor issue. Punctured Bicycle 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd have to say I agree with LOL and Raul654 on this one. About the only thing I'd support in this oppose is the comment about the books and even that is minor, and I certainly don't think it's worth opposing this FA for. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 19:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose awaiting the following fixes:
- The history section does seem a bit excessive. Like the Bears article, I would recommend a fork to History of the Toronto Raptors, which given the amount of detail and referencing could itself one day be featured. The History section could then be pared down to the basic details, say about 1 paragraph per season does not seem unreasonable.
- There is a better way to deal with repetitive sentance beginnings that simply blind alternation between Toronto and The Raptors; in most cases the use of pronouns would be advised. There is nothing wrong with "they"... Especially when the antecedant in most cases would be clear. I have copyedited the lead to show how this can be done better. Tell me what you think.
- The lead does not summarize the whole article. Some attention in the lead should given to the non-history stuff. Basically, if it is worth having an entire section about, it is worth at least a mention in the lead. Such things as greatest players, current head coach, current all stars, most recent season results are ALL germaine to include in the lead.
- but those things you pointed out are in the lead. Chensiyuan 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because I do NOT see the following statements mentioned at ALL in the lead:
- The current head coach (Sam Mitchell) is not mentioned in the lead.
- The most recent seasons record, and playoff results are not in the lead.
- Team superlatives, such as all-time scorer, most games played, are not in the lead.
- Summaries of the Fanbase and Community Service sections (which need expanding themselves) are not in the lead.
- All-stars from the most recent season are not in the lead.
- The above all go to my point that this is an excellent HISTORY article about the Toronto Raptors. The HISTORY of the team is comprehensivly covered, but all aspects of the team are not. The lead reflects the inadequacies of this article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes really. You said "such things" and I merely pointed out that those "such things" you mentioned have been mentioned. The exception is Sam Mitchell. Chensiyuan 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because I do NOT see the following statements mentioned at ALL in the lead:
- but those things you pointed out are in the lead. Chensiyuan 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't hold up my support for this one issue, but do we really need 3 pictures taken from the upper deck showing the team playing? All three are largely identical. Though, if the history section is pared down, this will be taken care of on its own.
- The Fanbase section seems to need some expansion and clean up. This paragraph especially: On game day, the fans are usually entertained by the Raptor mascot, the Raptors Dance Pak, and the 4 Korners Raptors Soundcrew during pre-game, time-outs, and intervals. Giveaways are usually bundled with tickets to encourage attendance. Does the mascot have a name? Does he make appearence elsewhere? What is this Dance Pak and Soundcrew of which you speak? Expand on those... Also, every sports franchise for the past 20 years, from NFL teams to every single-A baseball team gives away free merchandise to encourage attendance. Why does it bother mentioning here? Are there some notable giveaways that are worth mentioning and expanding on to make this statement more relevent?
- The Community service section could use expansion as well. You mention 3 arms of the franchise involved in community relations. Specific examples for each of community work would really help here.
That's it. For the record, the History section is very good, but it dominates the article. Fork it to a new article and expand the other sections, and you have the makings of an FA here.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not simply a matter of "expanding" the other sections because, if the history section is forked away, I'm not sure there's enough material to have a decent article here. --Phoenix 23:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, fine then, but the article will continue to fail the comprehensiveness criteria until the Fanbase and Community Service sections are expanded. I can't imagine that the name of the mascot, or expanded descriptions of the Dance Pak and Soundcrew aren't printed somewhere to use as a reference to expand that section. Also, the community service section could be expanded with specific examples of community involvement of all 3 of the branches of the Raptors organization listed in the article. Right now, the article is all history and little else. If shrinking the history section isn't a worthwhile venture (and I still think it is) then the other sections need to be expanded greatly for balance.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, it would be nice to have a section on the franchise as a business: Home attendance figures, revenues, expenditures, salaries, that sort of thing... The article gives little mention of that stuff.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think there's that much more to say about the Fanbase and the Community service. But while we're on the subject, I noticed that the Community service section reads a lot like something you'd find in an official Raptors publication. Could someone re-write it to make it a little less... PRish in tone? (I hope someone gets what I'm saying, since I'm not sure how to articulate my concern.) Zagalejo 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, fine then, but the article will continue to fail the comprehensiveness criteria until the Fanbase and Community Service sections are expanded. I can't imagine that the name of the mascot, or expanded descriptions of the Dance Pak and Soundcrew aren't printed somewhere to use as a reference to expand that section. Also, the community service section could be expanded with specific examples of community involvement of all 3 of the branches of the Raptors organization listed in the article. Right now, the article is all history and little else. If shrinking the history section isn't a worthwhile venture (and I still think it is) then the other sections need to be expanded greatly for balance.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a heck of an article you got here. One funny thing that I didn't see mentioned though was that Raptors fans had to be told that noise-making was customary for opposing teams' foul shots, and not their own, during the beginning of the franchise. Just a funny thing I remembered. Sportskido8 09:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.