Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1
2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to nominate it for Featured Article review in the coming weeks. The article has already passed GA review. I have expanded it more since then and I believe it represents complete coverage of the subject and is sufficiently referenced. My biggest concern with the article is the quality of the prose, so that's what I hope to get help with in this peer review.
Thanks, SkotyWATC 23:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Doing... I've done a few articles on football/soccer and specialize in clarity of prose for sports articles, so this sounds like it's up my alley. I'll add comments here in a bit. –Runfellow (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- Lead
- It looks like you've used the wikiproject's template. Good call. One of the only problems I see with that is the sample first sentence. To perhaps follow WP:LEADSENTENCE more closely, it should more accurately define the subject, rather than just give information about it. As it currently reads, it tells us that open cup final "was played" on a particular date on a particular field, but it doesn't tell us that it was a sports contest, what sport was contested, and which teams contested it. Perhaps it could read: "The 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final was a soccer match between Seattle Sounders FC and the Chicago Fire Soccer Club played on October 4, 2011 at CenturyLink Field in Seattle, Washington."
- Linking the phrase "the oldest ongoing competition" to the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Trophy doesn't seam intuitive, especially since it doesn't include "American Soccer". It could read: "The tournament was the 98th edition of the U.S. Open Cup, the oldest ongoing competition in American soccer."
- "The Fire however did not automatically qualify," should be "The Fire, however, did not automatically qualify," or just "The Fire did not automatically qualify,". I prefer the latter, since "however" seems superfluous here.
- Generally speaking, the lead should include at least some mention of the major points of the article. Therefore, the following things should probably be included at some point in this section:
- Information about the venue selection
- I added a mention of the previous years attendance record which is discussed in this section. There's also this sentence in the last paragraph of the lead: This was the second consecutive year the tournament final was played at CenturyLink Field. Do you think that's enough? --SkotyWATC 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The general consensus of pre-game analysis
- I added this to the second paragraph: Prior to the final, Chicago and Seattle had met twice in 2011 with Seattle winning one game and the other ending in a draw. Does that work? --SkotyWATC 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- A very brief summary of the game itself
- I was hoping mentioning the goal scorers was enough for this. Is this okay, or do you think it still needs more? --SkotyWATC 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- At least some mention of the venue selection controversy
- I've added this sentence to the last paragraph of the lead: Following the final, criticism was raised regarding Seattle winning hosting rights for each round they played. In response, U.S. Soccer announced changes to the rules for determining the host for tournament matches. I think this works, but may benefit from some rewording if you have suggestions. --SkotyWATC 06:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Road to the final
- "The top six MLS teams from the previous season's league standings" – It seems like this would be a better place to link to the 2010 Major League Soccer season, rather than the lead.
- "and therefore qualified automatically" – "to qualify" is simpler. Same thing goes for "in order to qualify" in the next sentence.
- "on five separate occasions" – simplify to "five times"
- "The Fire reached the finals of the 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2006 tournaments, winning each time except in 2004." – While not technically mentioned in WP:OVERLINK, I do think this sentence might be a bit of an overkill, especially since you've already mentioned that they had qualified five times before. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to combine this sentence with the one before it to best match WP:SUMMARY: "Prior to reaching the 2011 final, the Chicago Fire had reached the U.S. Open Cup final five times, the most of any MLS franchise, winning four out of five of the tournaments."
- "nearby Peoria, Illinois" – "Nearby" is relative here, and should probably be omitted.
- "Immediately in the second half" can probably be more precise to avoid the awkward phrase here. How many minutes into the second half?
- "gridlocked" implies that the match wasn't just tied, it was also to the point where no team really seemed to be gaining any momentum at all. Is this what you meant, or would "tied" be a better word here?
- "netted the match-winner" – "scored the match-winning goal" seems like a simpler way to phrase this.
- "the Fire leveled the score thanks to a strike from Yamith Cuesta." – I'd be careful about using sportswriting terms and phrases. Although it does get tiresome to write "he scored a goal, then another guy scored a goal" over and over again, it's important to remember this is an encyclopedia, and thus a "just the facts, ma'am" approach is most often the best one.
- "extra time" currently links to overtime, which concerns the kind related to work schedules. Probably a better link would be to this section of "Overtime (Sports)" instead.
- "in which" should probably be "during which", but I'm not 100% sure.
- "remained level" may imply that they remained level-headed, seeing as how the previous sentence regarded a player ejected for dissent. Using "tied" would probably work fine here.
- Comma after "only goal in the 37th minute of play". No comma after "MLS Eastern Conference rival"
- "Against mostly reserves for New York" – Not sure "reserves" is common parlance. Maybe wikilink to MLS Reserve League?
- "Chicago went up 2-0 on Richmond" – "on Richmond" can probably be removed here.
- No commma after "cut the lead in half".
- Probably strike "However, the late goal was not enough as" and begin the sentence with "The Fire won..."
- Since you explain the individual tournament wins in the next sentence, the first sentence seems superfluous. You can probably begin with "In 2009, Seattle Sounders FC became the second MLS expansion club to win the U.S. Open Cup tournament, after the Chicago Fire in 1998. They defended their title in 2010 to win a second straight championship."
- Another "nearby" can probably be deleted. See above.
- "early lead in the 39th minute" – The 39th minute doesn't seem "early" to me. Perhaps they took the first lead, but "early" implies they scored in the first few minutes of the match.
- "finished a cross from Robert Christner" – should probably be more explicit that he actually scored a goal.
- Strike "In the end".
- Instead of "Seattle got off to an early start in the 4th minute when", I'd just say "Nate Jaqua scored following a pass from Pat Noonan in the fourth minute." Remember that you're just giving a rundown, not analysis.
- Same thing here: "In the 25th minute, Jaqua provided a pass to Fredy Montero whose left footed shot found the back of the net giving Seattle a 2–0 lead." could be "In the 25th minute, Fredy Montero scored a goal off an assist from Jaqua."
- Changed it to almost what you suggested: In the 25th minute, Fredy Montero scored with a left footed shot off of an assist from Jaqua I decided to keep the "left footed" detail. Hope that's okay. --SkotyWATC 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "ensuring the win" – I don't think a two-goal lead really "ensures" a win.
- The quote from the goalkeeper just seems like regular press conference banter, not really worth including here.
- "finally broke through with a goal" put some analysis and opinion where it shouldn't really be. The "finally" is the issue, here.
- "just missed a bicycle-kick" – Did he miss the kick (a.k.a. whiff it) or did he miss the shot?
- The Dallas FC coach's complaints seem out of place here. It's definitely better suited for the "criticism" section below.
- "U.S. Soccer" should probably be "United States Soccer Federation", since that's the official title.
- The paragraph beginning with "Seattle defeated" can probably be merged into the previous one.
- "9 days later" – should be "Nine days later,"
- The first couple of sentences have some awkward syntax. Perhaps "With a better MLS regular season record and home field advantage, Sounders FC were the favorites to win the match; however, the Fire had improved throughout the year by improving the play of their wingers and midfielders."
- Delete "In 2011, prior to meeting in the Open Cup final," then add "in 2011" to the end of the sentence.
- Delete "but only their first win after a slow start". Always be wary of "only" and "just" statements.
- "the week prior" – "the previous week" sounds more natural here.
- Rather than "he was credited" (a passive phrase), perhaps it might be more precise to say ESPNChicago.com analyst Charlie Corr credited him with..."
- "Seattle had recently finished a long road trip while Chicago's schedule made the match their third in a week's time." – Awkward syntax here.
- "The Sounders were in good form" implies you're referring to their physical shape, rather than their standings, which is what I think you're referring to here.
- Not a criticism, but I did want to point out that I had never heard of the phrase "tifo" before. Learn something every day, I guess.
- Not sure, but I think the information about injuries would best be in the "Pre-game" section.
- "opening 2 minutes" – "opening two minutes"
- "Neither side appearing to gain control as the match progressed through the first 10 minutes." – "Neither side appeared to gain control in the first 10 minutes of the match."
- This seems like a good place to wikilink "yellow card".
- In its article, touch-line is hyphenated.
- "slowing play down as they held possession and created more scoring opportunities" – Awkward syntax.
- "5 minutes before half time" – "Five minutes before halftime,"
- "30-yards" – "30 yards"
- "On minute later," – "One minute later,"
- "bounced squarely" – Strike "squarely"
- "still tied" – Strike "still"
- "flicked on to Mike Fucito" – Not sure what this means.
