# Talk:MLS Cup 2000

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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

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)
Sports Illustrated: Recap
Retrospective: SportingKC (oral history with players and coach)
MLSnet Archive: Summary
MLS Cup Moments: Meola, Miklos Molnar, Doorstep
Extra notes: Oct. 13 news from MLSnet

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.
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.
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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
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: 

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
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)