Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011.

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

 * Nominator(s): SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The 97th edition of the oldest soccer competition in the United States broke an attendance record set in 1929 and was the first time a team repeated as champion since 1983. After a GA review, and an effective peer review, I believe it meets the requirements of a featured article. I look forward to following up on review comments/suggestions as quickly as possible. I invite the editors here to follow the link and learn more about the most recent iteration of this great American sporting event as they review the article. SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the images. --SkotyWATC 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments:
 * "Major League Soccer" is a website, not a print source, so should not be italicised in the refs (per MOS)
 * I was never sure whether these should be italics or not. Thanks for the guidance.  I've made the fixes. --SkotyWATC 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The same is true of "United States Soccer Federation" (though the correct name appears to be "U.S. Soccer"); "TheCup.us"; "NASL.com" (should be written as "North Americam Soccer League"); "AOL Sports"; "goal.com"; "Seattle Sounders FC"; "ESPN"
 * I've fixed these as well and I found a few more web site references (CONCACAF and Columbus Crew websites) and fixed those too. --SkotyWATC 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Have not had time to spotcheck, though. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment: I will try to review this properly a little later; it looks an excellent piece of work. Just one thing for the moment; the statement that "the Timbers were able to tie it up" will read oddly to British ears. Here, in sporting terms, to "tie something up" means to seal a victory, whereas what you mean is that the Timbers "levelled the score". Would it offend American readers too much if you reworded for clarity? (In Britain, for reasons unknown, the term "tie" is never used in football, as we call it, to denote equal scores.) Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Often WP:ENGVAR comes into play in these discussions and editors end up favoring American terminology for American articles. That said, with your suggestion we can have the best for both hemespheres I think.  I've made the change and I found another instance of the word "tied" one sentence later but it was redundant, so I removed it.  Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWATC 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the review. --SkotyWATC 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Should "the" be added before Chicago Fire? I think it would help the grammar, but this is tricky with soccer teams.
 * Yes it should be. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * May I ask what a "bench goalkeeper" is? This is a term that's new to me. Does it mean a keeper who's normally on the bench. In the interest of reducing jargon (something I often can't find), I'd recommend a switch to "reserve goalkeeper" or something like it.
 * Good point. Changed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Try not to have repeating words like in "off a cross from Steve Zakuani. Zakuani...".
 * Fixed the one you pointed out and looked through the rest of the article for others. This appears to be the only instance. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Analysis: Is "convinsing" British English or a typo? I can never tell with the Brits (and Aussies)...
 * I'm not British and this is an article about an American sporting event, so it's a typo. It's entirely possible that they like this way of spelling it though.  I dunno. Thanks for catching this, I fixed it. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove "to" from "In their last match before to the final".
 * I think it originally said "prior to the final", but someone changed it to "before" and forgot to remove the "to". Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First half: The last paragraph is stubby. It looks to me like it would fit in at the end of the previous paragraph. Do you agree?
 * Agreed. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Post-match: "With his two goals, Sanna Nyassi became the first player since MLS began playing in the tournament...". Well, the league itself has never fielded a side in the MLS Cup. I think the intention here is "first player since MLS teams began playing in the tournament...".
 * Excellent point. My brain misses nuances like this way too often.  Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Add "the" before 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League.
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The all caps at the start of references 38 and 41 should be removed.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you so much for the thorough review.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support – My issues have been resolved, and the rest of the article looks good to me.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Most of my issues were dealt with during the peer review, but I've had another look: —WFC— 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the prose part of the match section, players' first names only need to be mentioned on the first occurance (with the obvious exception of the Marshalls).
 * I think the referee's name should be removed from the footballbox, to where the assistant referees are. It stands to reason that if you were interested in the assistants and fourth official, you would also be interested in the referee.
 * The paragraph beginning "With his two goals," seems needlessly long to me. The MLS began in 1996, so 1994 doesn't carry any additional relevance. The last two sentences don't make 100% clear whether Deleray scored multiple goals in 1994 itself, or whether the last of his multiple goals in Open Cup finals came in 1994. I'd shorten the entire paragraph to "Sanna Nyassi was the first player to score multiple goals in an Open Cup final since Mike Deleray in 1994." and find a home for it in the following paragraph, probably just after the one about Schmid.
 * All very good points. I've fixed each one of them as suggested.  Thank you for the review. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 05:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other thing that I've noticed is that there are a few gaps of upwards of 10 minutes. Obviously that'll be because little happened, but do you reckon you could get a few words into some of them? It could literally be half a sentence in each case, and it may even be that one or two of them were so drab that nothing has been written about them, and therefore for WP:V reasons you won't be able to. But as an example I think you need something to bridge between the Crew's first goal and Seattle's equaliser. Even a phrase or sentence as simple as "Against the run of play, Seattle equalized...", "After a period of sustained possession, Seattle equalized..." or "Few chances were created in the period after the goal. Seattle equalized..." would suffice. —WFC— 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (if you were to use the last one, you'd probably need a more gentle introduction than "Seattle equalized", but you get the idea. —WFC— 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is tough. What's currently in the article are all of the events that were mentioned in post-match write-ups.  However, here is the play-by-play article from the club (already referenced in a few cases).  It has play summaries for about every 2-3 minute interval in the match.  I've tried to strike a balance between detailing every event of the match and only hitting the highlights.  I'll go back through that play-by-play listing and try to add some summary statements as you suggest to bridge between the more notable events of the match.  I'll try to complete this work within the next day.  Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support per my comments here and in the peer review. "Conditional" on the outcome of my last point, but as I've acknowledged, WP:V may prevent us from getting a lot more in, so it's just a matter of one way or the other being convinced that our coverage is as complete as can be. Raising the matter was more in hope than expectation, but either way I think it was worth doing. —WFC— 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay on this (life took precedence for a few days). I've gone back through several match reports and filled in a number of gaps in the prose covering the match itself.  Here is the diff.  Thank you for the suggestion to look at these again.  The additions definitely represent more complete coverage of the actual event, so this is great.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was worth the wait. I have to confess that when I saw the diff in isolation, I was slightly concerned about the balance of the match report- on first sight it seemed rather Seattle-centric. But I read the first and second half sections through as a whole and compared the prose with the stats, MLS Soccer play-by-play and the highlights, and concluded that the balance is fine. However (sorry to keep throwing these one last thing's in) the sentence "Seattle created many dangerous attacks early on as they continued to control the tempo of the game, but could not find a clean strike on goal." needs to be scrapped and rewritten, as it's too close to the source. —WFC— 06:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed it to: "Despite Seattle's continued control of the tempo of gameplay early in the second half, they were unable to create many scoring opportunities." This contains the same message, but completely different wording.  Better I hope? --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I can now be considered a full support. Well done! —WFC— 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Well written (although American English reads very strangely to me), comprehensive and well sourced. The issues above have been sorted out, and I can't see any other glaring problems. BigDom   talk  19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not comfortable about the use of non-independent sources: those of Major League Soccer and their franchises. Perhaps for some basic details of the match but the use here is much more extensive than that. The most obvious example is "The record-setting attendance at this final and the consecutive wins by Seattle were indicators of how "meaningful" the U.S. Open Cup tournament had become". This is a claim that should definitely be sourced independently of the MLS and the competition's participants who have a vested interest in promoting the event. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This particular sentence came up in the peer review and it was rewritten. The only independent source that covered the growing importance of the tournament was this one, but it doesn't say enough to back up the prose.  I've removed the last paragraph completely.  Since it was almost removed during peer review anyway, I think this is an appropriate resolution of the issue.  Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've done a sample of three paragraphs of the article: the section "First half". I have quite a few prose and sourcing concerns arising from those paragraphs which, as a sample, suggest to me that the article isn't quite there yet.
 * Seattle had most of the early scoring opportunities.: What source is this based on?
 * This was more of a summary statement than a challengable fact. That said, the phrase "Seattle had the better opportunities early" is used to describe the first half in this source.  I've added the ref to this sentence. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seattle midfield Steve Zakuani...: midfielder?
