Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 SandyGeorgia 15:10, 27 April 2010 .

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): SkotyWATC 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you enjoy 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! SkotyWATC 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't, thank you. Nevertheless, I looked and found that the article has no links to dab pages or dead external links. Ucucha 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Just as an FYI to reviewers, a few days ago, all of the external links to mslnet.com went dead. I've already gone through and updated them with their equivalent on mlssoccer.com (the new league site) or removed them when there was no equivalent. In the cases where I removed the link, I provided an alternate source when necessary. The article's level of verifiability should still be as high as it was when Ucucha went through it. --SkotyWATC 17:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: Support. Looks great. Comments by Cptnono
LOL. Ucucha just isn't a sports fan as I found out during another FAC. Overall I really do like this article. I went through and made some minor MoS related changes and it looks good on that side of things. A couple things did jump out but are easily addressed.Disclaimer: Sounders FC taskforce with the nominator so there might be some unintended bias.
  • Reaction and Rewards: I notice the other FAs related to cup finals have a "Post match" section. By merging them, a short section would be eliminated which would look better and be inline with the other articles.
Done. Joined them into one section called "Post match". Good suggestion. --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
More information Post match ...
Close
  • The "First half" subsection seems a little light. I think it would benefit from a couple more lines. It discusses the attacking well but maybe something mentioning some of the other stats seen in the game reports would fill it out. The sources used in that and the following subsections might look better distributed throughout the section but I'm not sure if this is mandatory if they all discuss the same thing.
This will take me a few days to address. I'll have to go back through the references and find which ones contain the facts in the paragraph. I will have this taken care of by Sunday evening (Seattle time). --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I got some time today to address this. In doing so, I made a few other improvements to the prose. The references are now all inline, and I added a few more appropriate sentences to both the "First half" section and the "Second half" secion. Let me know if you think there's more to be done here. --SkotyWATC 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have seen this contradicted across Wikipeida so maybe this is a good place to ask, are websites supposed to be put in italics or not? All other referencing looks perfect.Cptnono (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been a little unsure on this as well. Basically I think the "publisher" of the reference should always appear in italics. In the case of news articles, its the name of the newspaper. In the case of websites, it's the name of the organization producing the web site, or the web site name itself when the first is ambiguous. --SkotyWATC 15:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – Don't have time for much, unfortunately, but I noticed this sentence without an apparent citation: "Both the travel distance and the mid-week scheduling made it difficult for Seattle fans to attend." It's probably covered by one of the nearby references, but it would probably just be safer to add a cite for it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I searched for and found a pretty good source for this. It's been added now. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Images No valid FU rationale for File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png Fasach Nua (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the fair-use rationale for the image. Please review my update to make sure this is satisfactory. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 00:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
illustration fails wp:nfcc, I would imagine it is unlikely that this image could ever meet wp standards for inclusion in this article Fasach Nua (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to follow up with Fasach Nua offline to get clarification on which of the non-free images she's talking about and which criteria it fails. So far no response. I've updated the FUR for the competition logo as requested and I think that's in compliance now. The only other non-free image is File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg. Looking at WP:NFCI, I believe that this is an example of acceptable use of a non-free image for "historical importance as a subject of commentary". The picture shows a historical event which is indeed the subject of the commentary presented in the article. Furthermore, I have carefully written the FUR for the image based on the advice found at the end of this dispatch. --SkotyWATC 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you expand your reasoning in response to the nominator? I wasn't sure about the logo myself but the do not use a year specific one so there may be reasoning. Skoty has provided reasoning so it would be appreciated if you could do the same. Also, which image and any suggestions on replacement(s)?Cptnono (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I've again tried to invite Fasach Nua to elaborate on the criteria she believes are not being met. --SkotyWATC 02:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this. Personally, I empathize with Fasach Nua's stance. Although logos are permitted as lead images for identification purposes, the use of a series image for a specific event is a bit too broad in my view. I would have much preferred a notable image of the event as the lead. In this case, the US Soccer site has used Brad Smith's image as representative of the Final (link). File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg could fulfill the role, but there is neither url sourcing (telling where the image was obtained) nor copyright attribution. My recommendation: remove File:LHUSOpenCupLogo.png from this article, make File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg the lead image and clearly state its source and copyright holder on its page; if those information are unavailable, then use Brad Smith's photo with clear attribution. Jappalang (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding! I've followed your advice and removed the series logo. To my knowledge there was no specific logo for the event (the US Open Cup marketing just isn't that great, sadly). I've updated the source parameter in both of the FURs for File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg with the URL and copyright info. As I was digging up this URL I noticed that the image is actually a "User Uploaded Photo" (I must have missed this when I first grabbed the image). I just sent an email to the club to get clarification on what this means for the copyright. I'm suspicious that this may mean there is no copyright and we are