| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for featured article status. I think that it looks pretty good, but I would like a second opinion as to whether anything should be added, taken away or altered in the article in order for it to pass an FA review.
Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comments from Shudde
Just some brief comments from me.
- The lead is a little sparse. It doesn't include much information on team history, a brief mentions of achievements, but quite a lot of information of other professional teams owned by the team's owners (is this very important?).
- Toronto FC are five-time winners of the Canadian Championship, 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League semi-finalists, and 2016 MLS Cup Playoffs Eastern Conference champions. -- prose here is a problem, maybe "Toronto FC are five-time winners of the Canadian Championship, were 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League semi-finalists, and were 2016 MLS Cup Playoffs Eastern Conference champions."
- paid $10 million for the team. -- because this is a Canadian team playing in a predominantly American league, maybe mention the currency here (US or CAN dollars)
- Could more be mentioned on the decision to expand into Toronto? More is mentioned on the name than on the decision to create the team in the first place.
- Despite a long scoreless streak to start the team's history, Toronto FC quickly began to establish itself as a club with significant fan support. The club's first win on 12 May at BMO Field saw Danny Dichio score in the 24th minute,[8] which prompted the sellout crowd to toss promotional plastic seat cushions onto the field in celebration. This is mentioned before even stating when the team started playing or entered the competition. This is also a bit "fluffy" for me, discuss the scoreless streak, the statement "Toronto FC quickly began to establish itself as a club with significant fan support." probably needs a direct reference. Could this be explicit? What were crowd and viewing figures for the team like?
- with a record of 6–17–7 -- this is nomenclature that will be unfamiliar to many people (including soccer fans), is this win-loss-draw(tie) or what?
- the club built a foundation as the first Canadian team in MLS -- this seems abstract again (I'm sorry to say); does "build a foundation" simply mean they played? Why was the fact it was the first Canadian MLS club not mentioned earlier?
- but the enthusiastic fan base continued to fill BMO Field to capacity.[9] this is something less abstract and easier to grasp, but is this a reliable reference?
- Toronto FC played in the inaugural 2008 Canadian Championship --> "Toronto FC played in the inaugural Canadian Championship in 2008"
More to come (hopefully) but at the moment by main criticism is that the style and tone is not very encyclopedic -- we need to consider how a historian would discuss this team in 50 years, would they write an article in such a style? -- Shudde talk 11:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- More
- I do worry about some of the referencing. Many paragraphs have only one source; for example the second paragraph of Early years (2007–2010) has only one source (and it looks self-published [1]).
- Also please be careful about close-paraphrasing. The article says TFC only scored two goals in the final 15 minutes of games all season (last in MLS). During the same 15-minute period they gave up 16 goals (most in MLS), thus creating a −14 goal differential during the final 15 minutes. and the source says In fact, they only scored 2 goals in the final 15 minutes of games all season (last in MLS by far). During the same 15 minute period, they gave up 16 goals (most in MLS), thus creating a -14 goal differential during the final 15 minutes. -- this is a serious problem and would cause me to oppose an FAC by itself alone. I think the prose is unclear anyway so I would suggest rewording to make clear that it's the final 15 minutes of each match in total that is being discussed (I had to read it twice to understand this).
- to nullify the Vancouver Whitecaps' +4 goal differential. Anything less would result in Vancouver winning the championship. -- this is unclear, do you mean "to overcome the Vancouver Whitecaps' goal differential and win the championship."
I'm going to stop there. I don't want to be too discouraging because I know how hard it is to work on an article only to have people criticise it, but I think the article has a bit of work needed before it's ready for FAC. I would try and get an uninvolved editor to copy-edit the article. But before that I would go through and make sure it is well sourced to reliable sources that won't be disputed at FAC (I even see some links that are dead, I would try and link those to archive.org if possible). Once it's well sourced (and also double check for close-paraphrasing) a copy-edit will be worthwhile. There should, for example, be no unsourced paragraphs. Anything that could be disputed should be also sourced. Regarding comprehensiveness, nothing jumps out at me as missing, but I would consider delisting the record section, and expanding on why the team was created in the first place. Sorry not be be more positive, but I don't want to see you go to FAC just to receive the same feedback. Better to know now and have a better experience at FAC than you would otherwise. -- Shudde talk 14:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)