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) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

---

2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.

As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi—can you state whether this is a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. I am participating in the Wikicup.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Maralia: This does need a good copyedit. Examples of issues:

• “the The Cup”
• “Carlos Valdés (footballer)|Carlos Valdes]]”
• “Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
• “There first big chance came”,
• ”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
• ”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
• ”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
  • This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
    • Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
    • The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.

That is better. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ”THe Sounders received”
• Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).

This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:

MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."

MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."

This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Maralia: Coemgenus went through it a couple times. Do the prose look good to you now? Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks!.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I will take another look, but my eyesight is pretty compromised right now (busted glasses, lousy contacts) so it might take me a few days to make it through. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ugh... take your time. I tried using Gorilla glue on my glasses the other day and they are now half broken with glue dried on the lenses.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is definitely in better shape after Coemgenus' review. I made a few minor copyediting fixes tonight. Some other remaining issues:

• “Attendance at PPL Park would only be 15,256, the lowest for an Open Cup final in six years.” - This sentence is out of place in the Pre-match/Venue selection section.

I found a line in the post-match review of the game that it ties in with.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• “The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as winning the MLS but it is still considered an important achievement.” - by "winning the MLS" you mean winning the MLS Cup, yes?

Fixed and wikilinkedCptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ”The 2014 Open Cup was an exceptional challenge due to the MLS season being interrupted by the World Cup.” - Doesn't this happen every four years? 'Exceptional' might be overkill.

Fixed by removing "exceptional" and added that it was due to player call-ups.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ”The home team kept control of the first half and continued creating chances into Seattle's penalty area.” - Can you reword this? Google finds almost no other uses of "creating chances into" and I gotta agree it's super weird.

Almost naughty... Changed to "...and continued creating scoring opportunities."Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ”As runners-up, the Union was awarded $60,000.” - This mixes singular (was awarded) and plural (runners-up). In the US, we would go with the singular "As runner-up, the Union was awarded".

Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maralia (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maralia: Thanks for being so thorough.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting at nom's request. I have watched with interest as Mike Christie worked his magic here; you are both to be commended as the prose is vastly improved! I made a few very minor copyediting tweaks, as well as two larger changes:

• I tweaked the phrasing at the end of the Sounders section regarding Cooper, because I couldn't parse how he "ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals" yet "netted six in 2014 alone". I added the clarification that it was 13 career Open Cup goals, per the cited source.
• I reorganized the last paragraph of the Post-match section so that it now ends with the "It's a shame" quote, which (it turns out) was a comment on all three issues (not just tv broadcast and attendance, but also the livestream situation). I think it makes for a stronger ending, too.

Happy to support on prose and MOS. Maralia (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You guys are are my heroes. I didn't realize how much it could be improved and now need to revisit other articles.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

It's nice to see this here. I actually attended this match, but I promise not to add any original research! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede

• "While both teams created multiple chances, Philadelphia unsuccessfully attempted a comeback and took firm control of the match at the end." This seems to suggest the Union took control of the match at the end. Didn't they lose? Or do you mean they looked to be in control before the start of extra time?

I see what you mean. I added a couple lines to expand on the thought. I am trying to convey the credit reporters gave to Philly.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philadelphia Union

• "Philadelphia were almost eliminated..." I understand the convention in European soccer is to treat teams as plurals, but in American sports we treat them as a singular noun ("Philadelphia was almost...") Unless there's some differing convention in U.S. soccer I don't know about.

Fixed 2 times.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "winning silverware" Kind of informal.

Fixed 3 timesCptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seattle Sounders FC

• "The Seattle Sounders won the title..." You should say which title. The Open Cup? The MLS championship?

Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Seattle were leading..." Again, probably "was", I think.

Fixed

• "the game went to kicks" This might be impenetrable to an outsider. Maybe say "penalty kicks" with an appropriate wikilink.

Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analysis

• "Philadelphia had never been to a final and it was their first chance at winning silverware since their inception 5 years earlier." You say this earlier. Maybe something shorter, like "For Philadelphia, it represented their first-ever chance at a trophy."

Nice. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "depth that could traverse" I don't think "traverse" is right here. "Withstand" maybe. "Survive"?

"withstand" works.

• "The all-time record between the clubs was Philadelphia with two wins and Seattle with three." A little fuzzy. Maybe something like "The all-time record between the clubs stood at 3–2 in favor of Seattle."

Agreed. Fixed.

First half

• "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left. He was continuously able to get past Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." I think the prose could be improved with more active verbs, less "to be" and "to have". For example, the sentences quoted above might be better tightened up as "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left, where he repeatedly passed Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." See what I mean? The verb we're concerned about is "to pass" -- Wenger passed Yedlin -- not that he was able to pass him.

A dozen instances adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second half

• Active voice also helps clear up the writing. Instead of "No substitutions were made at halftime", you could say "Neither team made a substitution at halftime." More direct.

I made a few changes. Does anything else jump out?Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "In Injury time..." Should "Injury" be capitalized? I was going to change it myself, but I wasn't completely sure.