 * Yup, sorry. This sentence was modified as followup to recent FAC review comments, and I missed this.  Fixed now. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * who's should be whose
 * Fixed. This is one I never get right, so thanks for pointing this out.  This was missed by earlier reviewers because it too was added very recently. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some play-by-play content is sourced to footnote 30, which links here. Has the direction of this link changed? There's noplay-by-play analysis there.
 * The ref names got mixed up. Those should have been pointed at this one.  I think the ref name was switched in one of the recent edits causing the whole group to point to the wrong URL.  I've fixed them now.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hejduk got forward behind: "forward behind" is not an easy expression to follow.
 * Completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart: do you "pass the ball into" a person?
 * Got stuck between two thoughts on this one. "into the area" was the original intention, but it was changed to the person receiving the pass instead.  However, this has been completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The content on the Burns goal is too close to the wording of the source. The article says: The play developed on the right side as Hejduk got forward behind the Seattle defense and passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart, who touched the ball to a wide-open Kevin Burns for a low shot past diving Kasey Keller into the corner of the goal. The source says: The buildup came on the right side, where defender Frankie Hejduk got behind the Seattle defense and cut the ball back to forward Steven Lenhart, who set up the wide-open Burns for a low shot to the corner of the goal past diving goalkeeper Kasey Keller. It's largely the same words re-arranged.
 * I've made an effort to paraphrase and rewrite whenever pulling information from sources for this article. I was obviously lazy on this one.  I've rewritten the passage as follows: "The play developed on the right side when Hejduk made a low pass to Steven Lenhart from a forward position.  Lenhart touched the ball to Kevin Burns for a low shot inside the far post for a goal." --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Few chances were created after the goal as Columbus' strong defensive play held off Seattle's attacks: This is sourced here but I can't find support for the statement in the source.
 * This, again, is a summary statement. However, the point about Columbus' strong defensive play was inspired by this text found in that source at the 37th minute: "Columbus is taking a highly defensive posture right now."  I don't think I've misrepresented the source, but if you disagree, I'm happy to make changes.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gruenebaum, who was still out of position after the earlier confusion: What earlier confusion? The article doesn't have any reference to earlier confusion.
 * This was in reference to this text "Crew goalkeeper Gruenebaum hesitated on how to handle the ball" appearing 2 sentences earlier. Perhaps too much of a stretch for the reader?  Regardless, if I just remove "after the earlier confusion" it doesn't change much, so I've gone ahead and removed it. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Columbus continued to play defensively following the goal and few scoring opportunities were created before halftime: This is sourced here but I can't find any statement supporting the Columbus playing defensively claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is more of a summary statement than a reference to a direct quote in the source. The only entries in that source between Nayassi's goal and halftime are a clearance, a yellow card, and a hard foul all from Columbus.  You may not think that describes defensive play, so I've removed the first half of that sentence.  Not much is lost with the removal, so no biggie. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While your comments may be construed as indicating a more systemic problems throughout the article, I don't believe that's the case. Most of the comments were regarding new additions from the past few days at WFC's request.  Moreover, of all the sections in the article, the "First half" section was the one that saw the most added (and overall churn) from this request.  Please have a look at another section.  While I don't expect that any section is perfect, I don't think any will yield as many problems as the "First half" section did (for reasons I've explained).  Regardless, thank you so much for your review.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the Second half section now to expand my sample, and I'm sorry I can't support at the moment. Issues:
 * Columbus Crew midfielder Kevin Burns: Why is "midfielder" linked all of a sudden? It isn't earlier.
 * Because until very recently (10 days ago) it was the first occurance of of "midfielder" in the article. I've moved the wikilink to the first occurance which appears in the "First Half" section.  Thanks for pointing this out.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * James Riley is a new player here: needs a wikilink to help the reader.
 * This was also added 10 days ago (3 edits later) and I mistakenly assumed that he had been wikilinked earlier. Thanks for catching this as well. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * and the ball to bounce out for a goal kick: the source says that Columbus cleared it away, not that the ball went out for a goal kick.
