# Talk:2019 U.S. Open Cup final

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 U.S. Open Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hiya. Thought I review this one as it's relatively short and easy to review (hopefully lol!). Feel free to leave any comments/concerns in this review. I'll work on this bit by bit and hopefully won't need 7 days to finish it up. Will work on it tomorrow as well. 


### Road to the final
#### P1
"The U.S. Open Cup is an annual soccer competition open to adult teams in the United States...excluding reserve and academy squads." - sounds very long. I suggest breaking it up into two sentences.Y
"open to adult teams in the United States" - I don't see any reference to adults in either source. I suggest dropping this word only.
It's necessary and implied. A competition for other levels would have a modified name.
"but excluding reserve and academy squads" - but is a word to watch that needs adjusting per Editorializing.
For reserve/academy, are you referring to USL Championship and USL League One? If so, it's not obvious which level these leagues are with the MLS soccer source.
The source is quite clear about it, but I've used their wording even it is more of a mouthful.
"The 2019 tournament was the 106th edition of the U.S. Open Cup, which is the oldest soccer tournament in the United States, and featured 84 participating teams." - long sentence that also loses it's flow with the oldest soccer tournament part. I suggest breaking into two parts.Y
Moved up the number of participants to another sentence.
"The 21 eligible MLS teams entered in the fourth round," - I don't see this part mentioned in ESPN. The USL/NPSL parts are though. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Added a citation for the MLS teams in the fourth round.


#### P2
"Both teams also represent states that had never sent a team to a U.S. Open Cup final." - I think this sentence should come after the "first completion final" sentence because of the word "also".Y
"also represent states" -> "represented" (as the final already happened)Y
Moved the Minnesota-centric sentences down to the subsection and fixed the tenses.
"Minnesota midfielder Osvaldo Alonso is playing in his sixth Open Cup final." -> played.Y
Also needs source to verify he actually played in the match as both cited sources are before the final.
This cannot be included in the preview section, so I have substituted another phrase.
"having played for the Seattle Sounders FC during their previous five appearances (including four wins) and the Charleston Battery in the 2008 final." - this part seems long after Alonso's sixth final appearance. I suggest splitting it up.Y
Shortened.
As the Battery played in the finals before the Sounders, I suggest switching them for chronological order.Y
Done.
There should also be clarification with the number of finals for Alonoso. Technically it's seven total (1 for Battery and 5 for Sounders) before his Minnesota one. If you're referring to that Battery was a minor-league team, per Star-Tribune, then that needs to be stated to prevent confusion.Y
Fixed the count, but I don't understand what you're asking for with the second sentence.
The source given said it would be a record sixth final but it should be seven. I wasn't sure six was skipping over Battery cause it was a minor-league team. Nevertheless, it's not needed now as you swapped it for seven. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
"during their previous five appearances (including four wins)" - the bracketed part sounds like a side comment. I suggest removing the brackets while also making sure this doesn't effect the flow. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Y
Removed.


### Atlanta United FC
#### P1
"Atlanta United FC, the defending MLS Cup champions," - not mentioned in Pro Soccer USAY
"—setting an attendance record for the tournament during their match against the Chicago Fire." - sounds like a sidenote with the dash. I suggest making this a separate sentence.Y
Split the sentence and added a source.
"but weather conditions forced it to be moved" - Yes, but this source only talks about the field was filled with mud, not the overall weather conditions. Otherwise, the other AJC source linked to that page talks more about weather conditions. You could either citation bundle for this part only as the rest is verified with the June 13th source, or swap weather conditions for the field covered with mud. Up to you.Y
Used the new source.
The match was played behind closed doors....equalized through Romario Williams in the 79th minute" - very long sentence that I suggest splitting up.Y
Done.
The June 14th AJC source doesn't say it was played behind closed doors. As the June 13th AJC source does mention it, either citation bundling / sentence movement would work.
"who fell behind in the 20th minute to a goal by Charleston's Ian Svantesson" not mentioned in June 14th AJC source.Y
Replaced with a different source.
"In extra time, reserve striker Brandon Vazquez scored twice to earn his team a place in the Round of 16" - two issues here. 1) It's not stated that these goals happened in extra time. 2) It doesn't have Vazquez's position.
First point resolved by the new source. I'd rather not overload with a source just for Vazquez's position, which is easily verifiable through his own entry. SounderBruce 04:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


