Talk:MLS Cup 2002

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MLS Cup 2002 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

MLS Cup 2002 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 30, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from MLS Cup 2002 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 December 2018, and was viewed approximately 503 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that MLS Cup 2002 was the first of five MLS Cups lost by the New England Revolution and the first of five won by the LA Galaxy?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2002.

Wikipedia

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Football: American & Canadian / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

United States: Massachusetts / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Fair use rationale for Image:MLS Cup 2002.gif

Image:MLS Cup 2002.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Preview: AP, New York (Galaxy), Boston, ESPN
Game summary: Boston, Hartford, New York, LA, SI, USA Today

Sounder Bruce 06:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playoffs Guide, MLS Media Guide, Match feed from MLS, Newsstand (Oct. 19), MLS summary Sounder Bruce 08:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 2002/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 10:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this article. MWright96 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Venue

The acronyms of the National Football League should be in parentheses on its first mention
- Done
Wikilink neutral-site venue to Home advantage#Neutral venues
- Done
"The new stadium was built to replace the old Foxboro Stadium" - former would be more formal in this instance
- Done

Road to the final

The United States should be delinked since it is a major geographic feature
- Done
"a 3–2 win for New England on May 25 and a 2–1 win" - change the second instance of "win" to victory to avoid close reptition of that particular word
- Done

Los Angeles Galaxy

Delink NFL since it is linked in the Venue section
- Done
"Veteran forward Cobi Jones enjoyed finished second in the team's goals behind Ruiz" - better; Veteran forward Cobi Jones placed second in the team's final goals scored standings behind Ruiz
- Done

New England Revolution

Freddy Garcia should be linked to Freddy García (footballer), not to the article on the baseball pitcher
- Done
"New England conceded two late goals to draw 2–2 and force overtime periods." - how many overtime periods?
- Removed "periods"

Details

Steve Nicol is Scottish and should have the flag of the Scotland and not the flag of England before his name
- Done

Post-match

"The 2002 final was attended by 61,316 spectators," - change the text in bold to game to avoid close reptition of the word "final"
- Done

References

Reference 50 is missing the publisher of the work
- Done

That is all I've got for this review. MWright96 (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thanks for the review. I've addressed everything above. Sounder Bruce 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Now promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ACCESS

Can someone confirm that the hideous table-in-a-table format is fine for screen readers, etc? I hate to bare ping people, but hey, RexxS, any thoughts? Even from my perspective as someone who can visualise this as intened, it looks horrible. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TRM. It certainly does look horrible, but screen readers have improved over the years and tables-inside-tables are usually coped with quite well. The structure of the "Summary of results" could be re-arranged to something like:

Regular season
Los Angeles Galaxy							New England Revolution
1st place in Western Conference							1st place in Eastern Conference
Pos.	Club	Pld.	W	L	D	Pts.	Pos.	Club	Pld.	W	L	D	Pts.
1	Los Angeles Galaxy	28	16	9	3	51	1	New England Revolution	28	12	14	2	38
2	San Jose Earthquakes	28	14	11	3	45	2	Columbus Crew	28	11	12	5	38
3	Dallas Burn	28	12	9	7	43	3	Chicago Fire	28	11	13	4	37
4	Colorado Rapids	28	13	11	4	43	4	MetroStars	28	11	15	2	35
5	Kansas City Wizards	28	9	10	9	36	5	D.C. United	28	9	14	5	32

MLS Cup Playoffs
	Los Angeles Galaxy				New England Revolution
	Opponent (Pts.)	1st leg	2nd leg	3rd leg	Opponent (Pts.)	1st leg	2nd leg	3rd leg
Conference Semifinals	Kansas City Wizards (6–3)	3–2 (a.e.t.) (H)	1–4 (A)	5–2 (H)	Chicago Fire (6–3)	2–0 (H)	1–2 (A)	2–0 (H)
Conference Finals	Colorado Rapids (6–0)	4–0 (H)	1–0 (A)	—	Columbus Crew (5–2)	0–0 (H)	1–0 (A)	2–2 (H)

but I doubt you'll find much enthusiasm for changing the layout. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]