Wikipedia:Peer review/Seattle Sounders FC/archive1

Seattle Sounders FC

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've exhausted all the resources I had been intending to use when adding content to the article. I believe it represents complete coverage of the topic and depending on the outcome of the peer review I intend to nominate it for WP:FA review in the near future.

Thanks, SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was considering removing "It all comes together" as a section header. It makes it read more like an essay instead of an encyclopedic article. Do we need a section break there and if so how should it be structured? I think the paragraph can be part of the initial history section. It may need to be split into a separate article in the future but right now it is basically "Founding" (attempts and actual foundation) Derry City F.C. looks like a good example of an FA. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Should Name, colors, and badge its own section? Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I'm pretty new, and this isn't a proper review, but a few observations:

• Does the ownership and management section need all the subdivision?
• Is a year-by-year really necessary for a team which has yet to complete its first season?
• Maybe this is a somewhat British concept, but can you really already have a rivalry with teams you've never actually played? "The Seattle-Portland and Seattle-Vancouver rivalries are expected to continue into MLS" seems somewhat speculative to me, even if the source does back it up.
• Most crucially of all, and I admit that I'm being nit-picky but it's best to raise this point early. Taking the article in isolation, it's not completely clear how and why this incarnation of the Sounders is unique from the USL one. The "it all comes together" section assumes that the reader understands that the 2008 Sounders and 2009 Sounders are two completely distinct entities. The rivalry section then contradicts this by making the assertion that "the rivalry would be continued". Hopefully another European reviewer can say whether I'm being pedantic or have a point, but given one or two conversations that I've seen at FLCs (see ChrisTheDude's comment that reviewers have insisted that complex terminology such as "goal" be explained), I'm sure I won't be the last person to raise this point.

All in all though, it looks pretty good. I haven't checked that the references actually back up the points they are citing, but assuming they do they all appear to be from reliable sources, which is usually the sticking point. WFCforLife (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, WFCforLife. I wanted to respond to the rivalry and difference between USL just to see if it would make more sense. The US does not have a promotion/relegation system within the pyramid. The previous incarnation (lower league) was dissolved upon Seattle receiving an MLS franchise. Many of the resources (managing partner of USL team is minority owner and general manager of MLS team), the name (after a vote by fans), and the fans went to the new team but they are separate entities. Sounders FC also played against Portland in a U.S. Open Cup (FA Cup or League Cup equivalent?) and the rivalry was still strong. Cleaning up the distinction part might be needed if it was confusing in the article.Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of franchising, but outside of the U.S. and Canada (with the notable exception of Rugby League) most sports would consider the team to be the same team as Seattle Sounders (USL). It just needs to be made clear that this isn't the case when MLS franchises are awarded. I've made the assumption that the previous Seattle Sounders were obliged to disband upon the award of an MLS franchise, and come up with:

In a press conference on November 13, 2007, the city of Seattle was awarded an expansion team.[17] The announcement meant that the Seattle Sounders of the USL First Division would disband, and that a new franchise would need to be formed. Nonetheless, the announcement provided a return of top-level soccer to Seattle for the first time since the dissolution of Seattle's North American Soccer League team in 1983.[18]

I haven't made the edit because like I say, I've made an assumption while not being sure if it's true. But something along those lines would be fine- just enough to make it clear to those unfamiliar with top level American sport that a third team was formed, and that the USL team wasn't simply promoted. WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this issue is a bit complicated. Let me try to explain it with a metaphor. Say I have a restaurant... let's call it Burger Hut. Now, my restaurant is kind of old, and I'm interested in building a fancy new one. I could build a new restaurant right next to the old one, but it would be expensive to run two restaurants, and it wouldn't make much sense for me to have two burger places right next to each other anyways, so I tear down the old one and build a brand new restaurant. Running the new restaurant is going to be expensive, so I bring in some outside partners for financial backing (making me the minority owner). The restaurant's customers voted to pick the name for the new restaurant, and out of nostalgia they voted to name it Better Burger Hut. I kept some of my best employees, but let most of them go, replacing them with new employees.

The link between the Seattle Sounders FC and the USL Sounders is similar to the link between Better Burger Hut and Burger Hut - essentially circumstantial. I don't believe there was any rule that the USL team had to disband, it was just a matter of financing two teams, playing the same sport, in the same city. It's entirely possible that the MLS team could have gone with a different name, and it's entirely possible that the MLS team could have been owned and managed by completely different people than the USL team, and its even possible that the MLS and USL teams could have co-existed in the same city at the same time. It's just by chance that the fans voted to use the same name, and that the USL management decided to buy the MLS franchise instead of someone else, and that they hired some of the old USL players to play for the MLS team.

