Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MLS Cup 1999/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 January 2023 [1].

MLS Cup 1999 edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amid another wild Major League Soccer playoffs, I think it's fitting to write about the league's first cup rematch. The Los Angeles Galaxy and D.C. United played each other three years earlier in my previous MLS Cup FAC at the very same stadium, so I found it fit to nominate this one three years later. This article was written a few years ago and underwent a GOCE copyedit over the summer, with some additional tweaks. SounderBruce 05:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "The Galaxy hired Sigi Schmid" - as.....?
    • Fixed.
  • "The match was played six days after a home game for the New England Patriots" - maybe clarify that the Patriots are an American football team?
    • Added league name.
  • "a match against the Tampa Bay Mutiny that ended in a 4–2 comeback victory" - a victory for which team?
    • Added team name.
  • "The team then lost three consecutive matches [....] because four starting players and three reserves were injured" - can we really state definitively that they lost because of these players being injured? I mean, it probably didn't help, but I doubt it could be proven that the defeats were specifically down to this.....
    • Reworded.
  • "The second leg in Florida ended 0{–0" - stray punctuation mark in there
    • Fixed.
  • "United played the Columbus Crew, who had defeated the Tampa Bay Fusion" - think there's a typo there as to the best of my knowledge there has never been a Tampa Bay Fusion
    • Whoops, I accidentally combined the two Florida teams. Fixed.
  • "Roy Lassiter scored early for United in sixth minute" => "Roy Lassiter scored early for United in the sixth minute"
    • Fixed.
  • "Jaime Moreno scored in the 17th minute and was joined by a brace from Roy Lassiter" - no need to restate full names when they were only mentioned a couple of sentences earlier
    • Fixed.
  • "that Jolley misplayed and fell to Lassiter" => "that was misplayed by Jolley and fell to Lassiter"
    • Fixed.
  • "The Galaxy protested to Weyland the ball had crossed the line" => "The Galaxy protested to Weyland that the ball had crossed the line"
    • Fixed.
  • "After the match, Hartman attributed his miscue on the second goal on" => "After the match, Hartman attributed his miscue on the second goal to"
    • Fixed.
  • "Schmid was also suspended for first match" => "Schmid was also suspended for the first match"
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've made all the needed corrections to the article. SounderBruce 18:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SounderBruce: if you fancied taking a look at an FAC which is about the same sport but pretty much from a different world :-) this one could benefit from some more eyes..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be glad to take a look, though I'm not sure if I'll be able to complete a review at this time. SounderBruce 05:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • I do generally ask that the lede sentence is explicit on what the article is about - a football match. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added link to soccer, but I think the intermediate links should provide sufficient context.
  • Do we need to cite the items in the infobox? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. They're a holdover from when the article didn't include the weather in the prose.
  • The match was played in front of 44,910 spectators, setting a new MLS Cup record -> was played under a new record attendence for the MLS Cup, 44,910. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded in a different way.
  • I feel like some of the aftermath could come here, like winning the CONCACAF title. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a short summary of their CONCACAF adventure.
Prose
  • I tend to think we shouldn't expect readers to go all the way back to the lede to find acronyms and links and should be redefined in the body. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links and acronym definitions are repeated in the body.
  • I'd like a sentence about the MLS cup, as currently the only info is uncited in the lede. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ticket prices started at $19. - unless this is particularly high or low, and we are being critical, we shouldn't comment on this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an interesting anecdote, especially in the face of modern prices; the starting ticket is roughly equal to $33.50 today, which would be a bottom-floor price for a MLS regular season ticket before fees now.
      • I think we need to either make that comparison in the article, or not have the amount. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed.
  • Looks like the "road to the final" has a few things that I mentioned earlier, so it's a bit weird it comes second. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the venue is pre-determined, chronologically it belongs before the "Road to..." section; if needed I can switch the order, but I don't think readers will benefit from a switch.
  • Link/explain how the seeding worked. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't find a source that clearly spells out the seeding (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3), as it is a common format in U.S. sports.
  • You use "the D.C." and "United" interchangeably. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for "Los Angeles " and "the Galaxy". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "United" and "Galaxy" are recognizable ways to shorten the team names, which I've added to provide some variety in mentions without resorting to "the club" too often.
      • No, I mean you use the terms interchangeably. You should stick to either "the Galaxy" or "Los Angeles" throughout. The full name is fine, but not to then have two different shortenings. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of results - this table, what do all the colours mean? Bold? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added legend.
  • Also in this table, you use SS and SO. These should use the {{abr}} template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both terms are linked; the latter is mentioned in the note before the table. SounderBruce 05:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review. Is there more you'd like to comment on? SounderBruce 22:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping once again: Lee Vilenski. SounderBruce 19:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:MLS_Cup_99_logo.gif: source link is dead, and suggest tailoring the FUR to this subject a bit more
  • File:Foxborostade_crop_1.png is quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the logo FUR and source link. The satellite image is the only free-licensed picture of the host venue, so its encyclopedic value is important despite its low quality. I'm attempting to figure out how to get a comparable satellite view out of NASA WorldWind, but the software doesn't work as smoothly with modern PCs. SounderBruce 02:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version

  • You use the location parameter on FN 19, but on no other citations. I thought this might be because the location is not evident from the name of the website, but you don't give a location for the Sun-Sentinel (FN 2) either, for example. --
    • Removed from FN 19.
  • You use the publisher parameter in two cases: FN 120, which does not use the work/website parameter; and several MLS citations, e.g. 14 and 97, which use the domain name rather than the website name for the website/work parameter. I think this should be "MLS" rather than "MLSSoccer.com" or "MLSnet.com" for the website name -- the domain name doesn't show up in the branding on those websites. And I don't think the publisher is necessary in those cases. For the BBC I would think the same applies; it would be more consistent to use "BBC Sport" as the website name and eliminate the publisher.
    • My intent is to only use MLS as the publisher for league press releases and other official announcements; MLSnet (now MLSsoccer) is a semi-independent arm of the league that is free to publish more casual pieces or even report on trade rumors and the like. I've swapped over BBC to be in line with how it is used in European cup final articles.
  • The links for FN 17 & 39 don't work and no archive links are given.

Sources are all reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I see MLSnet.com was the actual brand of the website, so that's OK; for MLSsoccer I don't see them using any clear branding other than MLS, so I think it's OK to use the domain name there as long as you're consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "despite coaching changes": a coaching change doesn't automatically implement an unsuccessful season, surely?
    • Switched. Usually a mid-season coaching change signals trouble for a team and it's rare for them to top the conference.
  • "The 1999 match was also played at the same venue, Foxboro Stadium, and was the first of four consecutive MLS Cup appearances for United." The 1999 match was the last of those four appearances, wasn't it? I think the problem is in the first half of the sentence though. Perhaps "The 1996 match had also been played at Foxboro Stadium, and the 1999 final was the fourth consecutive MLS Cup appearance for United."
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • There's quite a bit of detail about the 1999 season for each club -- details of individual matches, player acquisitions in the offseason, results on the U.S. Open Cup and CONCACAF Champion's Cup, key player injuries, end of year player and coach awards. In an article about an English football team I would expect to see this detail in an article about the season, not an article about an individual match. I don't see season articles for the Galaxy; can you say how this sort of detail is divided up amongst various articles for MLS teams? If this article is the place where the most detail is expected on a season, I would think the article has the wrong title. If not, then it seems more than is needed for this article.
    • The format for MLS Cup articles generally uses a layout that mixes elements of international soccer and American sports final articles; the latter includes regular season summaries to provide additional context. Since the regular season result does play a major role in playoffs positioning, I think it's worth including.