 * I can't explain this one. It made it through the GA review, the Peer Review, and this entire FA review.  I've fixed it to say "and the ball to bounce away before being cleared by Columbus." Thank you for pointing this out.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * crossed a pass: don't you just cross the ball?
 * Why not. To an American reader crossing a pass makes sense, but so does ball, so I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * offensive-minded substitutions: on what basis are both substitutions offensive-minded, especially the Renteria/Lenhart switch which seems to be between two forwards.
 * Bringing on a forward with fresh legs in the second half to replace a tired forward is offensive-minded. Doing the same with a defender would not be.  Not a problem though.  I'm happy to remove the "offensive-minded" qualifier since you disagree.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seattle made its first substitution in the 85th minute when Sanna Nyassi left the field to a standing ovation. The source says it was the 79th minute and says "huge", not "standing" ovation.
 * This was my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. The word "huge" seems a little slanted.  I'll just remove "standing" and leave it as "ovation".  That's exactly in line with the source and still makes me feel goot about being neutral. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The other inaccuracy was the reference to the 85th minute, when the source says it was the 79th.
 * I missed this comment earlier. Fixed now. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Overall the prose is tough in places. I think it needs work, but its the apparent discrepancies between article and source that concern me more. They're not huge things, for sure, but there's enough out of the sample to make me doubt whether the article is up to the high standards required of FA. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can make an overall statement about the article given that you've only reviewed two sections. As I expected, your very detailed review (thank you!) of the different section yielded fewer concerns than the first which makes me feel great about where the article actually is.  I'm not saying that any section is perfect (though you've definitly picked the two least reviewed sections in the article) but I knew that the quality would be much higher outside of the "First half" section.  Notwithstanding, thank you so much for taking the time to review another section. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the delegate can be satisfied that my concerns in respect of the two sections identified have been addressed (subject to the 79th/85th minute issue above). I just don't have the time to go through the rest of the article (I'm about to go on a four-day wikibreak) which is one of many reasons why I like to review by sampling sections of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the sections you did. I suspect that you picked the "most raw" sections to review, which is great.  I say this because I think the most exciting parts of the article are those filled with data, records, and quotes from players and coaches.  Therefore, through the GA review, peer review, and most of the FA review, that's what editors and reviewers tended to focus on and fact check.  This is why it's super valuable that you reviewed the sections you did.  Thank you for doing that, and I'm glad I was able to satisfy the concerns you raised.  I'm feeling much better about the quality after your review. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As a member of the Sounders taskforce, I am happy to fully support this article. The layout is great and similar to the previous year's (FA). The lead is of an appropriate length. ENGVAR (although it is understandably be a pain for some) is consistent.I love the images and the quotes add some more highlights for those who prefer to skim (I still do not know if it is OK to start a quotebox or image after a third level header but it looks to no longer be prohibited). Some of the details (Leo not being able to start, formations, and so on) are awesome without going overboard. MoS is handled well with annoying (to do) things like nonbreaking spaces coded in (I ran the dash script for a handful of minor errors). The nice work is appreciated since the second half was a little fuzzy ;) .Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: I mentioned images but realized that Commons has some images of Sounders players in the earlier rounds. Not sure if they are better than the qupte box in that section but consider using an image. No change would not change my support but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be all for adding another picture to the article, but I couldn't find any images of the early 2010 USOC rounds over at Commons. Can you provide a pointer?  Thanks. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Seattle Sounders FC won the match by defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1..." reads a little odd to me, perhaps "Seattle Sounders FC won the match, defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1"?
 * Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the largest crowd" crowd is repetitive, maybe "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the highest attendance at a U.S. Open Cup final."
 * Fixed with your suggestion. Thanks. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Road to the final" a little evocative/journalistic, maybe just "route to the final" is better?
 * That's fine. "road to... somewhere" is more common in America than "route", but both make sense, so I'm following your suggestion. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * " Later, in the second half," not sure you need "Later" here, it's clear from your description that it would be chronologically later...
