Jump to content

Talk:MLS Cup 2004/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
[edit]
  • No Dablinks
  • Checklinks only brings up a single regestration page, but it's region only

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
  • "It was contested by D.C. United and the Kansas City Wizards to decide the champion of the 2004 season. " - I prefer "between". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • The two teams had qualified for the playoffs after seasons with mixed results that ended in top-two finishes in their respective conferences. - Aren't all seasons that aren't perfect "mixed"? I'd simply comment that both teams were in the top-two of the conference. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • D.C. United won the match 3–2, scoring all of its goals in a seven-minute span during the first half after the Wizards had taken an early lead - Instead of all of its goals, say "all three goals". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partially done.
  • Alecko Eskandarian was named the match MVP for scoring the first two goals for D.C., one of which included an alleged handball that was uncalled. - Is "uncalled" an Americanism? In the UK, I think we'd just say "not given", or "included a controversial handball claim". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, another Americanism.

Venue

[edit]
  • You give a date at the end of the first sentence, but no cite. I'd assume it's cited in the other source, but I'd want a source for an exact date. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's cited by the press release, as well as the offline source (as "Wednesday" and "yesterday", respectively).

Road to the final

[edit]
  • Wikilink 2004 season
    • Done.
  • Is "dynasty" the right word? If it's a quote, it should be quoted. Seems quite WP:NPOV breaking.
    • Sports dynasties are a rather common term, and DC's three titles would fit the general definition.
  • During the match, considered one of the best in MLS history - The source seems to just be talking about playoff matches. Is this a comment for all MLS matches? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several of the citations list it among other matches, and usually postseason matches are ranked above by default.
  • San Jose Earthquakes, the defending MLS Cup champions. - Wikilink the previous years article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be misleading to link the cup article here.

Broadcasting and entertainment

[edit]

Green tickY Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Match

[edit]

Post match

[edit]
  • He was the MLS Cup MVP during Chicago's 1998 victory against D.C. United and also played in the Fire's loss to Kansas City in 2000 - This suggests that you know that it's the Chicago Fire. Probably needs to be clarified for casual reader. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • 15-year-old substitute Freddy Adu became the youngest member of an American professional championship team in modern sports history, beating a record set by 18-year-old baseball pitcher Art Houtteman with the Detroit Tigers in 1945 - I know this is an American thing, calling the winner of the competition the Championship team, but it was very confusing for me. How about "championship winning". Is this true for all matches? I can't believe that there hasn't been a sneeky 17 year old that took 5 minutes on as a sub during the regular season in any league in the US. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being on the championship team requires appearing in the post-season victory, and yes Adu does count. I have not seen a source that disproves the claim.

Notes & References

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. I've addressed your points above. SounderBruce 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say better than that. Looks pretty good to me. I'll promote. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]