Talk:MLS Cup 2000/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ReedyTurnip (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Starting this review, article seems pretty good.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I believe the word "the" is needed in the first sentence, should be "the top-level soccer league"

   Fixed.

   I don't think it is necessary to mention that RFK stadium is where DC United won a championship in the venue section, it hinders the readability of the sentence.

   It is necessary, so I've split up the sentence.

   Venue section second paragraph first second can be moved to after the next sentence, so that the section flows better.

   Moved up.

   "After a 2–0 defeat of Los Angeles and a scoreless draw" it would be less ambiguous to say Galaxy, especially they are referred to as simply Galaxy later in the article.

   Fixed.

   "the Wizards where shutout in three consecutive losses before closing out July with a 3–1 victory against the Columbus Crew." were shut out, also more straightforward to say "ending July" rather than closing out

   "Shutout" is a single word in American sports.

   Stoichkov is spelled differently in different parts, stick to one spelling

   Fixed.

Meets criteria for the most part, just minor fixes to be made.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead section could be a little longer, but overall article definitely passes.

   Added another paragraph.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   follows guidelines

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   The citations seem good and everything that needs an inline citation has one

   C. it contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   covers background and the match itself, significantly broad

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   good pictures of players and the match

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Will pass one the grammatical issues are resolved

   @ReedyTurnip: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. SounderBruce 19:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

   Seems all good, nice work on this, congratulations on the good article. ReedyTurnip (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)