Talk:MLS Cup 2003

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:MLS Cup 2003.gif[edit]

Image:MLS Cup 2003.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

SounderBruce 07:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 2003/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 10:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shall review this entry. MWright96 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

General[edit]

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

Venue[edit]

  • "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).

Route to the final[edit]

  • 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.

Chicago Fire[edit]

San Jose Earthquakes[edit]

  • "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.

Broadcasting and entertainment[edit]

  • "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.

Summary[edit]

  • 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.

Post-match[edit]

  • Re-instated is a solitary word without the hyphen
    • Fixed.

References[edit]

  • 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. SounderBruce 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]