      I don't think that quite answers my question. I can see that at least a couple of sentences about the regular season need to be included, as you say, but there's a great deal of detail here that has nothing at all to do with the match. To ask the question another way, if I'm a Wikipedia reader and I want to read about the Galaxy's 1999 season, what article do you think I should go to? Surely not this one, which is about a single match? And if this article isn't the primary article about the season, there's too much detail here. I think you only need three or four sentences, not the four paragraphs that the season gets for the Galaxy here. The season is context, but it's not the topic of thee article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Trimmed back the regular season summary from 3 paragraphs down to 2, which I feel is balanced with the opener that covers the previous season(s) and off-season moves and the closing 2 paragraphs for the playoffs. SounderBruce 08:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's improved, but I'm still not clear how the articles about the 1999 season break up the content. According to the lead, this article isn't about the whole post-season -- it's only about the single final match. If every article about 1999 MLS were to be brought to FAC, what would that consist of? Is there going to be a 1999 MLS playoffs article? An article for each team's season? The FAC criteria don't require you to answer that question but at the moment it feels to me like I should oppose on "excessive detail" and understanding how the articles are going to divide up the 1999 MLS content might mean I could agree with you on this article's level of detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The "Road/Route to the final" section is standard among sports final articles, especially in soccer. Several existing soccer FAs (MLS Cup 1996, 1998 FIFA World Cup Final, 2019 FA Cup Final, 1981 UEFA Cup Final, 2014 U.S. Open Cup Final) have such sections and go into even more detail at times. This article only has the season and playoffs details for the two finalists, whereas an article on the 1999 MLS Cup Playoffs would have summaries for each match (and go further in-depth). SounderBruce 19:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to oppose over this, but I'm afraid I can't support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...now holds the record..." needs an "as of".
    • Added with source.
  • "Galaxy won the tournament": shouldn't this be "The Galaxy won..."?
    • Fixed; it was a leftover from the last copyedit that I missed.

I've copyedited a little; let me know if I screwed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments and copyedits. I've responded to the points raised above. SounderBruce 04:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators: I am neither supporting nor opposing. I think there's too much detail in the article about the prior season, so I am unable to support. I think it's a matter of opinion rather than a clear violation of the "excessive detail" criterion, so I don't feel justified in opposing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: May I ask that you reconsider your decision on this review? FACR no. 4 states that an article should "stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail", which I believe this article satisfies more than it did at the time of nomination. With the latest trimming, there are now 6 paragraphs dedicated to the preseason and regular season of both finalists and 6 paragraphs for the match summary itself (excluding the match rules change and aftermath). As the playoffs are an extension of the cup, they would also need to be covered in more detail than the regular season but not as much as the final's summary. I believe this is balanced and offers readers the appropriate context to answer why these two teams were in the final to begin with; a shorter summary would have to leave out the hardships suffered by United due to their inconsistent lineups or the Galaxy's dominance under their new head coach. SounderBruce 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did have another look today, and I honestly don't feel I can support. I know other articles about the 1999 MLS season are not your problem. I also know that it's perfectly reasonable to repeat information from one article in another, when there's a significant overlap -- I did that with Astonishing Stories and Super Science Stories, and in fact if I recall correctly I asked at WT:FAC if it would be a problem and the answer was that it would not be a problem. But here some of the details of the 1999 season that you give seem so remote from the game played on 21 November 1999. Something like Calichman being traded away a year earlier -- sure, that impacts their season, but this isn't the article about the season; it's not even the article about the playoffs, for which I think you could probably make a slightly better case for the details, since league position is how you get to the playoffs. It's an article about the last game of the playoffs. I believe the article meets all the other criteria. How about starting a conversation at whatever the appropriate WikiProject would be? If we get a consensus that disagrees with me I'll probably switch to support, but as it stands I can't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Based on the feedback here and in the WikiProject discussion, I have cut both regular season summaries. SounderBruce 12:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case any other reviewers want to comment, SounderBruce has started a discussion about this here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since the season summaries have been reduced further. Personally I'd cut a couple more sentences, but I think it's now within the range of editor discretion and does not conflict with the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Conference Semifinals ... Conference Finals". Why the upper case S and F.
    • They are proper names and MLS capitalized them consistently at the time.
  • LA Galaxy seem to refer to themself as "LA Galaxy". The articles uses "Los Angeles Galaxy". Is there a consensus of HQ RSs to support this?
    • Prior to their 2007 rebranding, the club used "Los Angeles Galaxy" far more than its shortened version; Google Books nGrams also shows that "LA Galaxy" only became prominent around 2024 and did not surpass the original until 2013.
  • The article is titled "MLS Cup 1999", but there is only a single sentence in the lead on the match. Am I missing something? MOS:LEAD suggests "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".
    • The lead was expanded as part of the GA review. I can ping the reviewer to see if they have thoughts on what the balance should be, but I'm not opposed to trimming it down.
I make no comment on whether the lead generally needs trimming (although see below), but currently the summary in the lead of the sub-section "Summary" does not, IMO, meet MOS:LEAD.
  • "and was narrowed." What does this mean?
    • The width of the pitch was narrowed. Reordered for clarity.
  • "from five to four as a cost-saving measure." How did this save money for MLS? (As opposed to for the teams, who I assume paid any fees and salaries involved.) Why was it felt that costs needed to be saved? In what way is this relevant to the 1999 MLS Cup?
    • MLS is a single-entity league, so all costs are shared by the league, including salaries. The rule change led to some changes for both finalists in the preseason (namely United losing 4 players, which contributed to their lineup troubles later on), so it is a relevant piece of context.
If it is relevant, why is the explanation provided above not included in the article?
  • "MLS Cup 1999 was contested by ..." Why no definite article.
    • A quirk of American English that also applies to the Super Bowl, where no definite article is needed when talking about specific editions but would if it was "the MLS Cup" or "the MLS Cup final" on their own.
  • "Los Angeles Galaxy" section. I read the first paragraph and had to stop part way and go back to the beginning. Why is there information on the 1998 season. How does this relate to the 1999 cup game?
    • The previous year's performance is usually part of a cup final article, but I have reworded it to focus on the years between cup appearances rather than just the 1998 season.
  • "head coach Octavio Zambrano signed several young American players". 1. Is it known how many the "several" was? 2. Why specify "American"? (Were some or all of the three players who left not American?)
Any reason why readers can't be told this? And my query 1?
    • Two of the departing players were international talents; at the time, signing young Americans to replace them would have been a risky gamble due to their unknown quality.
  • "lost three consecutive matches where they scored only three goals." In each match or in total?
    • The latter; added.
  • "By the end of May ... with a 5–6 record ... The team won three of five matches in July to reach second in the West with a 12–8 record". From this I calculate that they won all four matches they played in June. Why is this not mentioned?
    • It is mentioned in the last sentence of the second paragraph.
  • "a 20–12 record and 54 points". How are points allocated in the MLS?
    • Three for a win, one for a shootout win, zero for a loss; there were no ties until the 2000 season.
This may be worth mentioning. Entirely optional, but if it were me I would put it in a footnote.
  • "and failed to score in five consecutive matches." Was that thei 'their last five consecutive matches'?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Galaxy hosted the first leg and won 3–0 despite a red card in the 18th minute for midfielder Simon Elliott. The Galaxy had been leading from an eighth-minute strike from defender Ezra Hendrickson and extended it to 2–0 from a penalty scored in the 52nd minute by Greg Vanney; five minutes later, Mathis scored the match's final goal with a strike that Colorado goalkeeper Ian Feuer deflected into the net." Can I recommend that this is rewritten in chronological order.
    • Redone.
  • "having taken advantage of the Burn's weakened defense in their starting lineup." In what way was it weakened?
    • Added mention of the injury and suspension without naming the players, ad it would overburden the summary.
  • There seems an awful lot of information on the Galaxy's route to the match that the article is about, proportional to that on the actual MLS Cup 1999. 748:731 in terms of words. There are 725 words in "Match", compared with 1,745 in "Road to the final". [!] While the FAC criterea require that an article "places the subject in context", they also require that "[i]t stays focused on the main topic ... and uses summary style."
    • @Gog the Mild: Thanks for picking up this article for review. I have started a discussion at WT:FOOTY about how long/comprehensive a Road to the final section should be, but generally for finals where the competing teams are chosen through merit, there has to be sufficient context as to how they got there. It's no different for many other sports finals FAs that I linked above in the discussion with Mike Christie (such as 2016 FA Cup Final or 2001 UEFA Cup Final). For this section, like most other MLS cup final articles that have passed GAN and FAC, there is one paragraph with the previous season and offseason changes, two (or more) for the regular season where seeding for the playoffs is determined, and two (or more) paragraphs for the playoffs themselves.
"It's no different for many other sports finals FAs that I linked above in the discussion with Mike Christie (such as 2016 FA Cup Final or 2001 UEFA Cup Final)." No it isn't. Your Match:Road to the final (excluding "Details") word ratio is 1:2.4 compared with 0.85 for the 2016 FA Cup Final and 0.96 for the 2001 UEFA Cup Final. Ie, each of these provides less information on immediate background than on topic of the article, while you provide nearly two-and-a-half times as much. A startling difference. The two articles which you reference seem to have a sensible degree of context and to "stay[] focused on the main topic" while yours does not. I am basing this on an objective word count, I have not read either of these articles, but they absolutely are not "no different". I also suggest that you address my query as to how this article meets the criteria rather attempting to establish a precedent. (Especially when you chose comparators which establish the opposite.)

SounderBruce 01:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pause and await your responses to the above, before deciding whether I need to review further. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the nominator's responses and the discussion at WikiProject Football I am actually less happy than I was before. I am leaning oppose and see no reason to review the rest of the article unless and until my qualms over FAC criteria 2 "It follows the style guidelines" (MOS:LEAD) and 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" are resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The contentious sections have been cut down. Will you be able to continue this review? SounderBruce 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, but not before the lead was rewritten so that "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been rewritten to add extra content on the match and reduce the amount covering the regular season and playoffs. SounderBruce 03:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Forgot to ping. SounderBruce 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is much better. You might, optionally, consider running the second and third paragraphs together.
  • The "Road" section still seems overlong in elation to the "Match" section; 1,266 words to 920. And that is with "Match rules" generously being included in the total for "Match". However, "Road" includes a little of what would normally be included in a 'Background' section, so I suppose that I can just about grit my teeth re criterion 4. The closing coordinator may quite reasonably disagree. Otherwise you have a quality article, so I am going to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT edit

This is mostly drive-by; for full disclosure we were discussing this briefly on the Discord server. Having read the relevant sections, the discussion here, and the discussion at WPFOOTBALL, my stance is there needs to be a decent amount of background information provided. I do think this article goes into somewhat more detail than I would like to see, but this comes with the caveat that I am by no means a subject-matter expert in sports (I last played soccer in 2nd grade). I'd prefer each team's background sections being cut down to four paragraphs rather than five. With that said, I'm not sure it's to the point I would actively oppose the article's promotion, assuming it otherwise meets the FA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support by Amakuru edit

The single-match football final now has a fairly well-established format, as established at several FACs by both myself and The Rambling Man, so I'll be looking to the format of those others, e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup Final in deciding what I think is missing or overdetailed from this article. Here are a few thoughts on structure to start, I'll hopefully do a more detailed prose review if these are addressed:

  • A lot of what's in the first paragraphs of "Road to the final" is actually what would normally go in a "Background"; that's details about the structure of the competition, how many teams play in it, when it was inaugurated that sort of thing.
    • MLS Cup final articles have been structured this way for years with no issue (see MLS Cup 1996 or the numerous GAs); I'd rather follow the precedent set in American articles first and foremost.
  • Prior performances in the competition of the two finalists of the 1999 MLS Cup can also go here, including a brief mention of any prior finals they were involved in.
    • This was removed per the above reviews.
  • Personally I wouldn't have a separate "Venue" section, I'd fold that into "Background", but probably not a show-stopper.
    • The venue is pre-determined through a bidding process akin to the Super Bowl, and there were additional considerations (field width and quality) that need to be explained for context.
  • The FIFA final articles usually mention the match ball, but if there's not much to say about that then fine to omit.
    • The match ball is the same that was used for the season, but I don't have a reliable source on the specific model or type.
  • Road to the final: The table-within-a-table format is now not permitted by MOS:ACCESS. I'd suggest either omitting the tables altogether, as per the World Cup articles, or maybe separate them out as we see at 2017 EFL Championship play-off Final (it's tricky though, since MLS has two tables to show rather than just the one found in an English league).
    • The tables are needed to provide sufficient context, especially since the points system is different from the modern MLS.
  • A "pre-match" section is required, detailing who the referee was and assistant referees, any injury issues for either team leading up to the game, a pre-match ceremony if there was one, national anthems, celebrity appearances, all that jazz.
    • Beyond the names of the referees and possibly the injured players, none of this information is available through reliable sources. MLS coverage was very much limited to beat writers at this point. I put the national anthem singer in the Broadcasting section due to their participation in the half-time show, which would make it awkward to include as a Pre-match activity.
