Talk:MLS Cup 2003/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 January 2019 (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:

Captalize cup in all of its mentions outside of MLS Cup
- Not done, per MOS:SPORTCAPS; "cup" alone does not warrant capitalization.

"The then-unfinished Home Depot Center was announced" - under construction
- Done.
"including the final match." - just final will suffice
- Not done; "match" is included for clarity, as "World Cup Final" can be used to described the tournament as a whole (in contrast with the qualification rounds).

Delink United States since it is a major geographical location
- Done.
"Each team played a total of 30 match in the regular season" - matches
- Fixed.
"MLS Cup 2002 was contested by the Chicago Fire," - don't you mean MLS Cup 2003?
- Fixed.

"San Jose clinched their series victory" - clinched a series victory
- "Their" sounds better in this context, as it wasn't just a series being described here.

"ABC/ESPN provided 20 total cameras" - ABC/ESPN provided a total of 20 cameras
- Done.
"The match was also broadcast live within the U.S." - The match was also broadcast on radio live within the United States
- Done, with the short form of U.S.

Make it clear to non-soccer readers that Zach Thornton was a goalkeeper
- Done.
"who sized on a mis-cleared ball from Chicago" - from whom in Chicago Fire exactly?
- The player is not identified in the sources, and I can't seem to find out who from the replay videos.

Reference 49 is lacking the source's page number
- The database did not list a page number.

Overall a good effort. Not too much is lacking that is stopping this article from becoming GA class. MWright96 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96: Thanks for the review. I've completed most of the changes you've suggested, with a few exceptions. Sounder Bruce 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]