Numerous paragraphs and sections lack sourcing. Enough that I would ordinarily be inclined to quick fail this nomination. However, given the length of time the nomination has languished in the queue, I am giving the nominator a chance to address this before taking further action. Resolute23:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General
Images are good with appropriate licenses or valid fair use rationales, as required.
Not a GA requirement, but alternative text for images is encouraged.
Thanks for the guidance. I am going to focus for now on GA status.
References are generally okay, but..
Referencing formatting is inconsistent. Some citations use templates, others do not. The latter put the publication where the author would be on the templates. In general, the information I am looking for is there, so I'm not going to make an issue of it, but if FA is an eventual goal, this will have to be made consistent.
Thanks for the guidance. I am going to focus for now on GA status.
However, as a rule, online publications should not be italicized. So "ESPN" rather than "ESPN". On the flip side, print publications, such as the Los Angeles Times should be italicized.
I have fixed a bunch of these. Let me know if there is still a stray one or two that need fixing.
"Its All About Sports" appears to be a Wordpress blog. What makes this a reliable source (i.e.: are its authors well known in their field, is it actually peer reviewed or professional, but simply using Wordpress as a host, etc?)
Fixed.
Likewise, nasljerseys.com and the11.ca I am wondering about.
Fixed.
The reference(s) to DrewZuhoskyDaily.com I would like to see replaced though. That definitely appears to just be someone's blog, which fails WP:RS.
Fixed.
Ref 95 (monsters and critics) is a dead link. There are a few others already marked. Replacing them is nice, but if I come across one when I do a random check to verify the content is supported and not closely paraphrased, I'll check for archive versions.
Thank you.
Refs 152 and 170 are incorrectly formatted.
Fixed.
Lead
It is noted that MLS is sanctioned by U.S. Soccer. I would presume it is also sanctioned by the Canadian Soccer Association, and as the top league for both countries, I would expect to see both governing bodies mentioned.
I don't believe that MLS is sanctioned by the CSA, despite the existence of three Canadian teams. US Soccer describes MLS as a US-sanctioned league, and I've added a cite for that. There is a somewhat analogous situation in England, where the English Premier League includes teams from Wales.
The league lost millions of dollars in the early years, teams played in mostly empty American football stadiums, and when two teams folded, rumors of MLS' demise started circulating - just a suggestion to remove a comma: "The league lost millions of dollars in the early years, teams played in mostly empty American football stadiums, and rumors of MLS' demise circulated when two teams folded".
Done.
I don't see the relevance of MLS having a higher average attendance than the NHL or NBA. This feels like a bit of puffery given that MLS stadiums are far larger than NHL/NBA stadiums. Likewise, I wouldn't see much value in someone claiming that the NHL or NBA has higher total attendance due to the fact that those leagues play more than twice as many games. I think it would be more illuminating to highlight MLS's internal growth, perhaps from the low average in 2000 to the high average in 2012.
That is how Forbes (and other publications) characterize MLS attendance. Many facets of MLS' development are commonly compared in the media to other major leagues.
Your connection between stadium size and attendance seems logical, but it doesn't bear out here. The MLS Attendance page shows that some MLS teams with the largest stadiums (New England, DC United) are among the lowest in attendance. Plus, the increases in MLS attendance have occurred while the league has downsized from large American football stadiums to smaller soccer-specific stadiums.
The citation provided does not appear to support the claim that "some fans have argued that playoffs reduce the importance of the regular season" - it only implies that the interviewer believes this. I would expect this is something that an explicit source could be found for, but I think it would help to add context here as well. Few North Americans would find it odd for a league to use a playoff system, so if a source can be provided for it, it would be nice to make a note about how a playoff structure actually differentiates MLS from soccer leagues in other parts of the world.
Done and done.
Acronyms such as "NFL" and "NBA" should be spelled out on first use.
Sorry about how slow this is going. I'm finding my time very limited, but I don't want to leave you hanging, so...
History
I questioned whether the nasljerseys site is a RS above, but either way, it doesn't support the implied statement that the NASL was a top level predecessor to MLS.
Done.
I'm not a fan of the organization of the Establishment section. It seems to jump around. I might suggest organizing it into three sets. Start with the on-field results: First game (date of and the team that won the first game?), DC United's early success and the first expansion teams. Then your paragraph about the rules experiments, then discuss the business. The lawsuit, attendance and viability concerns, and the first soccer specific stadium. That would lead nicely into the resurgence section.
Done. This was a great idea. The organization now goes: establishment → early play → popularity decline → financial problems → laying the groundwork for resurgence. This is a much better organization than the previous attempt to go chronologically. I'm very excited about the revised version of this section.
Looks better! Two small issues left: Need a citation for DC United winning those titles, and you start the section noting that MLS began with "ten teams" but end it saying it contracted to "10 teams". These should be made consistent, and I believe the MOS suggests to use numerals for double-digit numbers.
I added a cite for DC United. I don't believe MOS:NUMERAL has any such requirement.
It's more the consistency issue than whether it is spelled out or numerals are used. Since you use "ten teams" in every other instance, I will change the one usage of "10 teams"
As with the NFL and NBA examples above, please expand (and wikilink) the IFAB acronym on first use.
Done.
Is there a dollar figure for the cost of Howard's transfer that would help put "one of the most lucrative contract deals in league history" in context?
Done.
Not done? I don't see the figure in the article. Also, I am a little concerned about the sources here. They seem like blogs. Resolute23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Now it's done. And the cites are legit, not blogs.
