Seattle Sounders FC 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 11, 2007 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 3, 2009 Good article nominee Listed November 12, 2009 Peer review Reviewed November 29, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Football: American & Canadian / Seattle Sounders GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Seattle Sounders FC task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Washington / Seattle Unassessed Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle. United States: Washington / Eastern Washington Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Eastern Washington task force. Template:WikiProject Xbox

Template:Archive box collapsible

Hello. I have completed the GA Review of this article and I am now in the process of seeking a second opinion as this is my first GA Review. Right now, I have it listed as a pass. MobileSnail 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit summary by Socrunningman "I added in yesterdays attendance record and logged in the higher attendance cap(that of the stadium itself) for non MLS regular season games for the 2009 season. Should I make a note that it was cappe" I have used I have used "32,000 (MLS) (expandable to 67,000 for special events)" at Qwest Field by the way.

• The cap is mentioned in the prose so I don't think we need a special mention of it being capped in the info box. If there is a way to fit it in that doesn't clutter it ("capped at ####"?) it could work. Also, does anyone have a source with an official position othe capacity cap? I think that is worth a line or two if there is a good source.
• 69,000: The official capacity is 67,000. It is common for events to go over and I have seen 69k there but the official figure should be used. Hopefully, Sounders will cram that many in sooner than later so it can be represented in the record attendance mention.
• I have seen 32,000 and 32,400. Everything I have read says 32,000 but for whatever reason 32,400 was the capacity for the opening game (which I assume is the configuration currently used). Does anyone have a source or know? The discrepancy isn't a huge deal but would like to be accurate.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a credible source here for the 32,400 number. I've updated the prose. The infobox currently makes the claim that the capacity will be 67,000 for playoff matches which I don't think is known yet. That should be removed. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 20:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did they fit 32,705 people into the stadium for Thursday nights game if the capacity is 32,400..? ← George ^[talk] 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very common in sporting and music events for there to be an overage. Qwest has x amount of seats and the team probably accounts for no-shows (I think the number I I head on average in the industry was 5% or something). They probably had the extra bodies in the restaurant, GA, and divisibility (companions) sections. The building itself could hold God knows how many but according to the operator it is set. There s also a variance in public capacity, seating capacity, and actual capacity. There are only so many seats and the fire marshal wouldn't be happy if capacity was ignored. Cptnono (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love it but the recent addition seemed off. Anyone have any ieas how to use this: [1] Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of this Cptnono. Blog entries are not typically viewed as reliable sources so unless this is noted in a more credible source (such as the Seattle Times or the News Tribune) I think this needs to stay out. The article is pretty much "blog free" right now with the exception of some of the supporter group links (which I think are fine). Note that Jose Romero's blog entry links (there are many of them used as refs) should be considered just as credible as if they were published in the Seattle Times newspaper and not as typical blog entries (per WP:RS). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was worth a post here to ask if anyone has any quality pictures of the Sounders FC players. I've uploaded everything I had that was any good, but there's still a number of player articles without any picture of the player. If you have a good picture of one of the players with a missing picture and are willing to "donate" it to Wikipedia, please upload it.

The following players don't have any picture in their article at all:
Sébastien Le Toux, Tyrone Marshall, Sanna Nyassi, Peter Vagenas, Zach Scott, Taylor Graham, Michael Fucito, Evan Brown, Lamar Neagle, Terry Boss, and Stephen King.

The following players have old pictures of them in gear from a previous team:
Brad Evans, James Riley, Fredrik Ljungberg, Leonardo González, and Sigi Schmid.

I added pictures to the following articles, but if you have something better, please swap it in:
Fredy Montero, Steve Zakuani, Patrick Ianni, Tyson Wahl, Nathan Sturgis, Jhon Kennedy Hurtado, and Roger Levesque.

The following players are the only players that already had what I would call a good picture in their article:
Chris Eylander, Osvaldo Alonso, Kasey Keller, and Nate Jaqua.

Here

An IP editor recently made some changes to the kit colors in the article info box. The contents of this has been discussed previously in the talk archives. While I agree that the current state of the infobox reflects the most recent reality, I don't think the goal of the kit diagrams is to always be "live". Rather I think it's to convey what the club considers their "official" home and away kits. It's obvious at this point that they're going to mix and match things as we've seen at least 4 different combinations from them so far this season: G-B-G for all home matches so far[2] and some away[3], G-G-B for most away matches so far[4], most recently B-B-G[5], but we've also seen G-G-G against Chelsea[6], Barcelona[7] and at least one away match[8] (key... G=green, B=blue, ordering: shirt-shorts-socks). As the infobox sits right now, only two relatively uncommon combinations are represented, neither of which is the most popular G-B-G home combination, so I think some change is needed. I think G-B-G is necessary for the "home" kit. The second "away" kit is going to be contentious though. I'd prefer to go with B-G-B even though they've never actually worn that simply to illustrate all possibilities/combinations. Another option would be to add a 3rd kit and have both G-G-B and B-B-G represented. I'd prefer to keep it to two as 3 kits would spread the infobox out a lot (like this). Can anyone think of any other ideas or have any other preferences?

For reference, the kit shown on the season page is as it used to be on the team article. This isn't a huge deal to me (which is why I haven't reverted anything yet) but I do think what's up there now needs to be addressed. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is "official" according to the team is what it should be.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the press release regarding the "official" kit from last December: [9]. After reading that, I'm pretty sure it should be put back the way it was. Even though they've never actually worn B-G-B, that's their "official" away kit. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 09:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be awesome if someone has a picture they could add of the trophy ceremony at the US Open Cup. If not, I suspect it will be on display at the next home game for pictures anyway. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 07:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YukataNinja recently reverted my change to the statement: "Sounders FC management requested 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility..." in the footer of the Year-by-year section, citing the wording used in the source. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, so thought I'd request some comments on the issue. The source says:

"...if Seattle should win its quarterfinal game next week at Qwest Field, Adrian Hanauer will be asking federation officials, 'What if Seattle goes all the way?'

'We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer, and if we’re lucky enough to get past Kansas City,' says Hanauer, 'there will be another one next week, and I’d say the urgency level would be fairly extreme.'"

I don't know that my wording was correct, but I'm not sure that the source says that they had requested eligibility either (versus the source saying that they would request eligibility if and when they entered or won the final). Thoughts? ← George ^talk 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source = "plan". If I recall correctly someone had another source that said he actually did. Anyone have it?Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a second but I found the archive. I wasn't sure if it was the booze but it turns out we have had this conversation before! It looks like Yukata asserts that "“We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer" = they talked about it. The whole quote "“We’ve started that conversation with U.S. Soccer, and if we’re lucky enough to get past Kansas City,” says Hanauer, “there will be another one next week, and I’d say the urgency level would be fairly extreme.”" and "Hanauer will present a case that binds the two clubs together; one that makes Champions League berth transferable."=they planned on talking about it/did talk but it was not formal request. This isn't a big deal at all and I don't want to screw around with it too much so does "Sounders FC management expressed an interest in 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility if the USL Sounders secured an automatic berth by winning the 2008 US Open Cup." work? This asserts that it was some sort of discussion but not necessarily a formal request. There is a source for inquiring minds and then we can be done with it.

Also, I'm blaming SkotyWA for losing the archive since no one else has worked as hard as he has which leaves no other culprits :) Cptnono (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "discussed" instead of "expressed an interest in"? It's shorter, and I think a bit stronger than expressing interest (not as strong as formally requesting though). ← George ^talk 09:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way late on this but this looks best to me. Yukata Ninja (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to update this after I made the change. I change it to: "Sounders FC management discussed the possibility of 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League eligibility should the USL Sounders have secured an automatic berth by winning the 2008 US Open Cup. The USL Sounders lost to the Charleston Battery in the semifinals." ← George ^talk 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of creating a Seattle Sounders FC task force, as a sub-task force of the US & Canada footy task force. I've started a discussion on the topic here. If anyone is interested in joining, or has any thoughts on the idea in general, please feel free to join the discussion over there. Cheers. ← George ^talk 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the year by year from the article per the peer review. Please see the discussion and thoughts on it Wikipedia:Peer review/Seattle Sounders FC/archive1. I'm not married to the idea so if you hate please feel free to bring it up.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Fnb Sounders FC management discussed the possibility of 2009–10 CONCACAF Champions League
  eligibility should the USL Sounders have secured an automatic berth by winning the 2008 US Open Cup.^[1]
  The USL Sounders lost to the Charleston Battery in the semifinals.
• Template:Fnb Teams that qualified for the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League were ineligible for the
  2010 SuperLiga.

I've moved this table over to the List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons page I just created. I think that's the proper place for it long term. ← George ^talk 14:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no big issue here. I like tables, but this one needs more standardization throughout all football articles, I only really noticed it in MLS articles and everyone does it a little different. Yukata Ninja (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the infobox currently has too much information. This distracts from its purpose of being able to give the most pertinent information quickly to a reader. It also makes it scroll very long vertically, becoming hard to read and messing with the layout of the article. It expands into sections that it is not related with that could instead contain informative pictures. I make these suggestions with the peer review in mind of working towards FA. If you look around other articles, it seems mostly MLS teams are filling out as many of the infobox fields as possible. Just because this template has fields doesn't mean they need to be added in. Other soccer clubs around the world, ones that have reached FA status, contain much less information.

MLS Examples (What I feel is a bad trend):

• D.C. United
• Colorado Rapids

Good Examples (FA):

• Arsenal F.C.
• Chelsea F.C.
• IFK Göteborg
• Central Coast Mariners FC
• see: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football articles by quality/1

I propose shorting stadium text and removing first game, largest win, largest defeat, top scorer, and supporter groups. Yukata Ninja (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(LOL @ Colorado Rapids largest wins) I'm not opposed to your suggestion, though I'm not really opposed to including the information either. The difference seems to be enumerated at Template:Infobox Football club, which lists firstgame, largestwin, worstdefeat, topscorer, fansgroup, and honours as "MLS specific" parameters. Since none of the MLS teams has made FA status, none of the FA articles would include these parameters. That said, however, I'm not sure why these are MLS specific parameters... maybe an MLS-specific template was merged into the main template at some point. My instinct would be to follow the MLS standard in general, and leave them here for now, but to start a discussion at Template:Infobox Football club asking why they even exist. A better solution than just removing them here might be to remove them from the template itself (and thus, all MLS teams), if there's consensus to do so. ← George ^talk 17:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, they were inserted when merging an MLS-specific infobox into the main one. However, this move was largely to mollify a single editor (who has since been banned for sockpuppetry) who threatened to form a "breakaway" football project for US soccer if he didn't get his way. I agree they should be got rid of. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually like as much data as possible and having different navigational tools available. That being said, having a more uniform infobox across the project would be nice. We really don't need such a lengthy one and the largest wins and defeats is begging for trouble. Should we buck the trend for MLS teams and use Template:Football club infobox/doc?Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the issue over here. I'm really fine either way - removing the information here and removing the fields from the template, or keeping the fields and adding them to the non-MLS team infoboxes - but we should be consistent. ← George ^talk 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll self revert and make a mention on the main project page.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you needed to self revert when I opened the discussion (you can if you like, of course). I just wanted to get a discussion going on the template page to be sure we're all consistent. Cheers. ← George ^talk 01:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Better safe than sorry.Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This was a good suggestion and I think the article looks a lot better without all of those knick-knack details in the info box. I did add one item back regarding the current season and position just because all of the other WP:FA examples had it. If the preference is to not have that though, I'm fine with removing it. Anyway, overall, this is a big improvement. Good suggestion, discussion, and actions taken. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think things come across better too now. I think that the ranking is for the previous season, but we can leave it for now because the season will end in a week. But should stay there until this time next year when that season has ended. Yukata Ninja (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went ahead and removed the season, can add it back when the season is over. I shortened the text for capacity as it was somewhat confusing in the first place and the article covers it in more debth. It could even be argued that only the capacity of 32,400 should be listed, but I do not think that matters much. Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capacity thing bugs me aesthetically. Maybe just having: "Capacity 32,400(MLS)" and then letting the reader click on the link if they care to.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about just "32,400, expandable to 67,000"? The current "or" phrasing bugs me a bit too. ← George ^talk 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I think Cptnono's suggestion is perfectly viable too. ← George ^talk 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize someone already did "32,400 or 67,000" I don't mind that.Cptnono (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't like the "or" phrasing, as it seems pretty vague. Maybe we can add a footnote explaining why we're giving two numbers? ← George ^talk 00:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the footnote idea as that can be confusing too, unless we can deep link into the article. How about just having 34,400 as this is the majority of the time and the set amount for MLS which is the main focus. I dont think (MLS) is needed as that is the focus of this article also. The article covers when and why it can hold more. Yukata Ninja (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to make a distinction between Vulcan Inc. and Paul Allen on the various articles and template? I am under the impression Allen does not personally own any part of the Sounders.Cptnono (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can probably treat them as one and the same. Vulcan's website says that "Under the auspices of parent company Vulcan Inc., Paul Allen is invested in more than 50 companies..."[10] and "Paul Allen's holdings in NFL and NBA franchises underscore his great enthusiasm for sports and his belief in their positive effect on the greater community."[11] Basically the company manages Paul Allen's holdings and investments (in the way a stock broker might manage your investments), but they're still his, as far as I can tell. ← George ^talk 23:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article I used as a reference for him joining the ownership group mentions him and his company First and Goal. I've never seen Vulcan listed as being involved in his sports team activities at all. First and Goal is his "sports company" per se, but the only thing I've seen them (First and Goal) officially owning was the maintenance contract for Qwest Field (for both the Seahawks and Sounders FC). So, my conclusion based on what articles I've read, Paul Allen is the correct entry as the owner even though the company First and Goal has involvement as well. First and Goal has never been linked directly with owning Sounders FC, but they are usually mentioned in articles that point out Paul Allen as a Sounders FC owner. So basically what I'm saying (based on news articles) is that Paul Allen is the owner, not First and Goal, and not Vulcan. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 03:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First & Goal Inc. is one of the "50 companies" Vulcan Inc. invests in, but I think you're correct - sticking with Paul Allen is probably the most accurate thing to do. ← George ^talk 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section should be removed. Such sections are common but are not required. From what i have seen, there is not consensus at the footy project on what makes a former player notable (fan favorite, went on to play international ball, scored x amount of goals?). I it is also unsourced and they read like a list of trivia.Cptnono (talk)