Regarding the rivalries, those are as much between the cities as they are between the teams, as they've already spread across three soccer leagues (the NASL, the USL, and the MLS) and in two sports (soccer and basketball). In my metaphor, it would be like my Burger Hut competing with the Pizza King across the street. When I build my Better Burger Hut, maybe some large corporation comes in and builds Super Pizza King. We'd still have the same competition going on due to our proximity, even though the restaurants, employees, and possibly the owners had completely different.

Hmm, hope that wasn't too confusing. That's my best understanding of the situation... now I'm hungry! ← George ^talk 03:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent analogy George. That's pretty much exactly how it is. That said, the sentence WFCforLife is focused on sort of clouds how things really are. Honestly, I remember back when I was expanding the history section that I almost removed the sentence completely since it didn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the prose. I do like the some of what WFCforLife is suggesting we change it to. I took a stab at it with this: The announcement provided a return of top-level soccer to Seattle for the first time since the dissolution of Seattle's North American Soccer League team in 1983. Since there really wasn't a source for this (it's more of an observation than a fact, I've moved the source to a more approprate place also.

Regarding WFCforLife's other feedback:

• "it all comes together"

Fixed - I agree. This was my attempt to add some "flare", but I think the idea fell on it's face. I've changed it to something more descriptive of what's being discussed: "MLS expansion arrives". Better?

• ownership and management subsections

Fixed - There really wasn't much of a reason for all of the sub-headings. I've removed them. The secion still reads pretty much the same without them.

• name, badge, colors in it's own section?

Comment - I'm not totally sure about this one. When I was making the major changes to the history section a while back, I moved this to be a sub-section under history. It used to be it's own section. The prose in the section read as historical events (in the past tense) rather than a simple description. Therefore it made sense to me that it should be a subsection under history. I'm open to moving it, I'm just saying it's where it is now because it felt to me like historical info. Is this template equivalent to a manual of style, or is just something to help get a team article started with? I think it's basically a listing the content that's expected in club articles, and in this case the content is there, it's just not organized exactly the same way.

• rivalry questions

Fixed - I agree that it's tough to have an real rivalry in your first year as a club. Here's an attempt to reword some of it to get accross a more accurate message: "The Seattle-Portland and Seattle-Vancouver rivalries were established in the years that the NASL Sounders and USL Sounders were playing in Seattle. These geographic rivalries are expected to continue into MLS with MLS awarding teams to both Portland and Vancouver for the 2011 season."

• Is a year-by-year really necessary

Comment - At this point I'd say yes because the team has already qualified for the 2010 champions league (and it's linked to already in the table). So at least two rows are necessary now. However, when I look at the template I don't see such a table. Further, I looked at a few of the club articles that are already WP:FAs and none of them have such a table. Maybe it should be removed or possible moved to a separate "list of seasons" article(?).

Thanks again for all of the feedback and discussion. This is helping a lot. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I tinkered with the conference. Feel free to tinker or revert. Thanks again, WFCforlife Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the subheadings and there was nothing wrong with attempting to make it a good read. In regards to "Team name, badge and colors unveiled": It does fit within the layout of the history section. I think my concern is looking into the future. Most club articles have it as a separate subsection and I assume this is because there have been several changes over decades of play. They also didn't have the internet 100 years ago so this is an example of when RECENTISM is actually good! It works for now but might need to be moved into a separate section if management alters them in the future.Cptnono (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the kit, name etc fits in the history for now, and that it's given the right weight. There will come a point in the future where you will need to go through the first five paragraphs and consolidate them into perhaps two, and give that bit its own section, but I think that time is some way off. I'm pretty jealous of you guys actually, my club has a big problem with recentism. The history section is in a state right now, but the real problem is that 99% of the stuff worth writing about has happened since 1973 (in context, the club was established in 1881). I'm not exaggerating when I say that the most interesting thing to happen to Watford between 1922 and 1958 was the cancellation of a season because of external issues.

Back on topic, just one other observation. I'm not sure how relevant this is to the article but it's worth asking. It strikes me as unusual for a North American based club to have "FC" in its name. Even among fans of the sport, I was under the impression that in the U.S. it's almost universally referred to as soccer. Any ideas how that came about? WFCforLife (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys have had over a hundred years of history with most of it predating easy google searches and AP updates. As one of the high-ups for Colorado told me after his team got spanked: "The Sounders are the new flavor of the month". Watford is sitting at a B class. Let me know if you want a quick hand bumping it up.

You don't want to ask about FC, dude ;) . I don't have any sources for this part but basically the MLS likes being cute and copies Europe when it can. Real Salt Lake (Spain), DC United (England), FC Dallas (Germany), and so on. I think at one time Seattle Albion was a possibility. We actually have screwed around for while trying to figure out if it was Seattle Sounders Football Club, F.C., FC, etc. I even have a shirt that says Seattle Sounders FC Soccer Club. An email was sent off to the head office and they confirmed that it was simply "FC" so we went with that.

Speaking of flavor of the month (I hope not), I saw a source predicting the different attendance records. Throw it in if anyone finds an updated one confirming it at the seasons end.Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of taking an axe to parts of it at the moment (and that's not being dramatic- check out the recent history). I reckon I've got plenty to go on for the time being, but in a few weeks or so I might take you up on that offer.

As for the FC I was just curious really. I don't think anyone, however hostile they are towards the American word for the sport, would begrudge a club calling themselves "Seattle Sounders Soccer" ;) WFCforLife (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Some Seattlites do oddly enough! I know it is off topic but shoot me a message when you are done reworking it and I will be happy to be a second set of eyes.Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Back to Seattle, I really do think that year-by-year table needs to go. Firstly it looks horrible, courtesy of the red links and TBDs. Secondly, the information that's in there should be incorporated into the prose anyway. I absolutely applaud you guys for not doing what most clubs do, which is to go into ridiculous, minute detail about the current season. But I think qualification for next year's Champions League definitely deserves a proper mention. WFCforLife (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing for now (put on talk page for easy reinstatement or work) since it is not a common table on Wikipedia. I think the info is madly interesting but notice that most teams simply have a line graph showing league finishing position. Sounders FC does not have enough history to warrant that graph and that graph doesn't mention cups. Bringing this up on the main Footy project page might actually make this a standard to strive for but taking the advice from an independent party for now. We also need to get that inaugural season/history info updated. At the end of the season? Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the year-by-year table, I'm not opposed to removing it from the article, though I think two of the three TBDs will be resolved at the end of the current season (in a couple months), and one of the two red links will be populated within a month. I also agree that the chart probably belongs in a List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons article - a list that most teams have that we don't (here's a featured example). We could move the table there and create it as a High or Top importance stub. ← George ^talk 14:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since we're going to get that article sooner or later anyways, I've gone ahead and boldly created it. ← George ^talk 14:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think its for the best. I know it may seem like a premature move right now, and that there isn't really consensus on them, but here's my rationale:

• AFAIK, no featured club articles have them.
• It is possible for a club to reach featured status without the sort of graph that established English teams have, for instance Central Coast Mariners FC. That article needs a review, but my point is that it originally attained FA status without putting the data in graphic or tabular form.
• Related to that point, tables are generally there to convey relevant information that can't reasonably be incorporated into the prose. I think everything of note from the table can be reasonably incorporated into the history text (and I would strongly recommend that this is done).
• There is scope to put far more information into the table at its new location. This could include interesting and relevant info which might be deemed surplus to requirements at an FAC here. See List of AFC Wimbledon seasons for inspiration of how a club with a short history can still make that into a decent, useful list.
• It's easily reversed.

This shouldn't count against you at FA, because you have a couple of decent images of Qwest Field. But as people would bring this up, I'll pre-empt it. Are there any free images out there of any of the following: one or more of the players playing for the club, a player or coach photographed at an event in some way connected to the club, a player or coach wearing Seattle Sounders FC merchandise, or something to do with the Lamar Hunt trophy? In particular, a free photo of a player wearing the kit would really enhance the article. WFCforLife (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the table and the creation of the list of seasons article. One thing I did add to the prose though was a mention about qualifying for the CONCACAF Champions League. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've probably scared a potential reviewer off now, so I'll go through some things that I spotted on closer inspection:

• • It's now a requirement for all images in featured articles to have alternative text. Basically, for people who cannot/do not want to display images, alternative text tells them what they are missing. Alt text does not make any difference for people who have images enabled.
  • What makes refs 58 and 59 reliable sources? Also, the publisher is generally required for FACs.
  • "write in" should be "write-in", per the source.
  • The first sentence in the history section is a bit cumbersome, any way of rewriting it to avoid repetition of "before"?
  • Strictly speaking, direct quotes attributed to an individual should be cited straight after the close of the quotation marks, even if the quote in question is mid-sentence. For example MLS commissioner Don Garber indicated that Seattle had been "very close"<ref> to getting that expansion.
  • Acronyms need expanding the first time that they are used and are not part of a name. The ones I spotted were NASL, MVP and USL.
  • Accessdates should all be in the same format. Most are in the yyyy-mm-dd format (which as far as I know is fine), but some aren't, and should be changed for consistency.

Hope that helps. WFCforLife (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi WFCforLife, great feedback!

