This article is my first foray into a season article, describing the shortened and strange 2020 season for Seattle Sounders FC, an American soccer team and defending MLS champions. The season opened with a local COVID-19 outbreak and continued through lockdown bubbles and limited travel to finish with yet another MLS Cup appearance for the team, although one that ended differently. This article was massively expanded last year in the style of a few British season FAs with modifications to account for the league's American quirks; it has been a GA for a few months, but with some finishing touches I believe it's FA-ready. SounderBruce 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"while teams returned home a month later " => "and teams returned home a month later "
Fixed.
"Brian Schmetzer, formerly an assistant under Sigi Schmid," - might be worth clarifying that he was assistant under Schmid at Seattle as technically it's not 100% clear as written
Fixed.
"Manager Brian Schmetzer also led" - no need to restate his position or full name so soon after talking about his appointment
Fixed.
"to fill in for Torres" - I would say "replace" rather than "fill in", as "fill in" makes it sound like it was only a temporary arrangement and that Torres et al would eventually return
Fixed.
Lodeiro image caption needs a full stop
Added.
"Jordan Morris scored two goals—the latter in stoppage time" - think that dash should be a comma
Fixed.
Don't think the "see also" link to MLS is Back is needed, as it's linked in para 2 of the prose
Upgraded to a main link, as the section is solely about the tournament.
" and was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart" => " which was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart"
Fixed.
Stadium image caption needs a full stop
Added.
"A home match against the Colorado Rapids on October 14 was initially postponed due to a COVID-19 outbreak in their squad" - Colorado's squad?
Fixed, and split up to avoid confusion.
"Seattle played on Decision Day" - what's Decision Day?
Linked, will create an article soon-ish. It's the final day of the regular season, where all teams play their conference rivals in simultaneous matches while jockeying for playoff positions.
IN some places a flag is accompanied by the country name (or trigram) but in others it isn't - would it be better to be consistent? Not 100% sure whether the use of flags without accompanying text violates MOS:FLAG.....
I think this might be a discussion better suited for WT:FOOTY given that there's so many articles that use flags in a similar manner to represent a team's nationality and player/staff nationalities. For example, ((Fb cs staff)) doesn't have an option for displaying the nationality in a separate column, so I've gone ahead and replaced it with a new table.
That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've addressed your comments above and will work on the flag issue. SounderBruce 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I have removed the shortened form from the statistics table and the player awards. As for the other uses of flags, I believe they're still compliant with MOS:FLAG as they are repeated use of the same flags that would be allowed per the "Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name" line in the guideline. SounderBruce 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain in the backside over this, but there are flags (eg the flag of England) which as far as I can see are not accompanied by a name anywhere in the article, so I am not sure the above really applies..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I've added labels for the teams with flags and Nationality columns to the transfer tables. SounderBruce 04:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, I'd add a note to the attendances explaining that only two matches were played with supporters and that the rest were behind closed doors due to Covid.
Added.
Preseason and CONCACAF Champions League- could we link scrimmage at the first mention to Exhibition match? I wasn't aware it also had that meaning so it would help avoid confusion.
Linked, though a scrimmage in American English refers to a non-standard match format (such as 30-minute halves or unlimited subs) used for practice and training.
You mention the Cascadia Cup not being awarded in the prose but there's no mention of the Heritage Cup. I see it's linked in the match list so it would probably be worth mentioning it in the prose as well.
I can't find a reliable source for the Heritage Cup being officially awarded in 2020, so I've decided to remove it entirely. It's a very minor "trophy" that isn't often acknowledged by either team, as they have more important rivalries; the Heritage Cup was essentially created to give Seattle a paper rival while waiting for Vancouver and Portland to join MLS two years later.
There are a number of MOS:ACCESS concerns with the footballbox collapsible which makes it unsuitable for featured articles. These include some parameters not producing a caption element, column and row headers are omitted and the fact it uses tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content. There are a few other ways of displaying lists of match results that you can use, it's entirely up to you how you style it. A lot of the current featured season articles use this style or you could use this style to retain the colours. Template:Football result list league and Template:Football result list cup are also available.
This probably needs to be discussed at WT:FOOTY, but I think that making the existing footballbox ACCESS-compliant would be far easier to implement than changing hundreds of season articles and losing valuable information (namely cards [which accumulate and have knock-on effects], referees, and venues [as MLS teams can sometimes play in more than one home stadium]).
I notice as well that the reference style is inconsistent. There are a lot of bare URLs which don't appear in the list of references at the bottom. You should have a full list of references so these should be changed to full citations.
The footer citations are built into various templates (including the standings table) and don't seem to support traditional citations. Again, probably needs to be discussed at the project level.
The Roster table is sortable but it's impossible to tell that because of the colours in the header row. Same with the On loan table but there's only one player so the sortable function isn't necessary.
Looks like this is a known bug, but I used a solution outlined in WP:SORT.
Appearances and goals- is there any point in the US Open Cup columns given the competition was cancelled?
Removed.
Aftermath- Have Seattle reached the MLS Cup final since 2020? It would be worth mentioning if this season was the most recent for them to do so. That can be updated once they get there again.
Added, hopefully I will have to update it again in December.
That's my thoughts. I enjoyed reading through that, it's well-written. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for the review. I will need to work on a solution for the fixture tables and standings citations that is consistent with FOOTY standards, as I do think this will require some level of consensus, but re-litigating the earlier issues with converting footballbox into other styles is not something I want to dive into. SounderBruce 07:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and thank you. I can understand the confusion but the standings tables do support full citations, you can see an example here. Re- footballbox: those styles are only examples, there are other ways that fit with MOS:ACCESS that you can explore. For example, I don't know soccer the same way you do so those tables could be adapted to fit more information that you feel is relevant and shouldn't be missed out. I wouldn't be able to support this while the template has the Access deficiencies though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland: I've converted the standings citations into standard templates, as they don't seem to throw up Lua errors as feared. Upon further investigation, I don't think the linked examples or other table types I've seen are sufficient, especially for MLS season articles; losing the venue information is especially problematic for the 2020 season, which was full of non-standard venue situations because of the pandemic travel restrictions. I have made a proposal at Template talk:Football box collapsible to add the result in a readable form and will look into getting that implemented. Beyond that, I need to see evidence of what exactly the template violates in MOS:ACCESS in plain language, as I can't glean anything useful from the discussions I've read. SounderBruce 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not always the clearest at explaining it. It's probably easiest to understand from this discussion which includes things I wasn't aware of at the time. Just as an example, this would be compliant with MOS:ACCESS and I believe it includes all the information you're looking for. I've not included links just to save time and the only reason I've not included attendances in this case is because it only affects two matches (I'd add a prose outlining why instead). Personally, I don't think you need the discipline column and consensus at WP:FOOTY is similar (most recent discussion, granted only six contributors). Don't get me wrong, I hope you are successful with your proposal but it might take a while given how many times it has been raised in the past and hasn't been resolved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we're at an impasse until an ACCESS-compliant version of the template is made, as the alternatives offered are completely unsuited to MLS articles. I don't think this is the right venue to re-litigate yet another template faction war, and am disappointed that this nomination has become a victim of it. SounderBruce 05:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating as it may be, this nomination is three weeks in and has just the single general support. Unless it makes further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My background is more in Australian rules football but I'll take a look at this if it means possibly avoiding an archival... – Teratix₵ 11:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
saw the departure of winger Víctor Rodríguez alongside defenders Román Torres and Kim Kee-hee were these considered significant or minor departures? Was their absence expected to greatly affect Seattle's season?
Added context for the players, they were all starters or regular subs.
lacked replacements in several positions which ones?
Added using existing source.
between MLS and the MLS Players Association surely this can be rephrased to avoid doubling up "MLS"
Used "the league"
they had signed Brazilian midfielder João Paulo given he was a Designated Player I'm guessing this was a significant signing – how did commentators, fans, analysts react? Was he expected to greatly enhance Seattle's chances?
Couldn't find a good source with reactions to the signing beyond what the team and coaches/staff said about him.
his option was initially declined link option contract or similar
Added.
In the CONCACAF Champions League's round of 16 would it make sense to abbreviate to "Champions League" on further reference? I think from context it's unlikely to be confused with that other one.
Shortened the two instances in the same section, but retained in the Aftermath due to how far down it is.
The original 2020 season schedule was to be 34 total matches in the regular season, during which why not just "Originally, 34 matches were scheduled for the 2020 regular season. The Sounders would..."
Shortened even further and moved the year to the end.
Due to the expansion of the league and the resulting unbalanced schedule -> "Because MLS's expansion had caused an imbalance in the schedule". Also, the link should go to the section on its 2020 expansion. Actually, now I reflect – what exactly does an "unbalanced schedule" mean in this context? Too many teams to fit into too few games?
"Unbalanced schedule" is a common phrase used to describe leagues where a full round-robin is not used (which is the case in several American sports, but not typical in global soccer). I've linked the section and added the number of teams.
The first regular season match but it wasn't the first regular season match, it was Seattle's first.
Fixed.
that was called off by the referee might be AmE, does this mean "called as offside"?
Fixed, "called off" is used sometimes in American English to mean any goal that is scratched.
The first match was played Why not "Seattle played its first match", which also highlights location ahead of the part about a "local outbreak"?
Changed to use the date to emphasize its place in the timeline.
Public Health – Seattle & King County "the county's public health department" or similar seems a more natural phrase, using the dash feels odd
Changed to "public health authorities" in the pipe; as it's the consolidated city/county department, using either name would be inaccurate.
during the prior week while in contact with local health officials can't put my finger on why but the sentence seems to reads more naturally if these parts are swapped
Swapped and it does read better. Intuition is a funny thing.
a "care package" that included a soccer ball link seems overkill
Removed.
and other precautions does this clause really say much if we're not listing what these other precautions were?
Added PPE in place of the clause.
The sessions resumed two weeks after most MLS teams the intended meaning here is clearly something like "the sessions resumed two weeks after most MLS teams resumed their sessions" but it has been a bit mangled by the grammar.
Switched to "later".
would be at greater risk of complications from COVID-19 I think this should be "would have been", even though Morris presumably still carries greater risk, because it's specifically referring to the risk incurred by attending the training sessions, which took place in the past.
Fixed.
retirement from professional soccer in June to pursue a business degree. [break] In June 2020 close recurrence of June is a little jarring
Switched to "the same month".
players and staff were isolated in a "bubble" do we need the quotation marks as well as a link?
I believe that phrases that could be confused with other, normal words are allowed to be in quotation marks, regardless of whether it is linked.
required extra preparations for players due to the 9 a.m. start time what were these preparations?
Added one example from the source.
due to the uncertainty of holding events -> "because it was uncertain whether further matches would have to be called off"?
Fixed with some tweaks.
signs ... were installed ... and paired with tarps over empty seats and recorded audio from previous matches using "paired with" to link three different measures is confusing
Split into two sentences.
to "simulate" a matchday environment why the quotes?
Removed.
who were using a rotated lineup is there an article on the concept of sports rotation we could link here?
The closest article would be Starting lineup, which I have linked much earlier.
earned two penalty kicks within five minutes this sounds like it means the five minutes immediately after kick-off when it was actually much later in the half
Reordered to remove that implication (which would be funny).
within five minutes, including a handball that required video review, in the first half that were converted by Lodeiro all these modifiers make the sentence unwieldy and exhausting to read
See above.
added a strike in 82nd minute missing "the"
Fixed.
options for rotating players for -> "options to rotate players for"
Fixed.
won 3–1 through a trio of goals in 12 minutes early in the second half "in 12 minutes early" is a bit garden-pathy
Fixed.
called for a foul by Yeimar Gómez Andrade this reads like Yeimar himself called the foul
Added "committed"
due to an unequal number of matches played by MLS teams -> "because teams did not play the same number of matches"
Fixed.
only conference semifinalist that they had drop "that"
Fixed.
ages listed for each player is calculated age?
Fixed.
most minutes of any outfield player, at 1,890 minutes ... maybe "most minutes of any outfield player: 1,890 minutes ..." to avoid recurrent commas?
Fixed.
The transfer section doesn't say anything about fan/analyst reactions to or reflections on the Sounders' transfers.
The section is meant for statistics, like most of the bottom half of the article; if there were reactions to the transfers, they'd be placed in the summary, but I struggle to find sources that aren't just parroting the team or league.
The MLS season has two transfer windows "had", since we're talking about past windows?
Present tense is used because the league continues to use the two-window system.
Then could register new players should be "can register", and who required an International Transfer Certificate should be "who require" – but in my view using the past tense will hold up better for future readers, what if MLS changes their system ten or twenty years down the track? – Teratix₵ 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
dates listed are when Seattle Sounders FC officially signed the players why the sudden reversion to the full club name (recurs through the rest of the paragraph?)
Fixed.
The aftermath section doesn't really say anything about fan/analyst/club reactions to or reflections on the season.
Will add something soon; the most reliable "fansite" recently purged many of their old posts, so I'll have to look through old archives.
Do we really need the MLS navbox? We've already got three.
Forgot to remove it ages ago; far too many articles use the league navbox as a general navigation tool rather than something more specific.
There's quite a few duplinks throughout the article, only really egregious one is The Sounders were scheduled to enter the 2020 U.S. Open Cup when it's immediately linked above, the rest I leave to your discretion.
I think it's appropriate to leave the link from the main template, as this format is used in many articles when a section has a summary that ties into another article.
I agree, my point is you don't need the link in the main template and also the link in the section's first sentence. I suggest deleting the link in the first sentence. – Teratix₵ 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References are reliable, consistently formatted and were spotchecked at the GA review.
I won't make any extended comment on the accessibility question because I am not at all familiar with the dispute, but it's not an issue specific to this article and really should be discussed at project or template level rather than at FAC. If opposition solely hinges on this issue, the coordinators should disregard it unless a broader forum finds consensus the templates are problematic. – Teratix₵ 09:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: Thanks for the review. I've answered your comments above and will work on the Aftermath section after I find some appropriate sources (some of which are lost to the void, but should be retrievable in the Wayback Machine). SounderBruce 00:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, had a couple of follow-ups. Not too far away from supporting. – Teratix₵ 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: I have added a few quotes from Schmetzer and The Seattle Times that reflect on the season as a whole; I have also implemented both of your new suggestions. Thanks again for the review. SounderBruce 05:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this nomination unless a consensus emerges in a larger forum that footballbox templates are inappropriate to use in articles. – Teratix₵ 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't quite understand. The template used has documented ACCESS issues as the nominator accepts. This has been brought up as an issue at this stage before resulting in alterations to improve articles, such as this featured list. There are plenty of ways to do this which do work with ACCESS so it is easily fixable and I, personally, don't understand the reluctance not to do so. (Apologies also if this is not the correct way to reply, I'm new to this and tried to find what the correct etiquette was but couldn't find guidance). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reluctance stems from having to choose a side in the partisan fight over this; if the template is the issue, then fix the template instead of blowing it up. The alternatives have not addressed my concerns about the amount of information that would be deleted in such a switch without compromising on aesthteics. Something that majorly affects thousands of other articles but is otherwise not a core part of the FACR should not be used to derail an FAC. SounderBruce 05:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either the template is okay to use, or it is not okay to use. If it is okay to use, it is okay to use in this article. If it is not okay to use, it needs to be rewritten or deprecated, and the appropriate place for that discussion is on the template talk page, a WikiProject talk page or even a broader project forum if necessary.
An FAC discussion is not a suitable place for resolving the issue – its purpose is instead to discuss issues specific to the candidate article and its audience is not large enough to decide consensus on project-wide disputes. I am not saying one side of the dispute is right and the other is wrong, merely that it's not possible to decide the issue in this particular venue. – Teratix₵ 07:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teratix, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given support conditional on no larger-scale discussion finding the footballbox template is unacceptable to use – I haven't seen any such discussion in progress, so I'm still supporting. – Teratix₵ 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the users above have left some remarks, I will add mine:
I would add (MLS) after "twelfth season in Major League Soccer", just to make perfectly clear what the abbrevation alludes to as you're using MLS onwards in the article.
Added.
Maybe you could add some text about that season's Sounders' kits (home and away jerseys are in the infobox but no mention of them in the body of the article)?
Added a paragraph to the Background section.
Words like "shutout", "header", "penalty" (in "earned a penalty") could be linked.
Added links on first use.
"saved a penalty attempted by Carlos Vela" ==> could omit "attempted" here
Fixed.
"As of December 2020" ==> this won't change, so it's better to move the reference below the table and put "Source:" (or whatever) in front of it. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have sources for the kits? Image licence and placement seem OK. ALT text is fine. Spot-check upon request. I think MLSsoccer.com, SoundersFC.com and SoundersFC.com can be replaced with the actual name of the websites. Seems like source formatting is consistent, but I must wonder, are there non-web, non-newspaper sources too? Is MLS Humanitarian of the Year Award prominent enough to merit mention solely on the basis of a press release? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The kits in the infobox are already described in the Background section with sources; the infobox does not have a parameter that allows for a straightforward citation, but I presume that under MOS:LEADCITE it should be fine. I'm not sure that there is a more appropriate name for MLSsoccer.com, as it has some level of editorial independence from the league's communications department (this paywalled 2010 source on its launch explains a bit); for SoundersFC.com, it's mostly a matter of separating out the press releases from other coverage. For the MLS Humanitarian Award, the winner seems to get decent non-local coverage; I tacked it on to the end of Roldan's mention as the team's humanitarian of the year due to the overlap in league/club awards. SounderBruce 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MLSsoccer.com, I was wondering if the website has a name that's distinct from the domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: The match results are cited from the "Report" links in each of the uncollapsed match entries. SounderBruce 04:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did miss it/them -- okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[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) 10:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.