Talk:Toronto Maple Leafs/GA3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


I'm a leafs fan so I feel obligated to review this article.

Upon quick glance, I noticed that there are several sentences without references. Because of this, I will not start a full review until these issues are addressed. Out of good-faith, I will allow 7 days for references to be added.--Dom497 (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Au: Just wanted to ping you since I know you've been working on this article. Just to reiterate what I said above, several sentences need references before I can do a full review.--Dom497 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can start working on sentences with missing citations later tonight. Just curious though, was there a certain subsection or sentence that caught your attention (at least with regards to citations, or the lack thereof)? Leventio (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leventio: Sure! I've listed a few of the ones below:
  • In the "Conn Smythe era (1927–1961)" section the last sentences of paragraphs two and three.
  • Last sentence in the last paragraph of "New owners and a new dynasty (1961–1971)"
  • Last sentence in the first paragraph of "Resurgence (1990–2004)"
  • Last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Detroit Red Wings" sub-section
  • Last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Montreal Canadiens" sub-section
  • Last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Broadcasters" sub-section
  • Last sentence in last paragraph of "Team captains".
  • Last sentence in first paragraph of "Retired numbers". It would be good to have a ref defining what an honoured number is.
  • Last sentence in the second paragraph of "Retired numbers"
  • This is not related specifically to references, but I noticed there is a "needs update" tag at the end of the first paragraph of the "Fan base" section. This will need to be addressed eventually.
--Dom497 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look as well. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up the missing citations brought up above (tweaked a few sentences as well). As for the citation in the Fan Section, I updated it to reflect the 2010-11 season (its' source doesn't provide a figure, just their place comparatively to the League), but I left the update tag there as it isn't the most recent (better than 2007 I suppose). I'll go digging for a more up-to-date figure later, but I can't guarantee that will be found. Both the 2011 and 2007 figures came from leaked confidential documents. The league and its teams generally don't disclose their financial info to the public (as private entities), so finding recent figures can be tough. Leventio (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Given the length of the article the review will obviously take time. I will do my best to review a couple (or more) sections a day.--Dom497 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting much better now. There's still plenty of room for improvement though. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "They are members of the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL)." - I'm not a huge fan of the repeating "of the" (some irony in my sentence). I think it could be reworded to something better.

Early years (1917–1927)

  • "...wanted to get rid of Livingstone..." - Replace "get rid of" with something like "replace"
  • "...Livingstone's squad..." - I find "squad" to be very informal in this context. Can another word be used?
  • "...The NHL granted the Arena responsibility of the Toronto franchise for only for the inaugural season..." - I think there is a duplicate "for"?
  • "...but the club does not claim their history." - What does this mean?
  • "The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season is still the worst in franchise history." - "The Arenas' .278 winning percentage that season remains the worst in franchise history." - If you disagree just let me know.

--Dom497 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DannyMusicEditor has corrected the errors and input the suggested replacements. Leventio (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do about the fourth bullet point...but I've done the rest. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, missed that point. As for that sentence, I think its trying to emphasize that the Leafs and Blueshirts are separate franchises. With that, I rephrased it to "the Blueshirts are viewed as a separate franchise." If its still problematic, I'm open to suggestions (personally not the biggest fan of the word viewed, but I digress). Leventio (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conn Smythe era (1927–1961)

  • "After a number of financially difficult seasons, the St. Patricks' ownership group seriously considered selling the team to C. C. Pyle for CAD$200,000" - This is just a suggestion but I wonder if Template:Inflation could be of use here.

Opening of Maple Leaf Gardens (1930s)

  • "Despite four more lacklustre seasons..." - What qualifies as a "lacklustre season".
  • "...newly constructed 'gondola' above..." - I think this "gondola" should be described a little more since I don't understand what it means.
  • "The Leafs captured their third Stanley Cup..." - "The team captured...." (A lot of sentences start with "The Leafs" or some other close terms, so this changes it up a bit)

The first dynasty (1940s)

  • "Fourth-line forward Don Metz then galvanized the team, coming from nowhere to score a hat-trick in game four and the game-winner in game five, with the Leafs winning both time". - First, remove "coming from nowhere". Second, I feel like this sentence could be reworded a bit better since you mention that he scored the "game-winner" and then say that they won both games. However, I feel like the second point is more of just me being picky so if you disagree thats ok.
  • "Captain Syl Apps won..." - A link to Captain (ice hockey) is here but you use the word "Caption" before this sentence so the link should be moved to the first instance fo the word.
  • "The Leafs remain the only team to have successfully performed a reverse-sweep in the Stanley Cup finals" - Random comment: I find this fact hilarious given that leafs can't even make it back to the finals!!!