You might be right. I couldn't tell from the main Wikipedia article and changed it to "extra time".Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra time

• "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa were able to effectively counter..." Why not just "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa effectively countered..."

Fixed.Cptnono (talk)

• "...when he was able to make header on the Sounders goal." Here we have the "was able" problem again, and I'm also not sure of the expression "make header". I watch a lot of soccer, but I'm no expert on the terminology.

I think one of my favorite sports writers uses it or something. Ripped a bunch out.

Post-match

• "The final was Philadelphia's first chance at a championship in their five-year history." You could probably lose this line -- you've said it twice already.

Agreed. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "The performance was poor enough..." This sounds like you're talking about the teams' performance. I assume you mean the internet feed didn't work right? Should clarify.

Fixed?

• Nice article. It was more enjoyable than the forty-five minutes it took me to get out of the parking lot in Chester that night. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coemgenus:. Wow, nice stuff. I think some good adjustments were made. I hope the game was a blast (regardless of who you were supporting)!Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• These changes look good. I made a few more copyedits--if you think they change the meaning of what you've written, please feel free to revert.
• In the Seattle section, you link the 2010 and 2011 finals, but not 2009. Is there no article for it? If not, it wouldn't be wrong to include a redlink to encourage creation of that article.

It is linked a couple paragraphs above.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You could also use a citation for the last sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ended up removing it. There wasn't anything in RS relating the deal to the 2014 final so it was a little out of place.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, looks good. I'm happy to support.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

At the moment I don't think the prose is at FA level. I'm not going to oppose immediately, but I think some work remains to be done here. The problem is not that there are grammatical errors or specific places with poorly chosen words or phrasing; it's that the writing is often flat and lacking any rhythm. For example, the lead -- particularly the second and third paragraphs -- reads like a staccato series of short sentences, with no flow between them. If you look at the lead of hermeneutic style, or German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations, two other FACs I've recently reviewed, I think you can see that those paragraphs flow more smoothly -- the sentences are varied in rhythm and length, and it sounds more like a narrative. To put it another way, a well written lead sounds like someone interesting explaining the topic to you; this article's lead sounds like someone reciting some of the key facts. Try reading the lead out loud while imagining that you're telling an acquaintance about the game. Would you use this phrasing? I doubt it; you'd use connected sentences, and you'd make it into a narrative. That's what needs to be done here.

The body is in better shape than the lead, but there are instances of this problem throughout; see the Seattle Sounders section for more examples. I have read the article twice, once fairly closely and once skimming, and didn't see much else wrong other than the prose style; I'll come back and take another look once the prose is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I'm admittedly flat and boring when writing prose to keep it to the point. The fear of being to over the top in my fandom is always there and I am not Charles Dickens (CenturyLink Field is probably boring as hell to anyone who isn't interested in minor details about architecture and the local teams). Did you have ideas on lines that can be improved during your read throughs? I know that asking you to rewrite entire sections is out of the question but I would love any thoughts since it would help this and other articles.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind doing some rewriting for you, but I can't promise I'll have time. One thing you could try -- and I'm serious about this; I think it will help -- is to read through the lead a couple of times to get into your mind the key points, and then roleplay explaining the game to someone else, and video or record yourself doing the explanation. Explain it as you would in real life -- you'd try to make it interesting, rather than just reciting the facts. Transcribe that version and see how it differs from what you've got at the moment. Try it on just one of the paragraphs and see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Well wow, you were right. I like the boring prose of The World Almanac but decided to recite it in the bathroom mirror instead. It is a couple feet away from my apartment's front door so now I sound crazy (it is all bachelor's on my floor of the apartment and I know at least 3 of the neighbors are soccer fans). I played with two paragraphs in the lead and the Sounders road to the final section. What do you think? Obviously I want to get this to FA now but this was a good learning experience for other articles even if this has to go through a second round in the future. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a big improvement! I'm glad that helped. I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow; in the meantime, can you tell me if you've gone through the whole article to fix similar issues? The places I mentioned were the ones where I noticed the problem most, but you might try reading the whole article out loud to yourself and see if you spot other places where it could be improved. I'll do a copyedit pass when you tell me you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hit the Match section a bit. I'll make another pass through (tonight or tomorrow depending on beer intake and House of Cards binging). Thanks again. Your input is actually more appreciated than a !vote.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a great compliment; I really appreciate it! Let me know when you're ready for me to go through it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: I did another read through and kicked myself after seeing some needlessly repeated terms close together and tinkered with multiple lines to give it better flow.Cptnono (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits are a huge improvement. I'm doing a copyediting pass now; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

• "uikwila"? Presumably a typo for Tukwila?

Yeha. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I noticed you're using dashes for "shoot—out"; I've changed these to hyphens, but is there a convention I don't know about that says a dash should be used?

I did "shoutout" originally but changed it to "shoot-out" based on our article Penalty shoot-out (association football)Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "He ended the tournament with a total of 13 goals; one goal shy of Le Toux's modern-era total goal record of 19." Is 19 a typo for 14?

Match hard? Double checked and fixed.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "player-depleted schedule": does this mean that there were several players injured and unavailable because of a packed schedule? I think this needs some clarification if so; it's a bit too much shorthand for the average reader.

The thought was broken into two sentences. I tried to expand the second. Fixed?

Yes, that's much cleaner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Defensively, Philadelphia's Edu had become their best defender": I'd rephrase this to avoid having "defensively" and "defender" so close together. Perhaps "Defensively, Edu had become Philadelphia's strongest player"?

That works. FixedCptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No citation for the first paragraph of the Match section.

Added.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The given source doesn't support "heralded by competition organizers".

Changed it to "Although he won the Golden Boot for most goals scored..."

That fixes the issue, but the new citation is showing a date error. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't looked at the sources yet; will do that after you take care of the points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did half a dozen spotchecks of the source text vs. the article. I made one change where the phrasing was pretty close to the original. One more fix needed -- "the shot lacked power and was easily saved": the source doesn't say the shot lacked power. That's the only issue left, other than the citation date issue I mentioned above.

On the assumption you'll fix both these minor issues, support. To the coords: I checked six sources and found one fairly close paraphrase, which I fixed, and two cases where a minor fact wasn't in the source (both are in my notes just above). In both cases the source did support the major information being provided, so I'm not too concerned, but I'd suggest asking for another spotcheck just to make sure these were isolated issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

• Don't fix image size at smaller than default. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thumbed the image in the lead. Is that the correct way to go about it? The other images did not have pixels specified.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's good, thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mkativerata comments[edit]

As far as sports match articles go, this looks to be in fairly good shape. I've done sourcing spot-checks. No significant red flags, just minor issues as picked up below:

• "Immediately following the goal" - the source says it was within minutes, not immediately.

Changed to "shortly after"

• It was the eleventh time the region hosted the final and the first since 1994" - what is "the region"?

Added greater Philadelphia per the source

• "The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as the MLS Cup but it is still considered an important achievement." - is the view that this is sufficiently uncontentious not to require sourcing?

Pretty uncontentious. Added a source used earlier in the article "The Major League Soccer season might often take priority over the U.S. Open Cup, but a trophy's a trophy"

• "Seattle was considered [by whom?] the favorite" - all we have is one pundit calling them the (admittedly "clear") favourite. Maybe consider buttressing this with the Turner Sports source, which also calls them favourites, and just say "Seattle was the favourite"?

Fixed

• It seems a bit much to use this source for the statement that "Philadelphia's Casey, Le Toux, and Cristian Maidana were considered [by whom?] significant attacking threats". All it says about Casey and Le Toux is that Maidana's work might leave them "space".

Removed considered. For Maidana, the source says "[he] is among the Union's most dangerous attackers.". Added this source mentions that they are reliable if that helps, [http://www.csnphilly.com/blog/700-level/5-big-keys-union-lift-us-open-cup-vs-seattle this one mentions it in a round about way, and they are strikers which is a goal scoring position. I added the MLS source.

• "Sounders coach Schmid made some surprising choices in his starting lineup." - source? It is hard to see what is "surprising" when the following two sentences give perfectly rational explanations for the omissions of Cooper and Pappas.

I think I was focusing too much on Martins. Changed to "Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to the usual starting lineup for the game."

• "Nevertheless, the Sounders came out attacking" - why "Nevertheless"?

"Although lacking those playmakers," Fixed?

• "to continuously find and connect passes with each other" - wrong adverb, I think (perhaps try "frequently") and a split infinitive.

" to complete key passes with each other" Fixed?

• "remove the "interim" tag from his title as head coach" - the "tag" language is that of the cited journalist; I don't think we should copy it.

3 separate refs use the term "interim tag" (ctl+f in the references). I suppose it could be changed to "designation" but I kind of prefer "tag" in this case (kind of like how the NFL does franchise tags maybe?)

• "at the 60th minute" - is "at" the correct preposition?

Not uncommon vernacular in this sense but "in" works if it causes any confusion. Fixed.

@Mkativerata: Thanks for taking a look. I addressed everything but the "tag" wording due to the number of sources who use it in that sense. It could be changed but I wanted additional input from you still. Were the other issues fixed properly? There is always a chance I made them worse!Cptnono (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'm happy to support. I can live with the Casey/Le Toux and "interim tag" sentences not being changed. Just one minor consequential thing:

• "Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to the usual starting lineup for the game." - this makes it sound like it was the "usual starting lineup for the game". Perhaps "Sounders coach Schmid made adjustments to his usual starting lineup. [no mention of 'for the game']" would be simpler and clearer. I'd then suggest putting the Pappa and Martin sentence before the Cooper sentence, because Pappa and Martin were usual members of the starting lineup; Cooper seems not to have been. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely sounds like a good change (fixed).Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.