Jump to content

Talk:MLS Cup 2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMLS Cup 2022 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2023Good article nomineeListed
August 22, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 14, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the most valuable player of MLS Cup 2022, John McCarthy, only played once in the regular season?
Current status: Featured article

Resources

[edit]
Match resources
Other facts
  • Per Jaime Ojeda: LAFC are the 8th club team from the LA area to win a league championship (joining Wolves, Aztecs, Galaxy)

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Converted from a redirect by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 2022/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Oltrepier (talk · contribs) 13:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if your article stayed unreviewed for so long, but now I'm going to get the job done. This is just my second review, if I remember well, so I hope I'll do everything right. Still, the article already looks great, so it shouldn't be a difficult task. Let's take a closer look! Oltrepier (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Comments

@SounderBruce: Alright, to be fair, I think I couldn't have asked for a better article to review! Overall, you've done an excellent job at writing down the article and providing reliable sources throughout it. I noticed just a few potential minor mistakes involving consecutio temporum (which I fixed by myself), but it's not a big deal at all. Plus, the article is neutral, broad in its coverage and focused, and all of the images look on point.

There's only one major doubt I wanted to solve before giving the green light, and it's about the issues you've had with that bot. What happened? And, do you need help to deal with it? I've seen that you can report bugs here, if you need to.

But anyways, I think this is a brilliant piece of work. Oltrepier (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: The bot issue seems to have been patched (by going into the code itself). I've tweaked your additions and am happy with them overall. SounderBruce 22:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Perfect! Now, I'll just ask for a second opinion on the general structure, since I want to make sure I haven't missed anything, but we're definitely in a good spot already. Oltrepier (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of another opinion, and for transparency, I'll add that, as Oltrepier is new to reviewing GANs, they asked me for some input, and that discussion can be seen here (will probably archive in a month, anyone can change the link then). Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Yes, so, what @Kingsif: and I acknowledged (as I hadn't done so at first read) is that both the team paragraphs in the "Road to the final" section also include a short introduction to their respective histories. I think they're still concise and good enough, but maybe they could constitute an additional section on their own (named "Background", for example). That's the only suggestion I've got left, though, since the rest is fine to me. Oltrepier (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier: I don't think a dedicated "Background" section is needed; this layout has been used in MLS articles for a few years now and works well enough. I generally organize the team sections into a single paragraph with prior background, another for offseason and preseason activities, then 2-3 for the regular season and 2-3 for the playoffs. A few editors have complained of bloat when I've added any more than that, so I'm trying to keep things pared down. SounderBruce 20:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: That's perfectly fine, thank you for clarifying it. I think we're good to go, at this point, so congratulations! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier: Thanks for the pass. You will need to add the GA to the appropriate category (in this case Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Association football teams, events, and concepts) to complete the promotion. SounderBruce 23:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Since I'm here) Huh, I thought one of the new(er) bots automatically added that now. Thanks for the reminder if I pick up more reviews. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MLS_Cup_2022&oldid=1244536003"