Talk:MLS Cup 2022/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 13:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if your article stayed unreviewed for so long, but now I'm going to get the job done. This is just my second review, if I remember well, so I hope I'll do everything right. Still, the article already looks great, so it shouldn't be a difficult task. Let's take a closer look! Oltrepier (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Alright, to be fair, I think I couldn't have asked for a better article to review! Overall, you've done an excellent job at writing down the article and providing reliable sources throughout it. I noticed just a few potential minor mistakes involving consecutio temporum (which I fixed by myself), but it's not a big deal at all. Plus, the article is neutral, broad in its coverage and focused, and all of the images look on point.

There's only one major doubt I wanted to solve before giving the green light, and it's about the issues you've had with that bot. What happened? And, do you need help to deal with it? I've seen that you can report bugs here, if you need to.

But anyways, I think this is a brilliant piece of work. Oltrepier (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The bot issue seems to have been patched (by going into the code itself). I've tweaked your additions and am happy with them overall.  Sounder Bruce  22:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Now, I'll just ask for a second opinion on the general structure, since I want to make sure I haven't missed anything, but we're definitely in a good spot already. Oltrepier (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In lieu of another opinion, and for transparency, I'll add that, as Oltrepier is new to reviewing GANs, they asked me for some input, and that discussion can be seen here (will probably archive in a month, anyone can change the link then). Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, so, what and I acknowledged (as I hadn't done so at first read) is that both the team paragraphs in the "Road to the final" section also include a short introduction to their respective histories. I think they're still concise and good enough, but maybe they could constitute an additional section on their own (named "Background", for example). That's the only suggestion I've got left, though, since the rest is fine to me. Oltrepier (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think a dedicated "Background" section is needed; this layout has been used in MLS articles for a few years now and works well enough. I generally organize the team sections into a single paragraph with prior background, another for offseason and preseason activities, then 2-3 for the regular season and 2-3 for the playoffs. A few editors have complained of bloat when I've added any more than that, so I'm trying to keep things pared down.  Sounder Bruce  20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine, thank you for clarifying it. I think we're good to go, at this point, so congratulations! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pass. You will need to add the GA to the appropriate category (in this case Good articles/Sports and recreation) to complete the promotion.  Sounder Bruce  23:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * (Since I'm here) Huh, I thought one of the new(er) bots automatically added that now. Thanks for the reminder if I pick up more reviews. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)