  • Oh, and additionally the match summary in the lead should be a bit longer than it is. Remember, this article is about the match, so at the very least more detail on how the goals were scored, and any major chances or saves in the remaining part of the game.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead has two paragraphs for the match summary, which I believe is sufficient. SounderBruce 17:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that per the comments above, my points have not been addressed, I an oppose at the present time. Certainly I can understand differences in structure and layout from other match FAs, but omitting key information present in other articles means that we're missing fundamental building blocks for an article of this type, in particular prior performances and mention of prior finals. Without this information, it fails WP:FA? criterion 1b (comprehensive). And also the lead is not long enough as noted above - the match summary is only one paragraph... the next one is more about the aftermath and background info such as game clock changes. Finally, MOS:ACCESS is not optional; a table within a table is a clear breach, meaning this article will not render correctly on screen-readers. Hopefully the above issues can be resolved, then I can continue with a prose review here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment said that the tables are "now permitted". Is that a mistake? As for the lack of information, it's simply not available in the newspapers, books, and archived websites I have on hand, especially from reliable sources. This was one of the earliest MLS Cups, so it received far less media coverage than a modern one would. SounderBruce 00:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I meant "not" rather than "now"... silly mistake! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: I've split up the tables, which should hopefully help with accessibility compliance (though I don't have an easy way of checking). The other changes requested simply aren't feasible due to the lack of available information about the final's match ball, referees, or ceremonies without going into OR territory. SounderBruce 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce: thanks for the update and note. I'm a little busy today but will have another look in the next few days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amakuru, can you revisit now? Tks and Happy New Year, Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and SounderBruce: sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but I'm willing to accept the assertion that the sourcing doesn't exist for some of the things I was looking for here. I've scanned through the article and it looks good to me otherwise, and thanks for splitting out the tables. Happy to support. Good work, cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Just walking through the article with a view to promoting, a couple of referencing points:

  • I don't think every result under Playoffs is mentioned/cited elsewhere in the article.
  • Perhaps I missed something but under Details I couldn't spot in the cited source (Gutierrez) where the players' countries of origin were given.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Added a citation for the playoff results. As for the nationalities, these are usually not cited for soccer articles (e.g. 2020 FA Cup Final) and are hard to source due to the lack of a centralized database or list. The team rosters (e.g. this 2000 one for DC) only list their hometowns and previous clubs/colleges, which do not necessarily correspond with the FIFA nationalities, which can be a country of origin, country of citizenship, or country with ancestral ties. Removing the nationalities may require consensus from WP:FOOTY, since it would be inconsistent with thousands of other entries on matches and clubs. SounderBruce 00:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the playoff citations. Re. the player nationalities/flags, I'm not aware of such an exception to referencing requirements. Specialist WikiProject conventions don't trump MOS or CITE. This isn't like the sky being blue, it's not even as obvious as the numbers on the players' backs. If there's any doubt or confusion, that's all the more reason for citing them. If you want to include information, difficulties in referencing don't negate the need. In fact, if there's no single source that lists the players in this match with their nationalities, I'd question how common it really is to display them. It might be ubiquitous in WP, but we should reflect reliable sources, not editor preferences. Incidentally the last time I brought this up at a soccer FAC it was actioned quite simply and quickly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second this... a WikiProject doesn't have the authority to mandate something uncited to be left in an FA article. The absence of this in other FA-level football finals is an oversight that I've previously not noticed when nominating and reviewing such articles, not a precedent to follow. I've had a quick look and unlike the 2015 FA Cup Final, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an immediately obvious reliable source detailing all player nationalities in one page for the 1999 MLS Cup. Maybe you one can find one, but otherwise I suspect the options are either to remove the flags, which IMHO aren't essential for this article, or else to put a citation against each player individually, confirming his nationality, onerous though that is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Removed the nationalities, as it is not worth the extra work to find suitable citations for each player. MLS Cups do not have the benefit of 100+ years of history with meticulous recordkeeping, so resources are scant and often lost to the unarchived void of the early 2000s Internet. SounderBruce 20:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks, I think we can wrap this up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/MLS_Cup_1999/archive1&oldid=1132667025"