Talk:Toronto FC/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: The Almightey Drill (talk · contribs) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * General
 * No tags on the article, good start
 * I have a slight concern with currency in this article, as it is a Canadian enterprise in a predominantly USA league. I think it will be a step too far to indicate on every figure whether it was CAD or USD, that will be a point before an FA review at least
 * About three bare URL references need expanding


 * Lead
 * It could be worth mentioning somehow in the second paragraph of the lead, where it mentions the club's achievements, that they have never reached the play-offs of MLS
 * I retract this, it's not appropriate &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would write "the semifinals of the 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a thought, you're free to disagree, but it's quite big praise that Don Garber dubbed Toronto the model franchise for supporter involvement. That and a piped link to the fans could be in the lead &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * History
 * The history section might like a hatnote at the start


 * The first paragraph needs a citation note from the sportsecyclopedia article from which the 2008 season is referenced, or even better, the match report from that first win on May 12, 2007


 * "The last place New York Red Bulls handed Toronto a 5–0 defeat": as "last place" is the adjective, it is written "last-place". This sentence is ambiguous, one usually hands something in favour, and it sounds as if Toronto did win as afterwards it speaks of how they were one point off the playoffs. But it can also be read that New York defeated Toronto - please make this clearer to the reader.


 * Link Greg Sutton in the 2009 paragraph


 * "15 minute period" should be "15-minute period"


 * In the paragraph about the 2009 Canadian Championship, call them "Montreal Impact" in the first mention and then "Montreal" later in the paragraph.


 * Who were the Vancouver team in that championship? Write the name in full and link the team.


 * De Rosario and Amado have already been mentioned in their full names, just write their surnames in the 2009 Canadian Championship paragraph


 * "under strength" should be "under-strength" as an adjective


 * Add a reference about their defeat to Puerto Rico in the Champions League


 * Link "US Hall of Famer" to the appropriate article


 * The entire 2010 season paragraph needs citations, as does the part on the 2010-11 Champions League


 * In the 2011-12 and 2013-present sections, it could be nice to have a picture of a major figure of that era such as Klinsmann, Defoe, De Rosario, Frings or Nelsen, preferably a picture during their tenure at the club


 * Who is Kevin Payne? Indicate his job, and only use his surname when referring to him later on.


 * The sentence mentioning Tim Leiwike could be phrased better, maybe "Following the removal of Payne from his role as general manager, recently appointed MLSE president Tim Leiweke reasoned that there were philosophical differences between the two, as to how Toronto FC should move forward into 2014 and beyond"


 * With Jermain Defoe, no need to write his full name twice in the same paragraph


 * "American International and Chivas USA assistant" - no need to capitalise "International"


 * Stadium
 * Most of the material in this section, such as the 2010 improvements and the notable events at the stadium, needs citations


 * Colours and badge
 * Completely unsourced and may be better to roll this into another section on, maybe, "Club culture". http://historicalkits.co.uk/ has sections on MLS which details kits and sponsorship
 * Nothing at all said on the badge. Either find something (most preferable) or rename the section "Colours"


 * Ownership
 * Completely unsourced


 * Youth academy
 * Well sourced. Just one query - the text says "KIA Training Ground" and the caption "Kia training ground"


 * USL Pro affiliation
 * I had no idea that the Wilmington Hammerheads are from North Carolina, I merely assumed they would be from Ontario. It might be good to indicate where they are from.


 * Broadcasting
 * Sources needed on radio partners


 * Notable former players
 * This list could become completely open-ended depending on one's idea of a "significant contribution". Either cull it to full internationals (of any time in their career) or players past a threshold of appearances, or both.


 * Record
 * Most of these statistical tables are completely unsourced, at least some online or printed charts must have been used in creating them, the sources are needed.
 * Under international results, the linking is a mess, I know perfectly well that the Puerto Rico Islanders, Red Star Belgrade, UNAM, Santos Laguna, Fluminense and the CONCACAF Champions League have articles. Maybe for the Champions League, link to the season and use the # to link exactly to the round in question.


 * Average attendance
 * Not all of this is about average attendance, but the highest attendance as well. Either way, it's part of the Record section. Also it needs sources, which are bound to exist.


 * External links
 * I've always seen linked the Commons Category above the navboxes

In conclusion, a lack of citations is holding this back from GA. It's definitely a C in its current state &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invite to review, Johnny, but having made a number of contributions to the page I think I will sit out the review. The Almightey Drill has done a good job exposing the two main faults throughout the article, which is to tighten up the history (which I can attempt) and add a lot of sourcing outside of history. I would however like to raise doubt over a couple of the suggestions, such as mentioning the playoff drought in the lead. Would one mention Newcastle’s 59-year domestic trophy drought in their lead? I hardly think the un-accomplishments of a team is of severe importance.
 * I see it the same as saying Finland have never been to a World Cup or European Championship, seeing as most teams have been in a playoff, or that Hamburg have never been relegated because most have &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from the slippery slope of comparing a national team to a club team, I don’t think the terms are similar. Finland is 0/37 in both major competitions. TFC is 0/8 in league play and has had substantial cup success. A few examples of failures in the lead of club teams (to set a precedent) and I think it could be considered. Nonc01 (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable former players: As much as a purely objective method using one or two criteria sounds best, in actual practice it would be more inclusive than exclusive, and less accurate not only in terms of Toronto FC but the notability of the player as an individual footballer, since the quality difference in national teams can be dramatic. Not to mention the significant variable of designated player status. I think the current method which is both objective and subjective is the only viable option, perhaps the issue here is that the subjective aspects should be concluded more formally than on the basis of individual opinion. As such, proposed changes should be discussed in Talk:Toronto FC. Nonc01 (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the article has improved a substantial amount this week taking these points into consideration and then some, I don't intend to to anything else before our seven days is up... I am not at a PC for the next couple days, anyway. Looking at D.C. United, I feel it's chances in GA review are good, we will see. Nonc01 (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the main improver has finished with their additions (and it's 3AM on Monday in the UK) I will go through a new check on the article tomorrow night hopefully. I have to say all prospects are positive, the glances I have had on this article don't show any major concerns, I am impressed. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Final verdict:


 * 1) Well-written
 * Lead is concise, stating all primary points on the team without going into unnecessary detail
 * Previous anomalies in the prose have been ironed out


 * 1) Verifiable
 * All major points in the prose are cited from reliable sources
 * Some, non-controversial, points are unsourced, but this is hardly affecting the article in its current state
 * Statistical tables at end of article are entirely unsourced


 * 1) Broad in its coverage
 * Details on all aspects of the club, its history and culture
 * No going off on unnecessary tangents


 * 1) Neutral
 * No POV


 * 1) Stable
 * No edit wars
 * Such is the liquid nature of a sports team, it is certain to change in the future, although not to the degree that would require large-scale updates at any time.


 * 1) Illustrated
 * Only the club logo is copyrighted. It is small enough and has sufficient rationale.
 * Other photos illustrate people and places mentioned in the text, and have appropriate captions

I am impressed with the improvements to this article since I opened the review, thus I am passing it. Its overall written quality is enough to overlook the unsourced statistics, which are now its only flaw. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your clear guidance and polishing contributions, invaluable in getting this to GA. Nonc01 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)