Wikipedia:Peer review/Toronto Argonauts/archive1

Toronto Argonauts

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has undergone a massive revamp and expansion since mid-December. It's now comprehensive and carefully sourced; I'm particularly proud of history that's been dug up. Images have been added and formatting gone over (dates, table colours, etc.) It's actually at GA but judging the nomination page it could be another month or two before anyone takes a look at it. I was only considering GA as a brush up before FA anyhow and if that can be done through PR instead then that would be fine. Myself and User:Danlaycock are the only two people to look at it recently. The talk page is rather lonely. It does need an uninvolved editor to give it a read. There's no one section that needs copyediting more than others.

Thanks, Dontreadalone (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Onel5969's Comments

• Lead section. Okay, because this is such a good lead section, I'm going to be very picky.

• In the second paragraph, you might want to say that they hold "the record for" the best winning percentage. Also, if they have the longest current winning streak, yet the most recent result is from 2012, that doesn't seem to jive. Either they won in 2013, or the streak ended. Okay, I just got down to championship table and understand what you mean. You need to re-word this somehow to show that the winning streak refers to the last 5 times they made the final.
• In the third paragraph, it should read "...team was the property..."

• Done.

• Name and colours

• I'd re-use the citation used in the lead section for the first sentence.
• And that's it for this section. Nice job.

• Done.

• 1873-1907 - on the whole, very tight, well done section

• The game at the time was a modified version English rugby ---> need "of English rugby"
• Need to remove the link to the non-existent Glazebrook page, as per MOS guidelines: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking
• You might want to define what a "challenge match" is, for those not familiar with the term.
• First organized league, ORFU? 1883? Do you mean the first organized Rugby league? CFL? There were American Baseball leagues earlier than this. And there was a football league in the US in the late 1870s (Intercollegiate Football Association). Also, a citation would be nice.
• In discussing the Dominion Championship, you say "pitting the Ontario and Quebec victors"... Where Ontario and Quebec some type of divisions, and the teams which won those divisions played against each other, or were they teams, in which case it should read something like, the top two teams, Ontario and Quebec (sorry, but my lack of knowledge about this subject might be in play here).
• You might want to give a brief description of the Burnside rules

• Done. Please let me know if the new sentence on Ont/Que is clearer.

• Yes, it is much clearer now about the divisions. Also, now that you've explained the Burnside rules, you could throw in a citation if you have one handy, if not, not a big deal.

• 1907–1952

• Okay, the first sentence goes back to the ORFU. Is it the ORFU, or the CRU? This is very unclear.
• In the fourth paragraph, it should read "their" last until 1933, unless you are saying there were NO championship games played between those years.

In keeping the chronology straight, I would move the sentence about Lew Hayman to before the sentence about the 37-38 back to back cups.

• Actually the beginning of this mentions both the ORFU and the IRFU. I have added a sentence saying the latter continued under the auspices of the CRU. Is that better?

Yes, much.

• 1952–1989

• Second paragraph, you might want to mention the reason for American players only lasting a game or two.
• Third paragraph, remove the bad page link to Harry Abofs.
• Fourth paragraph, footnote 41 doesn't seem to be in the right place. Also the use of the term "splashy" might be considered a peacock word. the Toronto Blue Jays were an expansion baseball team (not a baseball team expansion).

• Not sure what you mean about ref 41. Did the rest, except left the Abofs redlink.

the footnote didn't break with the end of the sentence earlier. Seems fixed now. But you still need to fix the wording about the Toronto Blue Jays.

• 1989–present. Nice section. No notes.
• Championship Summary.

• In the second paragraph, the first sentence doesn't seem to make sense, if they are in the Grey Cup era, how can they precede it?

• Done.

• Stadiums. No notes.
• Ownership.

• Bad page links to Rogers and Hodgeson need to be removed.
• Third paragraph, the wording "quickly tired" needs to be changed to more neutral phrasing. Also, do you really mean $11 annually by 1984? You need a citation for the 1987 transition comment.
• Fourth paragraph, money-losing needs to be hyphenated.
• Senior Executives section is fine.

• Done. Yes, $11 million annually for the entire league.

• But it doesn't read $11 million. It reads $11.

• Roster - you might want to explain why Inman left (or was released - injuries, contract impasse?)

• The article currently states "there are rumours he may try his hand in the NFL." Is that not sufficient?"

• I mean, as I said, I was being picky, since the article was in such good shape. Leaving it the way it is, it is unclear whether he left on his own to pursue an NFL career, or he was let go (for some unknown reason), and then decided to pursue an NFL career.

• Roster table - remove all bad page links, same with front office table.
• Rivalries

• the last sentence should read: "The two teams meet..."
• the sentence regarding the Eskimos "did become a rival at least" doesn't seem to make sense.

• Done.

• Notable Personnel and Hall of fame sections are fine.

Overall, I enjoyed reading the article, and not having any knowledge of the subject, did not get lost. So, nice job. I have two overall notes regarding the sections. First, I would rename the sections, so there is no overlap: e.g. 1907-1952, followed by 1953-1989. Second, I would explain the reasons why you break down the history into the sections as you do, right now it seems arbitrary. For example is it based on coaches? Venues? Ownership? Leagues? Anyway, that's my two cents. Hope it helps. Onel5969 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have eliminated the overlap in the years but I'm not sure how to address the rest. Each section already begins by mentioning an important event: 1907 is the move to IRFU; 1953 is the beginning of the championship drought; 1989 is the move to the Skydome. Granted these aren't the only landmarks I could have chosen but it's not arbitrary. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Onel! I'll try to get to your comments over the weekend. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

One thing that jumps out at me though: "Need to remove the link to the non-existent Glazebrook page, as per MOS guidelines." Are you telling me that red links are now deprecated in articles? I find that really shocking. These aren't "bad" links; the target just hasn't been filled in yet. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not telling you that. That's why I included the MOS page regarding linking. If a page doesn't exist, there should be no link to it. If a page is eventually created, there's no guarantee that the author will name it what you called it. And hopefully, if they create it, they'll link it to your page. But yes, red links, according to MOS, should not exist. Onel5969 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Where does the MOS say that? The MOS page you linked to says: "Do not be afraid to create links to potential articles that do not yet exist". And WP:REDLINK says "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia." Perhaps some of the red links in this article are terms that aren't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry, but there is no policy or guideline which says that red links shouldn't exist. TDL (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, it doesn't say they shouldn't exist, but if you delve deeper into the MOS, it says: "A red link.. signifies a link to a page that does not exist in Wikipedia. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow. Red links are frequently present in lists and sometimes in disambiguation pages or templates. Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles."

So, my interpretation of that is, if you're not going to create the page which the link points to, or if the subject matter is not notable enough, don't create the link. Granted, it's a matter of interpretation, but I rarely find a red link for which a page is created within 3 months of my first notice of it. Onel5969 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my point above. It's a question of the notability of the target rather than just removing all the red links. So for example, Harry Abofs meets WP:NGRIDIRON and hence an article should be created for him, so that red link is appropriate. TDL (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point... but sample some FA articles. You'll see that they rarely contain red links (at least the 30 or so that I sampled had zero). I guess it might be better if you think Abofs needs a page, create it, even if it's a stub, and then put the link to it. Anyway, that's just my thought. If you're looking to get the article into FA class, I think the less issues with it (and a red link is an issue, even if it's a legitimate issue), the better. Onel5969 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only looked at today's FA, but it has four red links and no one raised that as an issue when it was promoted. TDL (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(o/d) Ok, thanks again Onel. I have taken care of things where possible. Please clarify regarding ref 41 and do have a look over things that were confusing originally to see if they're better now.

After sleeping on it, I have decided against removing redlinks. If someone tells us point blank during an FAC that they have to go then so be it but for now they serve a purpose. For instance, the Hodgson link was filled in just a few days ago; without redlinks, editors are less likely do this. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, I was simply looking at the MOS guidelines, which clearly frown on too many redlinks in a table. I'd love to hear input from other editors about this. On the whole, looks good, I mentioned some minor things which still need correcting, but they are definitely minor. Very nice job. btw... if you have a chance, I'd love to hear your input on the article I've put in for peer review, Phoenix, Arizona.

I've taken care of the last notes, including ref on the Burnside rules, clarifying Inman, and the Blue Jays wording. So I guess we're good here. Thanks again. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)