- A "flick on" is a pass that's more like a deflection, but intentional. It's usually with the head. The player just touches the ball to slightly change it's direction or keep in airborne as it travels (in this case). It's a term very commonly used in American soccer. --SkotyWATC 08:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- "Finally, in the 78th minute," – Strike "Finally"
- How does one "closely mark" a player? Is this the same as closely defending him?
- "Pavel Pardo" – Should be "Pável Pardo", with accent mark.
- Strike "trying to swing the momentum in his favor"
- "breakaway play finally tapping" – Strike "finally"
- "Most of the record crowd remained after the game" – Your source doesn't indicate this.
- The first sentence here can probably be merged with the next paragraph, instead of being on its own as it is now.
- Seems like the sentence about the scarf can be put somewhere so that it doesn't have to be its own paragraph.
- Probably wikilink Charleston Battery
- Other than the Dallas FC manager and player, who raised the criticisms? This is one area where passive vs. active text makes a big difference. Rather than saying "the criticisms were raised", say who raised them.
- Since the "Criticism" and "Rules changes" sections both regard the same thing, the host selection process, I suggest that the two sections be merged, and that it be retitled "host selection process" or something to that effect.
I know these can feel like a beat down, but please know that's not how I intend them. All of the above are just suggestions for improving the article, and are not meant as any sort of personal criticisms of style or content. Best of luck in improving the article, and please let me know if you have any questions. – Runfellow (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have not yet read through all of the feedback, but regardless, don't worry for a second that I'm feeling beat down. On the contrary, I'm grateful for what appears to be a very thorough review of the article. I'll try to address each of them over the next day or tow. Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. --SkotyWATC 05:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments – I haven't gone through that big batch of feedback above; if there are any duplicated issues, I apologize in advance. Overall, I found a lot of typos and other issues, and they will have to be dealt with before this is ready for FAC.
The links to the two competing clubs don't need to be repeated in the lead.
Try not to start a sentnece with a number, as in "36,615 were in attendance...".
One word too many in "set the previous year when Seattle also won hosted."
"by finishing among the top six of the 2010 Major League Soccer season." "of" → "in"?
"The Fire did not automatically qualify, and had play through two qualification rounds before entering the official tournament." Needs "to" to be added before "play".
Road to the final: I normally advocate that articles use less linking whenever possible, but even a hard-liner like me thinks adding a Major League Soccer link would be a good idea here.
Chicago Fire: Space needed in "toextra time".
En dash needed for 2-0 in the Fire–Kickers summary.
Seattle Sounders FC: "In the 74th minute, Seattle midfielder Lamar Neagle scored from cross by Alvaro Fernandez". Needs "a" before "cross".
Venue selection: An excess space needs removal around where ref 29 is.
Match: "For Chicago, midfielder Sebastian Grazzini was a key player that was questionable before the match." "that" → "who".
- Changed to your suggestion. This is better. --SkotyWATC 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I still see the original version in the article.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- Changed to your suggestion. This is better. --SkotyWATC 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
First half: "Neither side appearing to gain control...". "appearing" → "appeared". Otherwise, this is an undesirable sentence fragment.
Another number-starting sentence in "5 minutes before half time...". You could just change the number to "Five" to fix it.
"On minute later". First word should be "One".
Second half: En dash is needed for the score range in "Sounders FC now had a 1-0 lead."
Post-match: "while Chicago was give $50,000 as the runner up." "give" should be "given".
Charleston Battery should be linked here if it hasn't been already.
The first word of the Rules Changes subheading is the only one that should be capitalized here.
"However, U.S. Soccer announced in 2013 that hosing for all rounds of the tournament would be determined randomly as long as both venue's met minimum standards." "hosing" should be "hosting", and "venue's" shouldn't have the apostrophe.
Publisher of ref 2 (Tacoma News Tribune) should be italicized as a print publication.
Same goes for ref 32 (The Seattle Times).Giants2008 (Talk) 01:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your thorough review. --SkotyWATC 22:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
While I was reviewing comments to strike them, I noticed a stray quotation mark at the start of the Analysis section. That should be taken care of along with the one pesky issue noted above.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)