• I've added alternate text to the two images in the body of the article.
• One of those sources was a link to the cup homepage. As it's a fan-created cup, it's probably not the best source, so I've replaced it with a blurb from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (a major Seattle-based newspaper).
• Changed to "write-in".
• I've reworded the history section's introduction to make it more readable.
• I've moved the citation for this directly behind the quote itself. I couldn't really find any other cases where it applied, but feel free to double check.
• I tried to define the various acronyms (the ones you mentioned, as well as APSL). I expanded their first usage even when they were part of a name (for instance, USL Sounders became United Soccer Leagues (USL) Sounders), with the exception of the first instance of NASL, which was part of a direct quote (I expanded the first non-quoted instance in that case).
• I think I've standardized all the access dates now.

I think that covers most of these items. I wasn't completely sure what to do in a couple cases, but made my best guess, so someone may want to sanity check me. Cheers. ← George ^talk 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested that we try to add another picture if possible. I've searched a number of places for a good, free image of the players with the US Open Cup. I've now given up on that, and pulled a good one from the Sounders FC image gallery. I've tried to provide a decent non-free use rationale for the image, but please double and triple check my work. I think this is all okay, the image just can't be used anywhere else in the encyclopedia. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely clueless when it comes to copyrights. I think it qualifies as fair use (historic event; non-reproducible), but I'm not sure if it qualifies for this article, or for the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup article. I doubt they would reply, but you could try to contact the Sounders directly to request copyright permission (they would have to remove almost all copyright protection, but maybe they would be willing to do it so for one image). Another option would be to try to post to the Sounders FC forums and see if anyone has some great shots they'd be willing to upload to Wikimedia (that might help us beyond just this article as well). Maybe we can use this image in this article with no problems—I really don't know copyright. It may be worth being proactive, and asking some experts to get their thoughts on the subject before someone flags it as a copyright violation. Cheers. ← George ^talk 04:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame but I assume it is enough of a grey area that some editors might object. The FUR is good but it might be worth asking someone super knowledgable about this.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the three articles, I really think Seattle Sounders (USL) and Seattle Sounders (NASL) should be merged into the main article, as they are all really just the same club, albeit with different company status. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on George's well thought out metaphor above, I think a number of the editors disagree that they're really just the same team. But, even if we all accepted that they are indeed the same team, if we were to try to put all of the information about all 3 teams into one article, it would be a very long article and people would start asking for it to be shortened and/or to split out sections into separate articles. As things are right now, I think the current article divisions make sense. We basically have a separate article about each era of Sounders history. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 16:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A few players and a minority owner do not make the same club. The operations of the teams and leagues are too different. It just isn't the way it works over here. A general Sounders article could work but as Skotywa says it would be a perfetct contender for a split.Cptnono (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; they really are different teams. There was almost no correlation between either the modern Sounders teams and the NASL Sounders (which went defunct in the mid-80s), except the name. The current Sounders FC has some commonality with the USL Sounders, with something like 25% overlap between the owners and players of the two teams, but again, this is largely circumstantial (Sounders FC needs players, USL Sounders goes defunct leaving a lot of local players as free agents, so the Sounders FC picks some of them up). More importantly, the Sounders FC tried to distinguish itself from the USL Sounders when it was formed. They specifically did not list "Sounders" as an name to vote on, until the fans complained (from April 2008):

"...the team left the team name up to an online fan vote between three names - Seattle Alliance, Seattle Republic or Seattle FC - but also allowed a write-in option after fan uproar about not including the Sounders nickname... The write-in name received over 20 percent more votes than any of the other choices. The Sounders nickname is currently used for the United Soccer League's club in Seattle and has been a staple of professional soccer in the area since the 1970s. The nickname will now have to be transferred from the ownership group of the current USL club, of which Adrian Hanauer is the principal owner, to the new ownership group, which Hanauer is also a part of. Also included in the ownership group are majority owner Joe Roth, Paul Allen's Vulcan Sports and Entertainment and actor Drew Carey."[1]

For all intents and purposes, these are two different companies, with only one of the several ownership partners in common, which is why the name had to be transferred from one ownership group to the other. ← George ^talk 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did have a good think about this. Firstly the NASL Souners are a totally difffernt team. As for the other two, I concluded that the precident set by Milton Keynes Dons vs AFC Wimbledon vs Wimbledon F.C., Thames Ironworks F.C. vs West Ham United F.C., and Gretna F.C. vs Gretna 2008 F.C. make this seem a reasonable split. The formation of one effectively meant the other's dissolution, but they are neither legal nor direct footballing continuations. -- WFCforLife (talk) 22:24, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - "All 22,000 season ticket packages offered by Sounders FC for their inaugural 2009 season were sold,[63] giving Sounders FC the most season ticket holders in MLS." I'm not sure that this sentence belongs in the ownership section. Does anyone have a problem with moving this into the inaugural season section (probably becoming the first sentence of the section)? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Another option for this (maybe if Sounders sell-outs/ticketing records become a recurring theme) would be to move it to the supporters section (see Arsenal, for example). ← George ^talk 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)