Talk:MLS Cup 2004/GA1

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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]

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links[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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, another Americanism.

" MLS Cup '99" - Was the match ever called this? I'd just link it, and pipe it as first since 1999. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
New sentence after that, as the two parts of the sentence shouldn't be split by a semi-colon, that would suggest the sentence requires both parts of the information. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Decided to combine it instead.

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be misleading to link the cup article here.

Broadcasting and entertainment[edit]

Y Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Match[edit]

I know it's stated elsewhere, but you should probably put the date here too, rather than just the time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Was the Kansas travelling support not important? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not mentioned, even by local sources (the Kansas City Star), so I assume there was no organized away caravan. There's certainly fewer flights from Kansas City to LA compared to the DC–LA route.
D.C. United extended their lead to 3–1 in the 26th minute on an own goal by Wizards defender Alex Zotinca, who used his chest to deflect a cross from Earnie Stewart and hit it into the goal - This seems like bad wording. "used his chest to control the ball, but deflected into the goal instead" is more likely Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworked the sentence in a different manner.
"but the team failed to capitalize on chances given to urciaga" - I'm assuming this is Burciaga? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
for the injured Eskandarian in the 65th minute - How did he get injured? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Added his leg injury, which is supported by the same citation.

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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]

I've put through a archive run. Everything else is ok. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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:

Nearly there - Just a few points as above. Placed on hold. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. I've addressed your points above. Sounder Bruce 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say better than that. Looks pretty good to me. I'll promote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]