#### P2
"after being drawn into the Mideast regional bracket" - not mentioned in AJC June 18th
Added a source.
"Vazquez scored twice, in the 5th and 65th minutes," - for chronological purposes, I think Vazquez's second goal should come after Accam's goal.
Rewritten.
"defender Miles Robinson added his first goal for the club in the 14th minute." - AJC June 18th doesn't state Robinson's position nor that it was his first goal.
Source added.
Also, it was the 15th minute, not 14th for Robinson.
The official reports have 14th, as well as the video replay. I've decided to ditch the AJC source entirely here, since it seems to conflict with everything else.
"The Crew had cut the lead to 2–1 before halftime...Atlanta United advanced to the quarterfinals." - very long sentence that needs splitting.
Rewritten.
"when Atlanta goalkeeper Brad Guzan deflected a shot into his own net for an own goal," -  AJC June 18th says Waylon Francis hit the cross shot that deflected off of Guzan. I don't think it's an own goal as Francis played for Columbus.
It was ruled as an own goal because Francis's shot was not on target until the deflection.
"but lost 3–2 as Atlanta United advanced to the quarterfinals." - "but" word to watch.
Is it really a problem? When there's a back-and-forth sequence, "but" is appropriate.
"Atlanta fielded its first team in the quarterfinals against Saint Louis FC" - not sure what you mean by "fielded its first team". Could you point me to the spot where this is mentioned?
"First team" means preferred staring lineup. The Dispatch article has the following line: "Hyndman was making his first start for Atlanta United but was one of only two starters who didn’t start Atlanta’s league match on Sunday."
"Despite outshooting Saint Louis 21–11 and dominating possession" - word to watch with "despite" and not netural with "dominating"
Rewritten.


#### P3
"In its semifinal fixture against Orlando City SC,...saved by goalkeeper Adam Grinwis." - another long sentence I suggest splitting.
Fixed.
August 6th AJC source doesn't give the full name for Orlando's team. Minor issue.
Fixed with the second link.
"Atlanta fielded another full-strength lineup" - I think i understand what you mean but not 100%. Which part: the 3-5-2 formation or midfielders? If it's the midfielders part, I'm not sure it's "another" full-strength lineup as it seems like loading it with midfielders was just for this match. However, their coach did keep the 3-5-2 formation that they used throughout the tournament.
Tossed it out.
"finishing from 10 yards (9.1 m) in the 78th minute." - the 10 yards/9.1m seems like a bit too much detail. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Removed.


### Minnesota United FC
#### P1
"Minnesota United FC (nicknamed the Loons) began their U.S. Open Cup campaign with a 4–1 defeat of Sporting Kansas City" - I suggest removing the brackets while adding commas before/after to prevent a run-on.Y
Split the sentence.
"at their home stadium, Allianz Field in Saint Paul, Minnesota." - Star Tribune isn't specific that Allianz Field is Minnesota's home stadium nor that it's located in Saint Paul.
Removed, but again this would be excessive citing.


#### P2
"The Dynamo took a 2–0 lead in the first half...equalize for Minnesota–finishing from the penalty area in the 66th minute and long range in the 82nd." - two sentences please as this is a comma spice.Y
Split.
"–finishing from the penalty area in the 66th minute and long range in the 82nd." - the dash makes this part of the sentence stand out more than the rest and not neutral.
Merged in.Y
Also, Star Tribune June 19th doesn't state where Quintero scored the first goal (66th minute one).
Removed.
"Substitute forward Mason Toye scored on a tap-in in the 89th minute" - While Star Tribune June 19th does say Toye was a substitute, it doesn't specify which position.
As explained earlier, adding another citation just for the position would be excessive.
"comeback victory for Minnesota United as they advanced to their first quarterfinals" - not 100% confirmed. Yes, Minnesota fell to Houston in the Round of 16 in 2018, but it's not specific that this win allowed them to reach their first ever quarterfinal.
Added a source.


#### P3
"In the quarterfinals, Minnesota United hosted USL side New Mexico United," - yes, but the Albuquerque Journal source was written before the match happened. I suggest citation bundling so the other source can show that it was indeed held.
The Journal citation is meant for the charter flight section, while the rest can be cited to the next source. In sports, the sureness of scheduling should not make a pre-written source an issue.
"who had upset two MLS teams and arranged a special charter flight for their fans to attend the match at Allianz Field." - I think the charter flight part is too much detail. The upest of two MLS teams seems ok to keep.
It's exceedingly rare for any team, let alone a minor-league one, to arrange it. It was a big story in the context of this tournament.
"Santi Moar scored the opening goal for New Mexico in the seventh minute," - St. Paul Pioneer Press doesn't state who scored the first goal, only that it happened by New Mexico in the 7th minute.
Added a source.Y
"first-half hat-trick between goals by Darwin Quintero and Ján Greguš" - Quintero and Gregus's goals (13, 23) were in between Rodriguez's goals (10, 18, before halftime) not the other way around. Or, if you're focusing on the 3rd goal, if came after Quintero and Gregus. Up to you which way you want to phrase it.Y
Removed the ordering.
"finishing his in the 62nd minute" - St. Paul Pioneer Press doesn't give a specify minute for Ibarra.Y
Added a source, but this goal's timing was displayed in an earlier version of the article. The Wayback Machine couldn't capture the element.
No worries. I guess even archived copies can miss info. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


#### P4
"The Loons took the lead in the 22nd minute with a penalty scored by Darwin Qunitero that was awarded after a free kick struck defender Claude Dielna's hand. Portland's Brian Fernández equalized for his side in first half stoppage time...bounced off goalkeeper Vito Mannone and hit the post before heading wide" - The majority of these sentences are not verified in the August 8th 2019 Star-Tribune source. The only part is Toye's winning goal for Minnesota in the 64th. Extra source(s) needed.
Added a source.
Also, the second sentence "Portland's Brian Fernández equalized..." onwards is a very long sentence even with the commas and semicolon. This part needs to be split into additional sentences for grammar. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Split. SounderBruce 05:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


### Venue
Atlanta Journal Constitution doesn't state that it was the first time Mercedes-Benz Stadium held the U.S. Open Cup
Similarly, it doesn't mention Mercedes-Benz Stadium held the MLS Cup 2018, just that Atlanta played in it.
Added citations for both.
As the AJC source was written on August 6th, it's Crystal that Mercedes-Benz held the Campeones Cup on August 14th.
a week before the U.S. Open Cup final" - there was a 10 day gap between Campeones/U.S. Open (14th-27th) making it not exactly a week.
Fixed and added a citation.
"both matches were won by Atlanta." - yes but this is already in the post-match section making it redundant.
Removed.
"Atlanta was given first priority to host the final during the semifinal draw conducted by the United States Soccer Federation on July 11, 2019" - sounds a little bit wordy. I know "first priority" and "semifinal draw" are needed for sure. Maybe perhaps use a different sentence structure?
The source doesn't specify the draw was held by the USSF despite being on their website. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Slight change to the structure, but the USSF's involvement should be pretty obvious. We don't need to cite the basics. SounderBruce 04:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


### Broadcasting
"The match was broadcast on ESPN+, an online streaming service that carried all other matches of the tournament" - this USSF source says ESPN+ would stream the matches until 2022, not that it did. Although I'm not doubting the accuracy, the source needs to be clearly stated that this did happened.
Reliable sources do not publish information about broadcasts after the match, unless it's for viewership numbers that are usually only announced for television. This has not been an issue with past soccer articles.
"previously been broadcast on national television sine 1994" The Cup.us doesn't specify the list of broadcast networks are USA/national based.
Also typo with sine => since
Typo fixed. The list in the article only shows national channels (all cable), and it is presumed by the use of the term "broadcast television"; a local-only broadcast would be denoted as such.
"The English language broadcast was called by play-by-play commentator Jon Champion and color analyst Taylor Twellman." - The Star Tribune article was published before the match happened, making it unconfirmed.
It also doesn't state which positions Champion and Twellman held. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It's extremely rare for a reliable source to publish the commentators used after the match, as it is also rare that an announced crew aren't used for the event.


