Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Do you like association football (soccer)? Want to learn about how Seattle Sounders FC, a successful Major League Soccer expansion team, managed to win the U.S. Open Cup in its inaugural season? Then click the link and start reviewing!

Thanks, SkotyWA^T_C 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do review: Brianboulton (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll be happy to follow up on any feedback. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 08:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have made a start but I'll have to come back and finish. Some nice graphics, by the way.

• General point. I haven't done a full copyedit though I have made a few fixes. The prose needs some attention, particularly in the need to remove redundancies and repetitions. This should preferably done by another editor, if you can find someone.

I saw your edits. Thanks for making the improvments you did. If you can recommend any good copyeditors, I'll be happy to follow up with requests for help. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lead
  • Is it possible to rephrase the opening sentence without the repeat of the rather long name of the tournament, and also avoiding the apparent tautology (the Cup Final is by definition the final match of the tournament)?

I've shortened the second instance to "the 2009 tournament" rather than the full name (with the same wikilink). This repetition was introduced as part of the article rename that took place in the GA review. I didn't notice it when I moved the article. Thanks for point it out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Better, but the tautology is still there: "The ... Cup Final was the final match..." etc. Instead of "final Match", could you say "climax"?

How about "culmination" instead? I changed it to that. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • A problem in many sports articles is the assumption that readers will know the basic terms associated with the sport and its structure. This assumption may be wrong, and explanations are often required. In this case, I soon found myself wondering what an expansion team is. The use of the initial "MLS" without previously tying them to "Major League Soccer" also caused me temporary confusion.

The "MLS" hook was in the prose, but was missing from the lead. I've added it there. Also excellent point on the term "expansion team". I've add the following sentence to the beginning of that paragraph which should help: In 2009, MLS expanded into the Seattle market adding a new team to the league, Seattle Sounders FC. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "expansion team" confusion arises in the lead, where the term is unexplained. I would recommend putting the term into quotes in the lead, and adding a footnote explaining what it means.

Wikilinked to expansion team. Don't know why I didn't think of that before. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Is "ejected" a standard US soccer expression. In the UK we might say "shown the red card", "sent off the field" (or just "sent off"), or even "dismissed", but never "ejected". It might be wise to extend the expression.

"Ejected" is a term often used in the states. It appeared in several of the match reports referenced. We use it interchangably with "sent off". I've replaced the two instances with the text you suggested "sent off the field" and "dissmissing". These will make sense to both English and American readers and I don't think should cause a problem with WP:ENGVAR. Thanks for pointing these out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "stomping" is informal, not encyclopedic

I've consulted a thesaurus and I can't come up with a good alternative. Wicks did not "step" on Montero, he lifted his foot an forcefully drove it downwards onto Montero. I think the appropriate term for that is "stomp". All of the articles and match reports used the term. Is the problem with the word or that I've made it into a progressive tense verb? --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stomping" is an informal term for "heavy stamping". I agree it's graphic and clear, it's whether it is encyclopedic that bothers me, especially when it is in the lead. It's up to you, but my recommendation is to change both mentions to "stamping".

This is a tough one. I think we're running into geographic variations of the english language with this. I appreciate you calling this out, but at this point, I'm going to leave it "stomping" for now. If it comes up again as part of this review or in FA review, I'll keep the points you've brought up in mind. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • The lead is supposed to summarise all the main points of the article, thereby providing a summary of the whole. The last sentence is a minor piece of incidental detail which is not worth including.

I've removed it. That was the only thing included from the "Reaction" section, so I've added a sentence on the cash rewards. Hopefully that is better. Based on what I've seen in FA reviews, you need to have at least one item in the lead from every section in the article. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Road to the final
  • By "U. S. Soccer", do you mean the US Soccer Federation? If so, say so, and link it.

Excellent point. Expanded and linked. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Unclear: "is allowed eight entries in the tournament of its U.S. based teams." Do you mean "is allowed to enter eight of its U.S-based teams in the tournament"?

Yes, that's what I meant. Your wording is much better. I've changed it to that. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • This sentence is out of sequence; should appear after you have dealt with qualification matters: "The MLS teams begin play in the third round of the tournament."

Agreed. I've moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph and changed the wording slightly to this: The final eight MLS entries begin play in the third round of the tournament. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounders FC
  • What are "assists"?

I assume you're just looking for a wikilink here. I've linked Assist (football) which should help. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Three weeks" not "3 weeks", and "five minutes" not "5", per MOS

Fixed. Can't believe we missed those in the GA review (we fixed others). --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• DC United
  • The first couple of sentences are an example of what I referred to earlier as redundant and repetitive prose: "MLS clubs were first included in the U.S. Open Cup tournament in 1996. D.C. United won the cup that year, and in 2008, they repeated their success by winning their second U.S. Open Cup." This could be simplified to "MLS clubs were first included in the U.S. Open Cup tournament in 1996. D.C. United won the tournament that year, and in 2008 they repeated their success."

Updated as you suggested. Agreed this is much better. For some reason, these things are not as obvious to me, so I really appreciate you pointing them out. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "prevailed" is sports journal language, not encyclopedic

Fair enough. Changed it to "won". --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • What is a penalty kick?

I had linked to penalty kick earlier in the article, but I'm happy to add one here as well. Overall, I've tried to only wikilink to things once in the prose (not including the lead) so as to avoid overlinking. As a result, I think I tend to underlink now, so it's good to have another set of eyes on this. --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake; I missed the earlier link. You don't need to link the term twice.

Removed the second link. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Actual rather than nicknames should be used.

I assume you're referring to "Boyzzz Khumalo". I saw that in one of the match reports and didn't think much of it. I agree in this case, but in the case of "Fred" I think it should remain as that's his professional name rather than a nickname (or so I thought). What do you think? --SkotyWA^T_C 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got that far, but looking down, "decided to replace Fred" looks very odd, particularly as you have just mentioned players called "Fredy" and "Freddie". You should say: "Carreiro da Silva, the Brazilian commonly known as Fred..." The reference to Ljungberg should be to Fredrik. Basically, sports reports use nicknames, encyclopedia articles don't. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So I did some research on this and found a similar match final article that is already FA quality: 2007 UEFA Champions League Final. In it I see that professional names (names used in match reports) are used in the article. Note the links to Kaká and Xabi Alonso, José Manuel Reina as examples. I've put back "Boyzzz Khumalo" since that how all the match reports refer to him and I will verify that the rest of the names used are their professional names (sometimes referred to as nicknames) as used by the club and in match reports. I think as long as they are wikilinked appropriately, this is the correct thing to do. All of the players who participated have their own article on Wikipedia, so this should be fine. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Back later Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the rest

• Venue selection
  • It would be useful to be reminded in the text that the RFK stadium is D.C. United's home venue. Looking back, it doen't seem that you have previously made it clear that D.C. United are a Washington DC-based team. This should be clarified in the lead.

Good point. I replaced the attendance note in the lead with "D.C. United's home stadium". The sentence felt too long with both. I also added these sentences to "Venue Selection" which should help here and with a point you made below: D.C. United's bid included a plan to host the match at RFK Stadium, their home stadium in Washington, D.C. with a capacity of 45,596. Sounders FC's bid planned to host the match at Qwest Field, their home stadium in Seattle, with a capacity for soccer matchs of 32,400. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "pointed" reply - sounds like an editorial opinion. If so, the word should be deleted.

Yes, this is a bit of an editorial point. I've removed it. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...which included a web site showcasing the club's history of titles as an original MLS franchise, WeWinTrophies.com." This reads like promotional stuff - why do readers need this web address? You've said they mounted a campaign to sell match tickets, which is enough; everything from "which included" onwards should be deleted.

The latter half of this paragraph has been difficult for me. The back-and-forth between the owners caused D.C. United to dive into marketing in 4 different ways: (1) a new website, (2) the open letter in newspapers, (3) videos from public figures, and (4) big ticket and concession discounts. Are you saying to remove the rest of the sentence about the website or to remove the rest of the paragraph? I think its definitely notable that D.C. went to such lengths to market this after the public controversy between the owners. At one point in the past, I had all 4 items in one sentence like this: On the heels of this public disagreement, DC United launched a marketing campaign to sell more tickets to the match which included a web site heralding the club's history of titles as an original MLS franchise, WeWinTrophies.com; an open letter placed in local newspapers declaring that D.C. fans set the standard for support in the league and that Sounders FC and its fans did not think D.C. deserved to host; videos on the team's official blog from local celebrities urging fans to attend and ticket and concession specials for the game. I decided to break the sentence into pieces and reword it some because it was pretty much plagiarized from one of the sources. I'd like to keep the 4 specific areas of marketing they did, but agree that it needs to be reworded. For example, "on the heels" sounds unprofessional. I've changed that to simply "following". --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Match summary
  • Unnecessary link on RFK Stadium - already linked in lead and in an earlier section

Removed link. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • 200 fans out of 17,000 seems very few Seattle fans. Presumably the distance was what limited the number, something worth saying. I'm also curious to know what proportion of the RFK capacity the 17,000 represented. Also, elsewhere in the article, it would be worth mentioning the capacity of the Seattle ground, which they had claimed they could sell out.

Added the capacities in "venue selection" as mentioned above. Also added this sentence after the note about the 200 Seattle fans: Both the travel distance and the mid-week scheduling made it difficult for Seattle fans to attend. Let me know if this could be worded better/differently. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• First half
  • "rookie" is slangy but just about permissable. Links are required for the following soccer terms unless you have made them earlier: goalkeeper, free kick, midfielder

Replaced "rookie" with "first-year player" and added wikilinks to the first occurance of each of those terms. Excellent suggestions. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...whose shot on goal was barely kick saved by Wicks." What does this mean? If "kick saved" is a US soccer term, could it have a hyphen, when it would (just about) make sense to UK soccer readers

Added a hyphen. This came up in the GA review as well. This term was used in all of the match reports for this save. --SkotyWA^T_C 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• • the adjectives "threatening" and "amazing" read like editorial opinion. If they are used in the cited sources they should be in quote marks. Otherwise, they should go.

Couldn't find them in the match reports, so I've reworded or removed those. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Second half (note earlier comments about usage of nicknames or familiar names)
  • "Seven minutes later, another failed D.C. United opportunity resulted in a Sounders FC counter attack, where Freddie Ljungberg's shot was saved by Wicks, and the rebound rolled in front of Fredy Montero, who slid in and tipped the ball into the goal, giving Sounders FC a 1–0 lead." Too much information for a single sentence. Suggest break after "saved by Wicks" then "The rebound..." etc. The latter part slips into soccerspeak with "slid in" and "tipped the ball". Suggest rephrase in everyday language.

Divided the sentence as suggested and reworded the soccerspeak as follows: dove feet first and kicked the ball into the goal. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "the fourth official" - again more explanation necessary (or call him something like the off-field official). Otherwise people will wonder about the unmentioned second and third officials.

Wikilinked fourth official. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Second para: Suggest flip the first sentence thus: "Despite being down a man, D.C. United continued to control possession as the match progressed towards full time." You also need to explain "control possession". At the very least, add "of the ball". (Afterthought: I would reword this to "...United had most possession of the ball...")

I opted to go with something pretty close to your afterthought idea: Despite being down a man, D.C. United controlled possession of the ball as the match progressed towards full time. Does that work? --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "dribbled in towards goal..." Clarify/link

Wikilinked dribbled. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Sometimes you refer to "D.C.", sometimes to "United". It would be clearer if there was consistency here.

I was actually going for variety. I refer to Seattle Sounders FC by either their full name, Seattle, or Sounders FC. Likewise I refer to D.C. United by either their full name, D.C., or United. This is done throughout the article. In many cases repeating the exact same name on sentence after another gets too repetetive. This was an attempt to make the reading a little less redundant. Do you think all of these should be standardized? Maybe there are a few specific instaces that are confusing that we can address? --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "regain a goal" is surely wrong terminology. To regain something is to gain something previously had and subsequently lost. Not the case here.

Changed it to "narrow the scoring difference". Better? --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Why were there five minutes of extra time?

Not sure why you're asking this. Extra time is wikilinked earlier in the article, so I didn't want to link to it again. The referee adds extra time at the end of a half. I think the main reason for the 5 minutes of added time was the delay surrounding the red card, but non of the match reports make that connection, so that would be synthesis if I did. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "hang on" is too slangy.

Agreed. Changed it to "Sounders FC was able to withstand D.C.'s late push". --SkotyWA^T_C 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reaction: Five, not 5 matches

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• References
  • Consistency required: sometimes you have "The Seattle Times", sometimes "Seattle Times" Sometimes italics are used, other times not.

Fixed. I needed to get to know the templates I'm using a bit better to get this right. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Refs [6] and [28] lack publisher information

Fixed. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Why are the press releases considered as reliable sources? Press releases are usually part of the news management process.

Sort of. I'm not using them for that though. At the end of every press release, an explanation of aplicable rules, laws, etc. is provided for the context of the information. In each of the cases they're used in the article, they are citations for explaining rules of the tournament, not providing information about the teams who released them. In this way, they're actually "3rd party sources" talking about the tournament. Does that make sense? --SkotyWA^T_C 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Someone might wonder why the vast majority of sources are Seattle-based, as against (I think) three from the Washington Post, and might wonder if this reflects on the neutrality of the article.

Only 16 of the sources are from Seattle Sounders FC or The Seattle Times. The Washington Post is actually a newspaper based in Washington D.C., not Seattle, Washington. 16 sources is still a little less that half. I guess my explanation for favoring these two sources is that I read them almsot everyday, and I kept a list of articles I wanted to cite as I read them. If you think this is a problem, I can probably try to dig up sources from other newspapers instead. Just tell me what a more appropriate number of Seattle-based sources I should shoot for. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's about it. Please ping the talkpage when you want me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisit: You have responded to all my points, not always perhaps as I would have chosen to do, but that is largely a question of personal preferences. I think you can defend your choices, and in general the article is looking in good shape. I assume you will take this to FAC, and I'll be interested to see how reviewers respond there; I'd say its chances are good. Just one final point: when giving the crowd total of 17,329, would it be worth emphasising, since the choice of venue was a major issue, that the attendance was less than 40% of the ground's capacity? Good luck with the article anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on the percentage of capacity. Thanks again for all of your feedback. --SkotyWA^T_C 05:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)