free to use it. Another posibility is that Sounders FC holds the copyright. If they don't reply within the next 24 hours, I will remove the image and switch to the Brad Smith image which has more explicit copyright state (as you suggest). I'm hesitant to move the image into the infobox (lead) however. It seems that the infobox is better left blank if it does not contain a logo. I don't think illustrations make sense there. I'd rather leave it nested in the prose as it is now. Thoughts? --SkotyWATC 04:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It is okay for a Featured Article not to have a lead image (note that the criterion for images in FAs asks for compliance with policies, not for their inclusion). What you plan for File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg is okay for the most part. I suspect the details of who holds the copyright would be detailed in the terms and conditions of the upload screen (if you are a member, I suspect you can try an upload and locate them). Unless the terms and conditions clearly state a surrender of rights, the image is still copyrighted to its photographer (or the club if the terms state so). In any case, the image page should be updated to reflect the status of the copyright holder. Jappalang (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So far no word back from the club on the copyright details of that image. Here's a link to the terms that apply when you upload an image. It appears that the image uploader retains copyright ownership. Instead of delaying the review longer, I've taken your suggestion and switched out the image for the Brad Smith image you suggested above (it's a better picture anyway). I've also reconsidered the suggestion to move it into the lead section. I think that's a good idea and have moved it there (into the infobox). I think all is in order now as far as the images go. Please reply if you agree or if there is still something outstanding here. Thanks again for the second opinion and helpful advice. If in the future the club gets back to me and they desire to contribute the previous image under GPL and/or CC licenses, I'll come back and update it again. Otherwise, I think we're good-to-go with this one. Thanks again! --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • just for my info, why is it "Seattle Sounders FC", when AE usually sticks full stops after abbreviations?
  • Road to the final. Without any knowledge of US leagues, it wasn't obvious to me that there were non-MSL teams involved too. Perhaps a sentence or two to avoid having to read another article
I'm kind of at a loss on what to add. Do you have any suggestions? The first sentence of the section I thought conveyed this point: The U.S. Open Cup is an annual competition open to all amateur and professional soccer teams affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation.--SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What about open to all amateur and professional soccer teams in the five professional leagues affiliated with the United States Soccer Federation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That feels a bit awkward because after saying "amateur teams" it says "professoinal leagues". I think I found a better solution though after getting some inspiration from the first sentence of Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. I've changed it to this: The U.S. Open Cup is an annual American soccer competition open to all United States Soccer Federation affiliated teams, from amateur adult club teams to the professional clubs of Major League Soccer (MLS). I think this is probably what you are looking for here. Glad you brought this up and didn't give up on it. This is a good improvement. Thanks! --SkotyWATC 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Sellout crowd but sold out crowd (personally, I'd hyphenate both)
Good catch. I've updated all of them to be consistent with "sold-out". --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • bid included a plan to host the match at RFK Stadium... Sounders FC's bid planned Don't bids propose rather than plan?
Excellent suggestion. I've updated both to use a derivative of the verb propose instead. --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • mix of reserve players and starting players does starting players mean first-choice?
Yes. In America that's what they're called as part of the "starting lineup". I think this may be confusion due to WP:ENGVAR. I'm happy to change it if needed though. --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps starting (first choice) players Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. --SkotyWATC 16:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Freddie Ljungberg - played for rubbish team, unlike Kasey Keller (: (this may not be actionable)
I assume you're not talking about the Sweedish national team and the US National team. :) --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No - and we beat them 2-1 on Wednesday to keep us in with a chance of Champions League football next season
Excellent feedback. I've addressed two of them, commented on one, and have a question out the WP:SSFC on the first one. Thanks! --SkotyWATC 16:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I'm happy to support this especially with the extra pre-match bit. The FC was really just idle curiosity, it's standard here. I've left two suggestions above really just to help non-Americans understand a little more easily, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I've taken action on your last two suggestions. I think they both represented good improvements to the article. --SkotyWATC 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll have to make a complaint about the lack of a pre-match analysis in the article. Normally in a final you expect the media and pundits to discuss the strengths and weaknesses and predict how the teams wil/should try to exploit this, but this isn't in the article. It should be, as not all teams play in some generic way. As well, match-ups between midfielders and forwards v defenders are also usually in there. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I've added an "Analysis" sub-section and broken it out with "Venue Selection" under a separate "Pre-match" heading. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. --SkotyWATC 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Pity about the lack of punditry as the coaches, the likes of Jose Mourinho aside tend to make rather humdrum comments that don't really add anything apart from teh usual "It's going to be tough" "we're looking forward to it" etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I conducted the GA review on this article and while I didn't think it was up to Featured standard then, with the extra bits that have been added and the improvements that have been made, this is one of the best football match articles on Wikipedia. BigDom 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Per discussions and resolutions above and the fact that this is a quality article. – ĈĠ, Super Sounders Fan (help line|§|sign here) 00:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Now that I have more time and can more fully read the article, I can say that it does look pretty good. Found a few random little things scattered around:

