 | MLS Cup 2000 has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 10, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from MLS Cup 2000 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2021, and was viewed approximately 1,352 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:MLS Cup 2000.gif
edit
Image:MLS Cup 2000.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Resources
edit- Venue: Tampa's losing bid
- Previews: NY Times, Chicago Tribune (p. 10), Kansas City (earlier)
- Halftime show: NY Times (2007)
- Recaps: Washington Post (Molnar), Chicago Tribune (p. 1), Kansas City, USA Today (Meola)
- Retrospective: SportingKC (oral history with players and coach)
- MLSnet Archive: Summary
- MLS Cup Moments: Meola, Miklos Molnar, Doorstep
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) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the finalists of MLS Cup 2000 earned the same number of points during the regular season? Source: Chicago Tribune
- ALT1:... that MLS Cup 2000 was the first championship game in league history to not feature D.C. United? Source: San Diego Union-Tribune
- Reviewed: WGRI
5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Self-nominated at 06:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC).
The article underwent a massive expansion prior to its nomination, its certainly long enough and well-written. No red flags come up with the Earwig tool. Both hooks provided are interesting and referenced here and within the article, though I think ALT1 might have a slight edge in being more appealing to a general audience. This looks good to go. AGF tick since ALT1 is referenced with an offline newspaper source. Nice work, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 01:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:MLS Cup 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ReedyTurnip (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Starting this review, article seems pretty good.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I believe the word "the" is needed in the first sentence, should be "the top-level soccer league"
- Fixed.
- I don't think it is necessary to mention that RFK stadium is where DC United won a championship in the venue section, it hinders the readability of the sentence.
- It is necessary, so I've split up the sentence.
- Venue section second paragraph first second can be moved to after the next sentence, so that the section flows better.
- Moved up.
- "After a 2–0 defeat of Los Angeles and a scoreless draw" it would be less ambiguous to say Galaxy, especially they are referred to as simply Galaxy later in the article.
- Fixed.
- "the Wizards where shutout in three consecutive losses before closing out July with a 3–1 victory against the Columbus Crew." were shut out, also more straightforward to say "ending July" rather than closing out
- "Shutout" is a single word in American sports.
- Stoichkov is spelled differently in different parts, stick to one spelling
- Fixed.
- I believe the word "the" is needed in the first sentence, should be "the top-level soccer league"
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Meets criteria for the most part, just minor fixes to be made.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Lead section could be a little longer, but overall article definitely passes.
- Added another paragraph.
- Lead section could be a little longer, but overall article definitely passes.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- follows guidelines
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- The citations seem good and everything that needs an inline citation has one
- C. it contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- covers background and the match itself, significantly broad
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- good pictures of players and the match
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Will pass one the grammatical issues are resolved
- @ReedyTurnip: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. SounderBruce 19:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Seems all good, nice work on this, congratulations on the good article. ReedyTurnip (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ReedyTurnip: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of your comments. SounderBruce 19:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- Will pass one the grammatical issues are resolved
- Pass or Fail: