Wikipedia:Featured article review/Toronto Raptors/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC) [1].

Toronto Raptors[edit]

Notified: Chensiyuan, Johnny Au, Ergotelis123, Charlesaaronthompson, WP NBA, WP Canada, WP Sports, WP Basketball, 2021-04-06

Review section[edit]

This 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since, and has accumulated uncited text and other issues, which isn't surprising, since the team has 6 division titles and a NBA championship since then. There's also some reference formatting issues, and dated text such as "Their television ratings, however, are considerably lower than other more established Toronto sports teams and most other sporting events aired on Canadian television" which is dated to a source from before the team went on the nice run mentioned above, so may no longer be accurate. Given that the team's best history of success is from after the last FA review, this probably needs a significant work-through. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC nothing is happening. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC) striking out for now since it appears things are happening. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article has much less activity from the regulars than when it became an FA, despite the fact that it won the NBA Championship since then. I mainly do maintenance on the Toronto Raptors article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sabbatino, Amchow78, Leventio, and Bagumba for more input. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly has issues, but it can be fixed up given a few days. I can probably help with some of the citation issues in the article later tonight or tomorrow. Leventio (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC alright you have had almost an entire month now to clean it up and browsing the article, I still see several unsourced paragraphs. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Alright, I'm fine with that too. As such, I will strike my move to FARC once again. Link20XX (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay in FAR - I'm fine with this staying in FAR for now, since active work is still occurring. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: Article hasn't had any citations added to it since May 27. Can you reconsider? Link20XX (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnny Au and Leventio: - Could we get an update on how this is progressing? Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies, I somewhat got caught up with other articles and work so I somewhat forgot about this. I fixed up some of the citations, though a large number of issues remain. I can continue to fix them up at a somewhat slowed pace. However in saying that, I'm unfamiliar with the FAR process (never participated in one)... So if there are constraints on time that limits how long the FAR can go for, I'd feel inclined to not hold the process back and agree with the article's move to FARC (unless theres another set of hands that can correct the issues quickly... many of the issues are honestly easy enough of a fix, just tedious). Leventio (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Leventio: - The only real time constraints for FAR is that the article should generally be getting fairly frequent work at FAR. If it's going to be October or later before this can get tuned up, it may be worth considering if its better to let it go now, and then work it back up to FAC-able state. The goal is for FAR to be an improvement process and to only be a delisting process as a last resort. So I guess it all comes down to time frame. If August or early September is when the work will be mostly done, then this should probably be kept here; if it's gonna be a longer time, it may be best to not keep the article in limbo. I'll support whichever route you think is best for this article. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I could probably finish fixing up the citation issues by late-August if no one else objects to leaving this up in FAR until than. Leventio (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I at least have no objection to that. I'd rather see stuff kept than delisted. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I could try to at least give some sources for the section named "Pandemic-shortened seasons and Tampa relocation." Other than that the remainder might be a challenge since I have never done Featured Articles. I've done 43 Featured lists and rescued one from demotion, but I have not done articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of those would be great. I would love to see the Raptors remain an FA, especially given that it won the NBA championship in 2019, and by extension, the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could actually help a little bit more on this article regarding adding citations as soon as I wrap up on my FLCs for the 93rd Academy Awards and the 56th Academy Awards. I do not plan to nominate any further lists for featured list promotion at least until December 12 when I plan to submit the accolades page of Dunkirk for FLC.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the time to get to this (apologies for giving reassurances that I could last month), and I don't see that changing for a week at least. With that in mind, I feel like I've held up this process long enough, and would support this article's move to FARC. Again apologies for holding things up. Leventio (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size Not necessarily a requirement for this to reach FA again, but the article is getting WP:TOOBIG, currently at 64K of readable prose. What makes sports team pages challenging is that there is a tendency among fans to add in-season minutiae that ideally belong in the team's dedicated season articles. Furthermore, the team page should only provide a macro view of its history, which shouldn't need much maintenance aside from historical events or important milestones. The micro changes from year to year are better dealt with summary style with a dedicated page like History of the Toronto Raptors, which exist for many other NBA teams, including GAs the Los Angeles Lakers, Houston Rockets and Portland Trail Blazers. Again, this isn't required for FA now, but would make it less likely we'll need to revisit the page in a year or two again.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, I guess - It seems to have largely tapered off here. While parts are much improved, the uniforms section still contains a decent amount of uncited text and I'm concerned that that same section has some excessive detail issue. Bagumba's concerns about length also need some discussion/consideration. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include length and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the better that the article be temporarily demoted to GA, then have some of the History section be moved to History of the Toronto Raptors (despite the fact that the Raptors are tied for being the second-newest NBA team with the Memphis Grizzlies (who were the Vancouver Grizzlies back then)), then we can decide if it deserves to be FA once more. It's getting too bloated to remain an FA for an article about a sports team. Two other Toronto-based sports teams have dedicated history articles: History of the Toronto Blue Jays and History of the Toronto Maple Leafs, though neither the Toronto Blue Jays nor the Toronto Maple Leafs articles have FA status at the time of this comment (they are B-class and GA, respectively). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnny Au FYI it is not possible to demote to GA. If demoted it will not have GA status. (Until nominated and passed at GAN). (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would lean towards delisting; although the article isn't in too bad shape the fixes needed may not be feasible in the FAR process. In addition to the issues identified above, I'm not sure press releases are high-quality reliable sources for the purpose of FAC. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist History section needs a major trim, several sources are not reliable, and work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - This looks like a situation where delisting to allow work outside of the time pressures of FAR is going to be the best route to bringing this back to status one day. Hog Farm Talk 02:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Toronto_Raptors/archive2&oldid=1046494408"