Jump to content

Talk:Toronto Raptors/Flaws

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

Recentism

[edit]

The entire article is written from a recentistic perspective. Rather than discussing the franchise from a broad perspective—combining seasons into general eras—the franchise is discussed from a microscopic perspective—individual season by individual season. Such a style won't be maintainable for long. The article largely fails the "10 year test": the fact that Dee Brown, Alvin Williams and Doug Christie were rotated for the point guard position in the 1998-99 season won't be relevant in 10 years; the fact that Williamson had a disappointing season in 2000-01 and was traded for Jerome Williams won't be relevant in 10 years; and so on. They aren't relevant even now. The article needs to step back and frame information in a long-term historical perspective. That entails removing lots of text, which brings me to my next point...

Unnecessary detail

[edit]

The history section has a lot of unnecessary detail. We don't need to know that one of the colors honors James Naismith or that Shania Twain introduced new uniforms. We don't need to include draft picks, trades, and individual player statistics and awards for each and every season. We don't need to report wins-losses for each season when there is a table that already does this. We don't need to know that Game 1 of the Detroit series ended 83–65 or that Ben Wallace—who is not even a Raptor—recorded 19 points, 20 rebounds, 3 blocks and 3 steals. We don't need summaries of each game of every playoff series to begin with. We don't need summaries of each season to begin with. FA articles on sports teams generally do not go into such unnecessary detail.

This entire suggestion speaks for itself, I need not comment.
2nd op - only the Wallace suggestion has an iota of merit. Manderiko 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wallace example is representative of lots of needless detail in the article. Punctured Bicycle 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that means what? Punctured Bicycle 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the extra detail must be included, it can be included in a separate History of the Toronto Raptors article or in individual season articles. The FA criteria says "see summary style" for a reason. Forking into separate articles will leave plenty of material for the main article. There's nothing wrong with short FAs. It's logical for the history of a 12 year old franchise to be short—currently it's longer than the histories written for FAs of 30-100 year old franchises.

Just because articles on long franchises are short does not mean we follow suit. This suggestion also ignores the greater preponderance of articles on North American sport franchises which provide good detail in the same vein as the TO article.
2nd op - As suggested already, plenty of articles on the NHL, NFL and MLB provide extensive coverage on the team's individual season performances.Manderiko 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that's being ignored is the FA criteria, by you: "4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." Punctured Bicycle 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad research

[edit]

The research quality of this article is flawed on so many levels that it is baffling how anyone could have supported its promotion. Examples:

  • Lack of diversity in sources. The article basically regurgitates NBA.com, citing it over 100 times. It is heavily biased towards one source of information, and peppering the article with a few other sources won't change that. Not only is the perspective limited because of this, but there are also remnants of plagiarism...
    • A blatant misrepresentation. Not only has no one seconded you on the nomination page, you were refuted several times.
      • 2nd op - you made several weak suggestions on how to diversify the sources and I think, and quite rightly so, they were not taken up because they were very weak suggestions. In contradistinction to the explanations provided as to why nba.com was used many times, and certainly not to the farcical extent you have insisted. Manderiko 12:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What you say implies that you think the sources need to be diversified, it's just that I provided weak suggestions for how it should be done. Since my main point is that the sources need to be diversified—not that they need to be diversified in a particular way—I'll assume you agree that it's a problem. I agree with you that citing a single source over 100 times is farcical. Punctured Bicycle 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What am I misrepresenting blatantly? Punctured Bicycle 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's see what is nba.com for used many times. SCORES. STANDINGS. STATISTICS. INJURY NEWS. NOT OPINIONS. NOT NORMATIVE CLAIMS. It does not matter whether it's nba.com, espn or yahoo. A score is a score is a score. And, the second highest usage? Trade news. Is there a point in diversity in sources for that category of information? No. Chensiyuan 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plagiarism. There was there plagiarism in the article when it was nominated ("Name Game" part), and there is plagiarism in the article now, even after it was promoted:
    • NBA.com: "Toronto was one of only 11 teams to topple the Chicago Bulls. The Raptors also defeated each of the three other eventual conference finalists - Houston, Utah and Miami. Mysteriously, the Raptors had more problems with teams that were not of championship caliber, including three losses to the 15-67 Boston Celtics." [1]
    • Wikipedia.org: "As in the previous season, the Raptors were one of only 11 teams to topple the eventual 1997 Champions, the Chicago Bulls. The Raptors also defeated the Houston Rockets, Utah Jazz and Miami Heat, all of which were eventual conference finalists. Yet, the Raptors could not defeat teams who were not of championship calibre, including three losses to the 15–67 Boston Celtics."
      • An impressive finding of the needle in the haystack, but I don't see how those simple statements need to be rephrased.
  • Missing and inconsistent citation. Examples:
    • "The Toronto media heavily criticized coach Wilkens for his inability to clamp down on his players when he had to, given this was the year that Wilkens overtook Bill Fitch for the lead in most losses by a NBA coach,[33] with his loss total getting dangerously close to his win total." The source cited says nothing about Wilkens' inability to clamp down on players, nor does it connect the Raptors' struggles with Wilkens' personal futility record.
    • "Wilkens' laissez-faire attitude created a team that lacked the motivation and spirit of the previous years' teams." A strong statement with no citation.
    • "Hakeem Olajuwon experiment was also a bust, with the 39-year-old averaging career lows in minutes, points and rebounds.[31]" Inferring from mere statistics that the experiment was a bust is original research. Someone can have low statistics and be a valuable contributor. Evidence that a reputable sports journalist said this is required.
      • If I recall correctly you dismissed all sports journalists on the nomination page. More importantly you could have failed to observe how low the statistics are to know that it was a failed experiment. The team was losing quite badly that season. That Olajuwon hardly played does not yield a high probability of transforming a double negative into a possible positive.
        • You recall incorrectly; I dismissed using sports journalists as models for writing. You cannot know it is a failed experiment by observing statistics. Statistics don't account for the possibility, say, that Olajuwan was a leader in the locker room. Calling it a bust is a strong statement that requires a citation. Punctured Bicycle 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As predicted by analysts, the team clinched a playoff berth without much difficulty." What analysts?
    • "Although the team did not make the playoffs, many were optimistic with the impressive performances of Rookie of the Year Vince Carter[14] and a much improved McGrady." The least controversial assertion—that Vince carter was Rookie of the Year—is cited, but the most controversial—that many were optimistic, that Carter's performances were impressive, that McGrady was much improved—are not.
      • Those are hardly controversial assertions.
        • Yes they are. It would be no different than if the article on The Beatles said "The Beatles' performances were impressive." Carter may have had high numbers, just as The Beatles may have had high record sales, but "impressive" and "much improved" are subjective claims that need to be attributed to a reliable source. Punctured Bicycle 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Half of the "Notable Player" entries have citations; half don't.
    • "They concluded their inaugural season with a 21–61 win-loss record,[2] although they were one of the few teams who defeated the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls,[5] who set an NBA best 72–10 win–loss regular season record." The 21-61 record needs to be cited, but 72-10 doesn't?
  • Needless citation. Common, widely available knowledge is needlessly cited. Examples:
    • "As General Manager, Isiah Thomas quickly staffed the management positions with his own personnel, naming longtime Detroit Pistons assistant Brendan Malone as the Raptors' first head coach.[1]"
    • "The relocation of the Vancouver Grizzlies to Memphis, Tennessee in 2001 left Toronto as the NBA's only Canadian team;[27]"
      • Absolutely nothing wrong with citing this important fact.
    • "Nonetheless, progressive team improvements and the ascendancy of Carter — who emphatically won the 2000 NBA Slam Dunk Contest[14]" Note that the source only says he won the contest, not that he won it "emphatically".
      • You are rampant with self-contradictions. I guarantee you no one will contest the fact that Carter won the contest emphatically.
        • 2nd op - precisely. Looking at this entire section makes me nauseous. Manderiko 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure there are plenty of Tracy McGrady and Steve Francis fans who would contest the fact. I contest it—provide a source. Though it's a moot point, considering this is more about Carter than it is about the franchise itself; it's a good example of the unnecessary, microscopic detail that needs to be weeded out of this article. Punctured Bicycle 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • An emphatic win is an emphatic win. I despise Carter but he won it emphatically -- perfect score, most downloaded video etc. Asking for a source of the obvious is a good example of unnecessary referencing. But actually, if you really want a source, it is already there. I bet you haven't read it, as you haven't in another example elsewhere in this article itself. And no, it is rightly placed. Chensiyuan 17:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad writing, POV language

[edit]

In the nomination, even supporters agreed the language needed work, but a comprehensive copyedit never took place.

  • Colorful and POV language. Examples: "ascendancy of Carter", "emphatically won", "offensive juggernaut", "furnished", "laissez-faire attitude", "sorely missed", "sacked", "unrest", "blessing in disguise", "entrenched".
  • Annoying overuse of "however" and similar words.
  • "Despite the loss, the season is generally considered a watermark for the franchise, given the Raptors' best ever regular season record (47–35), and finishing second in the Central Division." Overuse of commas; the "and finishing second" part tacked on does not fit the rest of the sentence.
  • "The team originally competed in the Central Division, and before the inaugural season began, sales of Raptors merchandise ranked seventh in the league." These ideas are unrelated.
  • "With media scrutiny intensifying once more and the Raptors entrenched bottom of the league in defensive field goal percentage, Toronto fired GM Rob Babcock soon after." "Soon after" is useless.

Not comprehensive

[edit]

As Jayron32 pointed out, the Fanbase and Community sections are underdeveloped and require expansion. The Records section is empty. Sections common to other FAs, like Stadium, are absent. Information about colors, logos, jerseys, is scattered in the history section instead of in its own section. Compare to FAs like Arsenal F.C.

No, compare that to this.
OK. Arsenal F.C. is comprehensive compared to this. Punctured Bicycle 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

[edit]

This article clearly needs a complete rewrite and should never have been promoted to featured article status.

Apart from a couple of points about missing citations, all suggestions will not be taken up by me. Now let's hear what others say. Chensiyuan 10:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this is an exercise in bad faith. Look again at the nomination page and it becomes apparent. No further comment. Manderiko 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to maintain encyclopedic standards is bad faith? Care to explain what "malicious motive" is in that? Punctured Bicycle 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single person has agreed with your standards but 17 have agreed with my interpretation. Chensiyuan 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_Raptors/Flaws&oldid=139581243"