 * Yes, it's redundant. Removed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * " of the game with 10 men on the field." is "on the field" really needed?
 * Redundant as well, removed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "scored on a volley" okay, perhaps this is USEng, and I'll leave it, but we'd all say "scored with a volley"
 * Both make sense in USEng, so I've switched it to your suggestion. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to repeat first names, e.g. Lenhart, Rentería, etc. Once mentioned in full the first time, just use surnames.
 * Good suggestion. I thought I had used the full name once per section per player, but I didn't even follow that practice very well.  I've cleaned them all up, removing duplicates for 10 different players, such that the first instance of the players name in the article is their full name and wikilinked and all future references are just by last name.  --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * " 3,411 fans" no, in front of a crowd of 3,411. No idea if they were fans or not.
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy Iro is overlinked (and doesn't need Andy to be repeated).
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You should link "expansion club" because the rest of the world doesn't really have that concept.
 * Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "fans" again. Just be careful here to remain neutral.
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Sounders FC hosted their quarterfinal match..." suddenly Sounders FC has become a plural concept. In BritEng this is fine, but you've made a stringent effort thusfar to maintain a singular approach to these teams.  Be internally consistent. Or be British and interchange as and when, to make the flow of the language work best.
 * Good catch. This was subtle and I lost track of it over several edits.  I fixed all references to Sounders FC, Seattle, Columbus, "the Crew", etc. to be singular. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "goalkeeper Terry Boss also had two saves in " odd to say "had" saves, he actually "made" the saves...
 * Good point. Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Steve Zakuani, who had just returned from..." again, no need to keep repeating first names for people who are unambiguously identified by their surnames.
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "On August 26, 2010, prior to the semifinal matches, U.S. Soccer announced the potential sites for the final, depending on the outcome of the semifinals." repetitive with semifinals. Would be good to reword.
 * Removed "prior to the semifinal matches" since it's implied that the announcement came first by the ending clause. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "scheduling since it would be difficult for..." that's his opinion, so "since he claimed it would be..."
 * Very good. Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "and within 6 days " six days.
 * Right, I'm embarrassed that I missed this one. I usually am good at catching these.  Thank you.  Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "had won 9 times and lost 3 in the U.S. Open Cup" nine/three.
 * Aaahhh! I am ashamed.  Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "kick off" or "kickoff"? Be internally consistent.
 * Fixed. "kickoff" is used everywhere now.


 * "did not suit up for the game due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations" I have no idea what this means, to "suit up"?
 * Changed it to "was unavailable due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations". I guess this is an American-ism. Hopefully this makes it work for everyone. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * James Riley is a dab page.
 * This sentence (and link) was added after the DAB review above. Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ongoing repetition of first names which is unnecessary.
 * Fixed. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, this was a great copy review. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article.  Hopefully I've addressed all of the items you raised. --SkotyWAT<sub style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">C 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support my comments have been addressed, I think the article is in a very good state, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just been through the rest of the article and couldn't find any glaring problems. I've made a few minor prose fixes. Just one thing that I'd highlight -- some of the repeat naming of each team is a little off. For example: "On September 1, 2010, the Columbus Crew visited Washington, D.C. to face MLS club D.C. United in the semifinal match at RFK Stadium in front of a crowd of 3,411.[10] Pablo Hernandez scored in the 17th minute on a penalty kick to give D.C. an early lead which it almost held for the victory. However, in the 89th minute D.C.'s Marc Burch deflected a shot by Columbus's Iro into the net for an own goal, tying the score and sending the match into extra time. In the 98th minute, the Crew's Lenhart dribbled the ball into the 18-yard box and was tripped by D.C. United's Carey Talley to draw a penalty. Guillermo Barros Schelotto took the penalty kick and scored the winning goal. The 2–1 final score secured the Columbus Crew's spot in the final." Can we do without "Columbus" in the final sentence given the mentions earlier in the paragraph? I think there are a few of these in the article. Otherwise, particularly given The Rambling Man's review of much of the content I didn't sample, I no longer have any objection to the article passing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.