### Match summary
#### P1
"breaking the attendance record for the tournament final that was set during the 2011 final in Seattle" - 27 August AJC source doesn't specify that CenturyLink Field is in Seattle.
Adding a source just to say that CenturyLink Field is in Seattle would be overkill. The AJC already lists Seattle as the home team in the fixture order.
"were seated in the three designated away sections" - 28 August Star Tribune isn't specific that it was reserved for Minnesota United fans, just that they sat in three sections in the second-deck.
That's exactly what it means. Groups of away fans are required to sit in such sections.
"Atlanta played most of their starting lineup that was used a week earlier in MLS play, including a five-midfielder formation" - 27 August 2019 AJC source says that it was the exact lineup used, not most. Also, I count 4 midfielders, not 5 (2 wingbacks, and 2 defensive midfielders).
Fixed, but the ESPN lineup shows it was a 3–4–1–2, so it's definitely five midfielders in the conventional sense.


#### P2
"Atlanta had several chances to score early in the match" - Pro Soccer USA (27 August) only mentions one prior opportunity that Atlanta had (the 2 minute offside goal), not multiple.
Fixed, but the intent was to include the own goal in the "several chances".
"and took the lead in the tenth minute through an own goal from Minnesota" - Pro Soccer USA says "nine minutes later", making this 2+9=11. However, broadcast of the match from MLS shows it was 9:39, making this inaccurate.
Added a source with the correct time and boxscore details.
"deflected by Minnesota defender Chase Gasper, beating goalkeeper Vito Mannone" - yes, but Mannone touched the ball after it bounced off of Gasper before it went in. So Gasper's deflection didn't solely led Mannone to miss the ball.
Added a mention of the touch, but it's debatable whether it would have made a difference in trajectory. The official ruling is an own goal from Gasper.
Also, AJC August 27 doesn't state Gasper's position.
ESPN source used.
"Minnesota missed a chance to equalize two minutes later" - since it was nine minutes when the first goal was, it might not be two minutes later when Minnesota missed the chance to tie (9+2 versus 10+2). My reasoning is because US Soccer says that the goal was in the tenth minute, but it's not. I'm trying to find the full match to verify the missed opportunity and not just highlights. However, no luck so far.
The ESPN written commentary feed lists the free kick attempt at 12 minutes. The full match replay is only available on ESPN+ in the United States.
"as defender Michael Boxall's header was off target" - position not stated by US Soccer
ESPN source used.
"Justin Meram's low cross from the left flank found Pity Martínez," - Pro Soccer USA doesn't give these specific details on Meram's pass to Martinez, only "low square ball". Since square ball is a sideways pass, it doesn't confirm which way it was passed or what type of pass it was.
AJC gives the description.
"Five minutes later, Meram made a similar cross into the box" - US Soccer doesn't specify it was a cross pass that Meram made. The rest of the sentence is verified.
Rewritten.


#### P3
"Minnesota kept pressing for a goal, including a header by Ike Opara in the 33rd minute that went wide of the post, and reduced the lead to 2–1 two minutes after halftime." - 28 August Star Tribune doesn't have Minnesota pressuring for a goal nor Opara's missed chance in the 33rd minute.
USSF source used.
The pressing for a goal is referenced with Barco's attempt in the 21st, not with Opara's 33rd minute attempt. Slight bump of sentence needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Minnesota midfielder Kevin Molino ended his run down the right flank with a low pass to Robin Lod at the top of the six-yard box, which he volleyed into the goal off the left post." - parts of this is missing in the 28 August Star Tribune source: Molino's position, Molino passing it to Lod, where and how Molino passed the ball to Lod.
All found in the USSF source.
Yep, but now this source is missing that Lod was at the six-yard box. You could drop that part only if you wish. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I see a saved goal by Minnesota in the 56th minute mentioned in the US Soccer source, but not included in this Wiki article. I was wondering why this was the case.Y
Added.
I see i missed Gressel's attempt. Nice catch! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"but was unable to beat Brad Guzan with his one-time shot." - I don't see US Soccer stating that it was Pogda's only shot of the match - if I'm interpreting one-time correctly.
"One-time shot" is a move where a player quickly takes the shot with their only touch of the play.
"Josef Martínez had a pair of missed chances to extend Atlanta's lead to three goals" - it would have been a two goal lead, not three, as Lod had already scored for Minnesota (2-1).
Rewritten.