At least you'll probably make it past the first round this year before being shattered by the Penguins in the Conference Finals. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...winning the seventh game in 2 -1" - First, I don't think "in" is needed. Second, when mentioning the scores there seems to be inconsistencies throughout the article regarding the use of hyphens and dashes.
  • Just to check, does reference 44 support: "It took the Canadiens ten years to reclaim the record."

--Dom497 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits with regards to suggestions above. As for reference 44, it refers to "Apps announced his retirement following the 1948 finals, with Ted Kennedy replacing him as the team's captain." I don't have a citation for that Montreal Canadiens thing. I'd be okay with its removal... Also, I'd be stoked if the Leafs made the conference finals, but Tampa's looking mighty fierce this year. Leventio (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a reference cannot be found then it will need to be removed.--Dom497 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Barilko Curse (1950s)

  • "The "curse" came to an end after the Leafs' 1962 Stanley Cup victory, which came seven weeks before..." - Ref 49 says it was six weeks before.
  • "It was only later in the decade that the Leafs' feeder clubs turned out enough impressive prospects to enable the team to be competitive again." - Might just be me but I not a huge fan of "turned out enough impressive prospects". I just find it doesn't really flow well.
  • "A relatively young team, under Punch Imlach, a new general manager and coach, the team managed to make..." - This sentence doesn't flow.

New owners and a new dynasty (1961–1971)

  • "Baun's heroic performance" - Remove "heroic"
  • "Surprisingly, he returned to play with his..." - Remove the word "surprisingly"
  • "two of the decade's last three years" - I might just be stupid but I honestly don't know what this means.

Sorry for the slow pace of this review.--Dom497 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballard years (1971–1990)

  • "...series of events in 1971 made Ballard..." - Given that it's been a while since the article mentions him, I think providing his first name here would help.
  • "Nielson and Gregory were fired after the 1979 playoffs" - I know its implied but I think it would help to include some context that Nielson was fired again.

Resurgence (1990–2004)

  • "...he wanted to install his own man" - This is me just being picky but the word "install" in this context doesn't feel right.

New home and a new millennium

  • "Larry Tanenbaum bought a stake in MLGL..." - It's been a long time since MLGL was talked about. Perhaps its full name will help remind the reader.
  • "setting the record for the most shutouts in a single playoff series" - This doesn't seem to be supported by reference 103.

--Dom497 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked highlighted sentences, and removed unsupported claims. Also, no worries about the pace of the review, its a rather large article so its more than understandable. Take all the time you need. Leventio (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time. There's no rush. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the lockout (2005–2014)

  • "They struggled in 2005–06 and..." Totally up to you but maybe "They struggled in the 2005–06 season and..." would be better?
  • "...led by third-string goaltender..." - I've never heard of "third-string". What does this mean?
  • "They struggled in 2005–06 and, despite a late-season surge (9–1–2 in their final 12 games), led by third-string goaltender Jean-Sebastien Aubin, Toronto was out of playoff contention for the first time since 1998" - Overall, this sentence doesn't flow. Needs to be re-worded
  • "This marked the first time the team had missed under Quinn" - Missed what?
  • "Paul Maurice, who previously coached the Maple Leafs' farm team the Toronto Marlies' inaugural season..." - This sentence doesn't flow. Needs to be reworded.
  • "On September 18, 2009, Burke traded Toronto's first- and second-round 2010, as well as its 2011 first-round picks, to the Boston Bruins in exchange for forward Phil Kessel" - Is it worth mentioning the controversy about this decision? I honestly can't decide how relevant it is to this specific article. Probably is out-of-scope for the article but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Brendan Shanahan era (2014–present)

  • "...Peter Horachek took over on an interim basis immediately after the firing" - "after the firing" isn't needed.
  • "While the Leafs had a winning record before Carlyle's firing, the team eventually collapsed. On February 6, 2015, the Leafs set a new franchise record of 11 consecutive games without a win" - Random comment: Talk about the emotional roller coaster this sentence has. "Team eventually collapsed" = sad, "new franchise record" = happy, "without a win" = back to sad. Sorry...I think I'm going crazy!!!
  • "... including Kasperi Kapanen and a conditional first round pick, and a third round pick." - Too many "and"'s
  • "With a score of 2–1 in the sixth game of the first round, Marcus Johansson scored the winner for the Capitals 6:31 into overtime" - Can we just remove everything about them losing? Losing in overtime really pissed me off that night!!! (I joke about removing the sentence but not about being pissed).

--Dom497 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'd be down to just delete that whole "After the lockout" section... The League went on hiatus, nothing more, don't ask. Sundin totally retired a Leaf, the Devils shoulda totally played Brodeur that one game, and absolutely nothing happened in 2013...
As for third-string, I'm assuming they meant the starting Marlies goaltender. But the overall sentence seems rather tricky to edit so I just removeed it. If people would prefer to highlight his callup from the Marlies, I'll make another edit. As for the Kessel trade, I'm okay with adding a sentence about the controversy (I'll go dig up a source). That said, I'd probably limit it to a sentence (with the size and scope of the article and all that).Leventio (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fan base

  • "The Maple Leafs had the second-highest average ticket revenue per game in the 2010–11 season, second to the Montreal Canadiens" - This sentence has a "needs update" tag on it. Please address as needed.
  • "Leafs' fans have been..." - I don't think "Leafs'" needs the apostrophe.
  • "During in the 2014–15 season fans" - Remove "in" or "During"
  • I've just noticed this now and I expect there are multiple instances of this throughout the article. Sometimes a sentence will say something like "The Air Canada Centre holds 18,900 seats for Leafs games" but then in another sentence, "Many Leaf fans live outside". There seems to be inconsistency with using "Leaf" vs "Leafs".

Rivalries

  • "the two other most successful teams of the time" - Reword to: "the two other most successful teams at the time"

Detroit Red Wings

  • Detroit should be mentioned somewhere in the intro to this section.
  • "...apart via Ontario Highway 401..." - This seems irrelevant.
  • "The teams have only met three times since the Original Six-era, with their last postseason meeting in 1993." - Is this referring to playoff games? If so, that should be clarified.

Montreal Canadiens

  • "Toronto's rivalry with the Montreal Canadiens has been called hockey's greatest" - By who?
  • "This rivalry is also evident in Toronto's College subway station on Line 1..." - "on Line 1" is irrelevant.

--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits as per suggestions. Tried to change all the Leaf to Leafs where appropriate. As for the first sentence of Montreal Canadiens, I just reworked it from the second sentence on (the first sentence seems... POV..e) Also I can't find a source for average ticket revenue per game past 2010-11, so I'm okay with removing the sentence entirely being out of date and all.Leventio (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the sentence since its a nearly 8 year old fact.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie. Removed Leventio (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could look at how other storied rivalries are written such as the Old Firm and the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasters

  • "As a result of both Bell Canada and Rogers Communications having an ownership" - Add wikilinks to Bell and Rogers
  • "...Maple Leafs broadcasts are split between these two media companies. Due to this arrangement, regional TV broadcasts are split between Rogers' Sportsnet Ontario and Bell's TSN4." - These sentences sound like duplicates and could probably be merged into one sentence.
  • Add wikilink for "colour commentary"
  • "Colour commentary for Bell's television broadcasts is performed by Jamie McLennan and Ray Ferraro, while play-by-play is provided by Chris Cuthbert and Gord Miller. Colour commentary for Rogers' television broadcasts is performed by Greg Millen, while play-by-play is provided by Paul Romanuk." - Nothing references these sentences.

Home arenas and practice facilities

  • Add wikilink to Mutual Street Arena, the Gardens, and Air Canada Centre
  • "Throughout franchise history, Toronto's uniform has had four major incarnations..." - What qualifies as "major"? I only ask because there is no source and the row of images below this section imply more than four major changes.
  • Refs for "LeafPR 2016" are broken

Ownership

  • "Bell's pension fund is involved in Bell's ownership stake, at least in part,..." - "at least in part" doesn't sound neutral.

Season-by-season record

  • What is the significance of this section? A link to the main article can just be put in the "See Also" section

--Dom497 (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that appears in every hockey team's article. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Unfortunately, what exists in other article doesn't mean it applies to this article. I don't see the relevance of a section that only contains a table of data from the last 5 years. There's no context given; just a table. I'm open to discussion regarding if this section should stay or not but I'm currently in the "remove" boat.--Dom497 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in every NHL team's article, including the Calgary Flames who have FA status, it must be there for some reason. I'm going to ask Resolute for their opinion on this, because I know they're very active in Wikipedia's hockey department, even though we've never communicated. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a FA has the table does not mean it gets a pass in this article. In my early days on Wikipedia, I tried the same thing on my own nominations and the reviewers would just repeat the same thing I'm saying now. This logic makes sense because it is very easy for people to miss something. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few FA's let alone GA's with unreliable sources (at the time of review). If a related WikiProject has had a discussion about this before and a consensus was made, please provide a link to that discussion and I'll take a look.--Dom497 (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just took a look at the FA review for the Calgary Flames and I've very surprised that article was actually promoted with so few comments. Heck, reference 42 was not even formatted correctly.--Dom497 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it was nearly a decade ago. Resolute's a diehard Flames fan so they probably fixed everything that was wrong with it anyway. In regards to the WikiProject comment, that's exactly what I'm thinking probably exists somewhere, I just don't know where because I'm not a big hockey editor - it's just something I like. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was a different place ten years ago, that's for sure. To that point, ten years ago, the entire results history was included in all team articles. For franchises such as the Maple Leafs, that was obviously completely excessive. So after discussion it was decided to split the full results into child articles, but leave the five most recently completed seasons as both a lead into that child article and because it was considered valuable information at a glance. As to your objection, Dom, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criteria for GA review. This partial season by season list is standard across current and past NHL team articles, and is part of numerous GA and FA class articles already. If you wish to start a discussion at WT:HOCKEY to suggest a global change, that's fine. But a GA review is an inappropriate venue to try and push such a change. Resolute 14:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Resolute: I never said anything along the lines of "I don't like it", nor did I ever say I was pushing for a "global change". I said "I'm in the remove boat" as I feel that it pushes against criteria 3b. Also, as I've mentioned before, what other articles have do not mandate that similar articles must have (is there a policy for this? I don't know; I'm just going off of what I've been told over the years by several other users.) Can you please provide a link to the discussion you mentioned?--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this was perhaps the earliest mention of it. Also, I don't see how this is a violation of 3b. The performance of the team is the core pillar of sport itself. Consequently, I can't see an argument for it being unnecessary detail. Resolute 23:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that link. It shows there was consensus. On that note, my comment regarding the table can be ignored.--Dom497 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Cheers! Resolute 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team captains

  • "George Armstrong, captain from 1958 through 1969, was the longest serving captain in the team's history" - This sentence needs a source. Also, this sentence should be moved up in the paragraph to provide a more "sequential" flow (by-year).

Draft picks

  • "The Maple Leafs selected Walt McKechnie, a centre from the London Nationals with their first pick, sixth overall in the 1963 NHL Amateur Draft" - What is the significance behind this draft?
  • "Two Maple Leafs captains were obtained through the draft, Darryl Sittler in the 1970 draft; as well as Wendel Clark in the 1985 NHL Entry Draft. The Maple Leafs have had 11 top-five draft picks since the draft's inception in 1963. Two of these picks were the first overall draft pick; Clark in the 1985 draft" - These statements need sources.

--Dom497 (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers

  • This section looks good.

Hall of Famers

  • Why is the header for the table two different colours?

Franchise career leaders

  • Section looks good.