A little pedantic, but MLS is not a person, so it cannot "see" things. Rewording suggestion: From 2003 to 2008, the league saw the construction of six additional soccer-specific stadiums, largely funded by owners such as Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz, so that by the end of 2008, a majority of MLS teams were now in soccer-specific stadiums. to "Between 2003 to 2008, construction of six additional soccer-specific stadiums was completed, largely funded by owners such as Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz, so that a majority of MLS teams were in soccer-specific stadiums."
Other examples of the league "seeing" things in the article
Done.
Suggestion on wording: ...leaving their history behind for a new San Jose ownership group that would materialize in 2007. to "...leaving their history behind for a new San Jose ownership group that formed in 2007."
Done.
There are a lot of places where words, particularly "league" and "MLS" are repeated within individual sentences. It helps readability to avoid this. i.e.: "Major League Soccer took steps to further raise the level of play in the league by adopting the Designated Player Rule, which helped MLS bring international stars into the league."
Done.
Citation needed for the Toronto FC expansion. Also, the link for the creation of the Designated Player Rule appears to be dead.
Done.
Citations needed for the addition of San Jose, Seattle and Philadelphia.
Done.
Ditto Vancouver and Portland, as well as Salt Lake reaching the CONCACAF Champions League final.
Done.
Number ranges should use endashes. So 12–17 instead of 12-17.
Done.
Teams
No real issues here.
That's it for this bloc. Unfortunately, it is unlikely I will be able to return to this review before Monday. Thanks, Resolute00:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ticked off the completed items from the last batch. One concern raised with the changes: Some of the citations you added are just bare URLs. Could you ensure that you are adding at least the URL, title, author (if credited) and accessdate in a format that at least roughly matches the remaining cites? Resolute23:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find bare URLs. I did go back and add some "retrieved" dates. Is there something else you are looking for? Keep in mind, as I mentioned earlier, I am focusing for now on GA status, and not trying to meet FA criteria.
Ownership
It doesn't seem necessary to use four citations to support the single statement that MLS is centrally owned. That block of superscripts is distracting.
Ordinarily I would agree, but this is a misunderstood issue that is subject to some debate because the media casually refers to team investor-operators as "owners". See this MLS talk page discussion for a recent example. I've scaled back the number of cites from four to three. If there were only one cite, and someone finds an article that refers to team "owners", that may start off another unnecessary edit war.
Ref 90 (SI regarding two groups owning nine teams) is dead.
Done.
Statement about Chivas USA being league-owned since February requires citation.
Done.
Player quality and salaries
Citation needed on the academy teams playing in other leagues.
Done.
Stadiums
The paragraph that begins with Real Salt Lake moving into Rio Tinto Stadium is largely uncited. Sadly, one is needed for each team.
Done.
Media coverage
No major issues.
In general, I am seeing a fair bit of overlinking. I use User:Ucucha/duplinks, which creates a link in the left-hand toolbox that highlights them all.
Ok, final run. I'll check for resolved issues after, and might do a quick polishing review after that...
Profitability and revenues
Would it be possible to use a more recent story than the 2005 New York Times piece to argue the league's financial stability and profitability since 2004?
I've revised the text to address your point rather than replace the cite. The cite shows the league's turnaround within a few years of the 2002 contraction.
There's no need to re-state that ESPN signed an eight-year TV deal in this section or that it is the first time rights fees were given, as you already covered that in the media section. You probably only need to repeat what the league earns annually from the TV deals here.
I've trimmed that from the Media Coverage section instead. The Media section is about today's media coverage, whereas the Profitability section covers some of the history exploring how the league turned the corner.
Logical disconnect: After building up the league's profitability, it is noted that only three teams made money in 2008, and only two in 2009. Then, suddenly, "the league has continued to improve upon its fiscal health." I would suggest rewording that statement slightly to indicate that the 2013 Forbes report shows a marked improvement over that 2009 note, rather than what is implied to be an incremental improvement.
Rewritten.
I believe Chivas USA has fallen under league control, and judging by the crowds lately (especially Saturday night against Vancouver - yeesh!), may be in significant financial distress. Would that perhaps be appropriate to mention here?
I've added something to that effect in the ownership section, where the MLS buy-back of Chivas is discussed.
Rules and officials
Cite needed for the goal differential rule change.
I removed that statement. Goals Differential having precedence over Goals For is pretty typical and doesn't need to be mentioned. I've also rewritten some text so there is less of a proseline feel.
Team names
Cites needed for some of the team name histories (if possible)
Done.
Dead links
The External Links tool in the right hand sidebar shows a few dead links that would be ideal to fix up (links highlighted in blue, orange and red could use checking.)
Sorry, I don't know what you mean; I'm not as technically savvy as you. I've never used that tool. I don't have a right hand sidebar when I view the page.
Apologies, I meant the side bar in this GA page rather than on the article. I'll check for some of these where I can. Resolute
And by now, I meant a day later than hoped. I took a run at polishing up the prose a little, but please check to ensure I didn't change any intended meanings. In part because I will be completely offline for the next several days, I am going to pass the article at this point, though I think there are a couple things where improvement would help the article. Of note, I replaced as many dead links as I could yesterday but two Sports Illustrated cites should be replaced - I can't tell you exactly which ones as the dead link tool is currently not working. Congrats on the GA, and good luck with your next editing project! Resolute00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]