#### P4
"and a unsporting challenge on Molino" AJC August 27 isn't specific which Minnesota player Pirez received his second yellow card for.
Fixed.Y
"Minnesota manager Adrian Heath responded by substituting Quintero" - Star Tribune August 28th doesn't connect substituting Quintero because Pirez was sent off after his yellow cards, making this synthesis.Y
USSF source used.
"while Atlanta's Frank de Boer brought on Franco Escobar and switched to a formation with five defenders to protect the lead" - again, August 27th AJC doesn't connect this substitution and formation switch to Pirez.
The AJC source supports this and cites the minutes as needed.
My issue with this is not accuracy, but chain of events. I originally thought "while" in this sentence meant Y event because of X event. However, if you're saying that Quintero's substution and De Boer's changes happened at the same time, this isn't the case (74th in compared to 76th). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"and switched to a formation with five defenders to protect the lead." - same source isn't specific what positions the 5 in 5-3-1 made up of, nor why De Boer made this formation change.
In soccer, the first number is always the number of defenders, or sometimes only the central defenders. Seeing as playing five central defenders has been extremely rare in the post-war era, we can safely shelve that idea.
I just spotted why De Boer made the formation change. It was to "shore up the three-man back line", not protect the lead (don't know why I missed that earlier). In terms of 5 being the defenders, okay then. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"Minnesota had the majority of possession late in the match and earned several corner kicks" - I don't see mention of corner kicks in either source, just possession and missed chances.
Supported by the USSF source cited in the next sentence (which is meant to be an overarching one for the entire paragraph).
In that case, that citation would need to be used for this sentence or the other two citations combined with the last sentence. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"but were unable to take advantage to create a scoring chance until stoppage time" - "to take advantage to create" sounds redundant. A slight grammatical change is needed.
Dropped.Y
Also, this isn't true Minnesota didn't have a chance to score until stoppage time. Star Tribune August 28th says Molino, Gasper. opara and Boxall had chances to score in the 2nd half.
Changed to "dangerous".
Dangerous sounds like a loaded word, and not a netural word, even though danger is used by the source. I suggest using a more toned down word. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
"that fell to Boxall in the six-yard box" - US Soccer isn't specific where Boxall was when he received the ball from Opara. --MrLinkinPark333Y (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Switched to "point-blank" per source.


### Match Details
Not sure what the consensus is for kits, flags and positions for players, and match rules. As I've only written one footy bio, I'm looking through WikiProject Football discussions.
Nationality flags and kit displays are pretty standardized across football articles. My recently-promoted match FA (MLS Cup 1996) had no issues with both of these elements, for example.
Even without sources? Same with match rules / player positions. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The match report acts as the source. Again, this has not normally been an issue. SounderBruce 01:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Guzan is listed as captain for Atlanta not Parkhurst.Y
Fixed, though Parkhurst is the team captain but did not start the match.
For position numbers, Gasper is 77 and Molino is 7 for Minnesota. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Y
Fixed, looks like I scrolled too fast.
No worries --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


### Post-match
"the third trophy to be won by Atlanta United FC within a year" - this is true, but US Soccer doesn't specify it was "within" a year. This can't be calculated with the source as it doesn't state which month the MLS Cup was held in 2018.Y
Added one.
Perfect! And I also saw you adjusted it to nine months. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
"As runners-up, Minnesota United FC earned $100,000 in prize money" - also true, but this source was published before the final making it WP:CRYSTAL. I suggest swapping this source for one that states this after the match was held. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Y
Added one behind a paywall. SounderBruce 05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you send me a screenshot of the part that verifies it? Also, if this does confirm it, you won't need the Five things you need to know source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't screenshot the part of the article (on the app, which has a free article trial that I use), but it does show up in the Google search snippet (here). SounderBruce 01:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
"in particular contributions from Justin Meram" - i think it's "particularly" because of the comma. Otherwise, I think it's "with contributions from Justin Meram in particular" or something like that. Not 100% sure.Y
Changed it to "particularly the contributions from winger Justin Meram"
"comparing it to earlier losses against Atlanta." - Heath didn't compare Minnesota's previous losses to Atlanta in his quotes. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Heath said "It was the first time we’ve come here and had as many chances as we had tonight", which is what I am using here.
Based on my understanding of the quote you mentioned, chances doesn't seem the same as losses. While Minnesota had the chance to win, Heath doesn't mention any previous losses or matches against Atlanta. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


### Overall
Overall, I see various issues with some minor and some major. For minor, I see grammatical/phrasing issues with a bit of neturality issues. For major, I see two big issues. 

There are prose information that are not verified. Some of these are minor details, like footballer positions, types of teams allowed in the Cup or locations. On the other hand, there are some statements where big parts of the sentence are not verified, specifically the August 8th 2019 Star-Tribune source (which I see you added a source) and the 28 August Star Tribune source. For both of these, I suggest either finding new sources that has everything that is written for the Wiki article's prose, or dropping details that the given source does not have.
I'd like to assume that the readers of this article are able to make basic connections in logic to figure out what is true. As North American soccer is a niche sport with limited readership, the only reliable sources in the field will not go to the lengths to explain every little detail as if a first-timer is reading them. There are facts born out of presumed logic that the absence of qualifiers create, e.g. the competition being open to adult teams as it is not labeled with a qualifier like Women's, Senior, or U-23. SounderBruce 07:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
There are also Original Research parts where the given source is written before the event happened. Examples of these include the announcers, and ESPN+ hosting the event. While I'm not doubting the accuracy, these sentences are persumed correct, and not verifed. Therefore, in cases of persumed accuracy when a source is written before it is confirmed the claim happened i suggest either one of two things. One way is to cite a source that does verify the claim did indeed happen. If it's difficult to find a source to back up this did happen, you could rewrite the sentences to state what the sentence does verify, and not assumes did happen. Ways to rewrite these sentence could include changing the tenses or dropping the specific information that cannot be verified in later sources.
WP:CRYSTAL states "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". This has never come up as an issue in any of my previous soccer GANs or FACs because there is a logical expectation that if X event is scheduled on Y date with Z people, then it will go on as planned unless there is a follow-up article that states otherwise. Interpreting this as original research is frankly not how the policy is designed to be used. SounderBruce 07:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
As you've already gone through most of these sections, and I require to check if they are resolved or need further work, I'm willing to put this review on hold for a week (Dec 23) and recheck from there. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: As you and I have different interpretations of these two parts, I've requested a second opinion for these two parts overall. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the second part as original research, but this is persumed information. I've always thought that presuming something is correct was not a good thing. In terms of sources written before an event happen, to me, it doesn't verify that something did happen, but was scheduled to happen. To me, this isn't the same thing. As for the first part, for me, if specific information is not included nor cannot be deduced with the information given, I feel that this doesn't fully support the prose, whether they be main info/details. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Aircorns opinion Seems like a very in depth review, which is great. I personally think you are probably interpreting the criteria a bit strict though. We generally only require citations for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. The "likely to be challenged" gives quite a bit of flexibility to the reviewer and I would usually expect the nominator to provide a source if one is requested (within reason). The predictions aspect is interesting. I guess it falls under the "no original research" criteria, but I would probably have not even picked it up. Is there some sort of compromise that can be reached (writing in the past tense, leaving out some minor details, rewording sentences etc). I see these as collaborative ventures and the whole process is supposed to be relatively lightweight. If you have specific examples I could give my opinion on them. AIRcorn (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: @Aircorn: I do agree with those compromises and have suggested similarly in this overall section. For unverified parts, dropping specific details could be more suitable if a source does not cover every single detail in the source. As for the predictions, changing tenses (i.e. from past to future tense) could be easier if finding sources that do verify that this happen is difficult. An example would be the sentence that says Jon Champion and color analyst Taylor Twellman commentated the match. As the source is the day before the match happened, I think it would need to be rephrased to match that i.e. "The day before the match, Jon Champion and Taylor Twellman were named as the match's commentators" or something like that. Another example is for ESPN+ being the streaming channel of the match. As the source says that ESPN+ would be hosting the matches until 2022, I think the sentence would need to be reworded. The reason being as the source itself doesn't show that the match was indeed streamed on ESPN+, but that it would be. Perhaps a sentence like "In April 2019, it was announced that ESPN+ would stream the 2019 event and continue hosting the U.S. Open Cup until 2022". For both instances, these sources were written before the event, so it isn't verified that this did happen for the event. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging again @SounderBruce: and @Aircorn: in case you haven't read my comments. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This would be the only soccer article, including those that have passed GA and FA, to use that kind of phrasing. As I stated above, it's exceptionally rare for normally scheduled occurrences around the event (venue, time, broadcaster, staff) to change without some kind of press coverage after the fact. The omission of coverage implies that it did in fact happened as scheduled and written before. I don't think we should be bending backwards over this for a simple GAN. SounderBruce 06:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: I understand your point of view on this. However, per Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not #2c  Statements made in the article should either be common knowledge or reflect the material in the sources. For the points you've mentioned (venue, time, broadcaster, staff), none of them are common knowledge as they are specific to this article. From my understanding of the essay criteria #2c, the prose would need to match the source. When a source is written days before the match happened, then it's only verified at the time of the source publication. While I agree that this was true at the time of the source, this does not confirm that this did happen the day of the match. These sources written days before the match only verify that this was supposed to happen. Therefore, I feel that the prose would need to match what the sources does say, instead of implying that this did happen without confirmation. As you and I have not reached an agreement, perhaps it might be better if a second reviewer came in as a second opinion has not helped. If you have an different idea, please let me know. Also pinging @Aircorn: for other suggestions as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Every reviewer has their own style and own priorities when reviewing. The criteria are vague enough to allow this flexibility, and I see this as a relatively good thing. When there are opposing, yet legitimate disagreements on whether something meets the criteria ideally we want to meet in the middle somewhere. Personally I don't think the highlighted issue is big enough to worry about. We are not talking about exceptional information or even slightly controversial information. It is very likely to be true and on the off chance that it is not, it is not going to really impact our readers understanding of this topic. So, if you want a second opinion as someone who is reviewing the article then I would allow it as written. By the same token if this is a hill you are willing to die on, then you have justification to fail on this account. We are only talking about a small change in wording (I would just go with Jon Champion and Taylor Twellman were named as the match's commentators). In the end we are all on the same side and the ultimate goal is to improve articles, the criteria are really just a means to the end. So not much help on giving a definitive answer I know, but I really hope you two can come to some sort of acceptable agreement. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: After some time, I have decided to fail this nomination based on two points. On one hand, I feel that having details not mentioned in the sources does not pass original research as I feel they are not common knowledge nor reflect what's in the sources. Alternatively, there is the issue of the prose mentioning things that were scheduled to happen, but not verified that this did happen. Of these two points, I'm on the fence about whether having future information not needing to be verified it did happen due to WP:CRYSTAL. However, if this issue was resolved, the inclusion of details not included in the sources would still remain. I know that you and I have had different opinions on both matters. Therefore, I think it would be better to have this nomination marked as failed at this point in time. If you wish to renominate this article, please feel free to! Perhaps a second reviewer would see these two points differently than I do. I'm sure you can get this article passed in the future. Good luck with this article! P.S. I'm taking a long break from future GAs due to the long time periods both this one and my other review took. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 U.S. Open Cup Final/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nova Crystallis (talk · contribs) 04:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing later. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of Major League Soccer is a better link than the default expansion teams.
"round of 16" or "Round of 16"? Some of them are inconsistent.
I've seen some other match articles that have the construction and opening dates of the venue. Maybe add a bit here?
Not much left to change really. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: All done, thanks for the review. SounderBruce 19:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)