In popular culture

  • As mentioned by Leventio below, I don't see any significance in this section. Seems like its just a bunch of little facts of where the Leafs have appeared on TV over the years. Pinging @Resolute: for their thoughts.--Dom497 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one I am personally far more neutral on. It does seem a list of things that mention the Leafs without a unifying force to hold it together. That said, it is well referenced and media like "Fifty Mission Cap" and The Hockey Sweater hold significant places in both Canadian culture and hockey/Maple Leafs lore. Though in the latter case, the story is appropriately included in the rivalry with Montreal section. If I was reviewing, I probably wouldn't push for removal, but I can see your complaint here. One possible solution is one that we used when bringing Halifax Explosion to FA status: spin it off into Toronto Maple Leafs in popular culture. Resolute 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that there should be an article specifically for the Leafs in pop culture. It can mention the above, as well as the College station murals. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 04:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league affiliates

  • There are no sources at all (except for the first bullet point) in this section.

Images

  • This image appears to be licensed correctly but has a tag saying it might not. Can you please take a closer look at this and update the licensing as needed?
  • Does this image even fall under copyright laws? It's just text. I would think it would be licensed the same as this image.
  • How does this image not fall under copyright law but this image does?

--Dom497 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Made edits per GA suggestions above. Added citations for sentences missing one. Removed one unsourced sentence (The Maple Leafs have had 11 top-five draft picks...). With regards to the LeafsPR 2016, I can't seem to figure out why the shortened footnote template isn't working for it. I can put individual citations for the ones that are using LeafPR, but if anyone well versed with that sfn can see whats wrong with it that'd be great.
With regards to images: For the Lumley image, I can't verify its copyright status, as the source provided is broken. That said, we could just remove/swap the image out. As for the St. Pats logo, I would think the one flagged as NFC would be in the public domain (most images are considered public domain if published before 1923 in the US, and Canada is typically more lenient in that regard). That said, the person that uploaded and tagged the image is rather active on wiki, so we could ask them why its tagged as NFC. For the Maple Leafs wordmarks, I have no idea if either qualifies for copyright protection honestly (I know theres a threshold that wordmarks have to meet, but I have no idea if these do). So I don't know which tag needs to be fixed (if at all, maybe only one qualifies).
"The Maple Leafs selected Walt McKechnie" was put in cause he was the first draftee selected by the Leafs. I could see how its just tidbit information though, so I'm okay with removing it if suggested. Also, I wasn't going to bring this up till closer to the end of this review, but since trivialities were brought up, does anyone find the "in popular culture" section a bit trivial? I would be open to removing the entire section if there is a consensus about it. Leventio (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the Lumley image can be swapped out, that would be ideal. Regarding the St. Pats logo, its source also seems to be broken so that needs to be addressed. Regarding, the "In Popular Culture" section I have yet to review that part of the article. Once I do I will provide my opinion.--Dom497 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Ref 267 is dead.
  • Ref 258 is dead.
  • Make sure all references have access dates.

--Dom497 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Notes

This article is on track to be listed as a GA. Just all the non-addressed issues mentioned throughout the review need to be resolved. The review will be put on hold for the standard 7 days. I will be on vacation until next Friday, so if further clarification is needed on some of my comments, an answer will have to wait till next week.--Dom497 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny Au, Resolute, Leventio, and DannyMusicEditor: Hey everyone. It doesn't look like anything has changed since my comments on the 16th. It's been over 7 days but I would hate to have to fail this nomination. I don't mind giving as much time as needed so I just wanted to ping everyone involved.--Dom497 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I'll check again but I thought I fixed everything I could since I don't have most of the sources used here. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, thought I made the changes already, but I guess I didn't click enter on that edit. I can get the rest of it online later tonight (IIRC the last chunk is just fixing the dead links). Most of the other suggestions have been implemented in previous edits, although there were a few concerns you raised that I needed your feedback on before proceeding:
  • Have no solution for the images (still can't source Lumley image; and no idea how if those wordmarks are under copyright). I can remove those images later tonight along with the other last batch edit. I contacted the uploader about the St. Pats logo so hopefully I'll hear from him soon.
The Lumley image will have to go unless the licensing can be sorted out.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why is the header for the table two different colours?" - Stylistic decision honestly (colours were chosen based off team colours). If the issue is why they aren't used on all tables in the article... I honestly just didn't think of it (except for the captains table, I tried, realized I couldn't really do, and bailed on that part). That said if the colours themselves are an issue, they can be removed.
No its not an issue just something that struck as weird to me. If its not an easy fix don't worry about it.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the minor leagues section, the only reference I can find (without having to dig through a bunch of references for every individual teams, and even then I'm not guaranteeing it'd be complete) for minor league teams is from is HockeyDB (which appears to be where the list itself is from). I was initially gonna use that as a reference, but I'm not entirely sure if thats a good source to use. If it is, I can implement it, if not, I would be in favour of removing the section itself, and merge the info on current farm teams (which is pretty easy to cite) elsewhere in the article.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks had a similar issue a few year ago regarding RCDB. After discussion, the WikiProject decided that using the website was OK. If the Hockey WikiProject has had a discussion about HockeyDB then it is OK; otherwise unfortunately you won't be able to use it. If you merge the info elsewhere in the article just please make sure you use reliable sources.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LeafsPR shortened citations seems to be working for me again (... most of the time). But it does bug out on me from time to time. Not sure if its good or not, but if your seeing the reference bug out on your end, I'll go ahead and replace the LeafPR refs with individual references.
It's not working most of the time for me. It won't be a deal breaker for the nomination however I'm going to put the nomination up for second opinion just to see if I can attract the attention of someone who might know whats going on.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "In popular culture" section, about half the content can be merged into other sections (50 Mission Cap sentence into the 1950s subsection; Foster Hewitt's book into Broadcaster (he's mentioned there); and the Hockey Sweater in the Canadiens rivalry subsection). The Mike Myers stuff seems like something that would be better suited Mike Myers#Personal life, and the Fair Game one... thats just trivial (imo). That said, the info on the books is pretty cool, so if anything I'd be in favour of an article-split. Leventio (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too am in favour of a Leafs in popular culture article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree.--Dom497 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I propose naming the article Toronto Maple Leafs in popular culture. It's consistent with other articles of a similar format. However, all pop culture mentions of the Leafs must be backed with reliable sources. Anyone can say "The Leafs are mentioned by [insert comedian here] in [insert comedy show featuring said comedian]." Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny Au and Leventio: The naming of the popular culture article is up to you. Once that section is moved into its own article, pending one last pass-through of the article, the review will be complete.--Dom497 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leventio: Do you agree with the name Toronto Maple Leafs in popular culture? It's apt and consistent with the other such articles. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good name to me, I`m okay with it. I can get to merging the stuff that still has relevance into other sections of the article later today (sorry for the pace, I've been moving slowly on this for the past week).Leventio (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That article looks good. I have added the article to the Toronto Maple Leafs template and the template itself in that article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Leventio and Johnny Au: One more thing I noticed. For the Footnotes, one of them is "1" and one is "a". Please pick numbers or letters. After this is done ping me and I will pass the article!--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: Changed the footnotes to go down alphabetical order (they were using different templates). Also, thanks for reviewing this article btw. Leventio (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great work everyone! Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main article has now been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto/Standard Articles. Congratulations! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Note For The Second Opinion Request

To whoever is looking at this review because of the second opinion tag, we are having an issue where only some of the "LeafsPR" citations link to the reference. When you click on the citation sometimes it brings you to the reference and sometimes it doesn't. The citations use the Sfn template. Any help would be greatly appreciated!--Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through them but I notice you call some links LeafsPR and others LeafPR notice the lack of s. That could be a cause of your problem. -DJSasso (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso and Leventio: Ha! That's exactly the issue. Can't believe I missed that.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I didn't fix them for you as I wasn't sure that was the issue, so you will need to grab them as you know for sure which ones should be what. -DJSasso (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Yep I know. Leventio please fix the the citations when you have time. I would be bold and do it right now but I'm busy at the moment.--Dom497 (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was the issue (fixed it all to LeafsPR). Also merged the minor league affiliates into team information (only added Marlies, Solar Bears, Marlboros, and Majors as they were the only ones I had soources for). I can get to splitting the popular culture article later on today.Leventio (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Toronto_Maple_Leafs/GA3"