  • Comma appears to be missing from the middle of this: "The match was won by Seattle Sounders F.C. who defeated D.C. United 2–1."
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Road to the final: "and defeated the Harrisburg City Islanders of USL Second Division 2–1." Feels like "the" is missing, especially considering a couple similar sentence elsewhere have it.
Added. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pre-match: Is the Quest Field link really needed here? We just had one a couple sections up.
  • Analysis: What's citing the quote at the end of the second paragraph?
    • Fixed. It was at the end of another quote. All quotes need cites directly after, right?Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • First half: A couple sentences feel like they need more punctuation. This is one of them: "In the 18th minute, Seattle midfielder Sebastian Le Toux played a ball in to teammate Freddie Ljungberg whose shot on goal was barely saved by Wicks who kicked a foot out to block the shot." Without another comma or two in there, it verges on being a run-on sentence. The next sentence after this has a similar tendency.
Added commas to both. --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that I am by no means an image expert, so I leave judgement of the non-free images to others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Giants2008. I was hoping that you would be back to give more feedback on the prose. Your copyediting kung fu is far superior to my own. :) --SkotyWATC 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I just pinged User:Jappalang. I had pinged User:Awadewit yesterday as well. One of them will likely respond this weekend. Thanks for your patience SandyGeorgia on this last issue. --SkotyWATC 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward

  • Citations probably needed
    • "Likewise, D.C. United did not finish among the top six 2008 MLS teams, and therefore had to play through qualification rounds before entering the official tournament."
      • #12 (now #13) might have worked but added a new from The Washington Times since the source was good.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "The match, hosted by United at Maryland SoccerPlex in Boyds, Maryland, ended with D.C. on top 2–0. "
      • Done. Added a line and a second reference for this.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • "This time they defeated the Rochester Rhinos of the USL First Division 2–1."
      • Another from The Washington Times added just to be on the safe side.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Prose is pretty good
  • References check out
    • You may consider splitting the reflist into two columns. I personally find it a bit hard to read in a single column. Thats up to you though. :)
      • Reflist2 now. Appears to be enough for it.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Excellent use of sub articles!
  • Images
    • File:Starfire Sports Complex - stadium field 01 .jpg is on the left under a level two header there used to be a guideline discouraging that, but can't find it in WP:IMAGES. It should probably move the the right, or drop down a paragraph.
      • That has been bugging me on a few articles. What happened to that recommendation? I have right aligned it (feel free to move back if you hate it Skotywa).Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
    • File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg is non-free. I feel somewhat of iffy on the fair use rationale - there are already other images in the article that illustrate it. I will not oppose over it though. If you can get rid of it, I would encourage you to.
Thanks. I think it's important to have a historical image of the event itself in the article (this is the only such image). Above you will see more detailed discussion on the copyright and FUR details of the image. --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Interesting article! Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and thanks to Cptnono for following up on them. --SkotyWATC 06:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


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

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks