Wikipedia:Featured article review/Toronto Raptors/archive1

Toronto Raptors[edit]

Promoted 11 days ago, but there are extenuating circumstances. Major objections were provided in the nomination that weren't addressed. The Featured Article Director silently disregarded them and promoted the article anyway. After the nomination was frozen, I made a detailed outline of criticisms at Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws. I am troubled that this article was promoted when most of these serious criticisms were mentioned in the nomination already, just in less detail. Plagiarism, for example, does not represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer. This article wouldn't even pass the Good Article criteria. Punctured Bicycle 06:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you created the flaws article on 18 May and only added content to it on 24 May. The article was promoted on 11 May. When you say the nomination was frozen, what do you mean? Chensiyuan 07:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there is now a notice that says "Please do not modify it" in red. Punctured Bicycle 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, regarding recentism, consider other WP articles on sporting franchises (NHL or NFL) which deal with the franchise's history in considerable detail -- only that, when it gets too long, a separate article spanning 5-10 years of the history is created. So when the history of a franchise is 12 years+, there is no need to fork it just yet. Based on your suggestions, the Raptors article should really only be a few lines long. And yes the Raptors article may be longer than other articles on sports teams, but I can't see why a lack of detail in those places should be emulated. Many times, a lack of detail in those places is simply down to a lack of depth coupled with a lack of reporting in the pre-internet age. Chensiyuan 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness should be emulated, as it is one of the requirements of a FA: "4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Based on my suggestion, the history section should really only be a few paragraphs long. If the article for a 100 year old franchise like Chelsea F.C. can manage this, then the article for a 12 year old franchise should have no problem. Punctured Bicycle 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, if a 12 year franchise can contain x amount of information so can Chelsea. You presuppose Chelsea has gotten it right (that article was promoted on the basis of 4 votes of support -- of which one was mine) I could also presuppose the Chicago Bears article got it right; which means the TO article does not go into unnecessary detail. At some places, maybe, but looking at the examples you raise, I cannot agree the list runs that gamut. Chensiyuan 09:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't even pass the Good Article criteria". Please be realistic. Please also at least respect the consensus that was reached over the article. We're not talking about a couple of fanboys who voted the article FA. More than a dozen people -- in fact, 17 (quite a high number compared to many other FAs) -- voted in favour of the article. As a side note, why do you keep deleting your talkpage? Chensiyuan 07:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on reasons, not votes. Punctured Bicycle 09:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the corollary of which is that all those votes were not grounded in reasons. Chensiyuan 09:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through your flaws page over and over again and at best I find a couple of legitimate concerns. I will wait on others to chime in before I make this page unreadable with my rejoinders. Chensiyuan 08:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Extenuating circumstances" usually means a) the article is about to go to the mainpage with some major flaw or b) the article has changed drastically since the nom and thus not an approved version. Neither applies here. It's not our business to redo a just done FAC, so I'm removing this per the thread on WT:FAR. Marskell 12:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, completely missed that one. Chensiyuan 13:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]