Follow-up: I don't personally feel that Jon's disclaimer makes it OK. It is still without consensus, unsourced, and trivia. Good attempt in all seriousness though. Cptnono (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Most of the WP:FA club articles do not have a section like this and the ones that do have a deterministic way of listing players based on an external club source such as a "hall of fame" or "league top 100" or something. Jon's disclaimer is also interesting, as I don't think Le Toux actually meets any of the requirements listed. He never had a national cap while with the team, did not contribute significantly in terms of goals or assists, and recieved no league honors at all. I'm removing it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Jarrod Smith, played in the 2009 Confederations Cup while being a Sounder. Yes, he didn't play a game in MLS but did play two games in the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. (Antoinefcb (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

He never appeared for NZ in the tournament and never made a league appearance for the Sounders. No way is he a notable former player. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger point that I hinted at earlier which I'd like to reiterate, is that most WP:FA club articles (which this article will be counted among shortly) do not have a "notable former players" section. It's arbitrary and therefore not encyclopedic. At best it may be worth adding someting to All-time Seattle Sounders FC roster calling out "notable" players, but not here. Unless Sounders FC themselves have a method for recognizing notable former players (such as retiring a number, a team hall of fame, etc.) which can be added to the article and properly sourced (with an inline citation), this section should not be added. It seems like some of the comments above just want the section for the sake of having it. These types of contributions should be avoided I think. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 21:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You said "grammer" (I've done worse). As mentioned earlier, there is no precident for what names are included. This is something that needs to be taken care of at the footy project before it is done here. From the previous conversation on it:

• Sourcing is an issue (Who says they are notable? Are we doing original research and deciding on our own based on our set parameters? If so:

• Is it notability while at the club only, what they went on to do in there overall career, both?

I am not completely against the idea in general but do recomend bringing it up at the footy project. From experience with the current lack of a guideline, it will do nothing but clutter up the page with what might be considered excessive stats.

Alternativley, we could include this informaiton like La Toux being liked by fans due to his great USL days. Put it in the season article, his article, or as a line in the history section as the first signing. We don't need this list.Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we don't need it but it would be nice to have.(Antoinefcb (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree to a certain extent. In my opinion, it would be even nicer to expand upon in related sections or articles since prose are preferred over lists. And as mentioned above, an appropriate list format is utilized at All-time Seattle Sounders FC roster and prominently Wikilinked at the top of the section.Cptnono (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Links for the 2010 Seattle Sounders FC season for the Transfers are too be put. (Antoinefcb (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Look, for a player to be notable, his contributions count to more than just goals, doesn't really matter how many the player has scored. International ball and fan favorite are not important. So Removing the section was kinda pointless, SkotyWA, if I were you I would've just left it there. – Michael (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how it's removal was pointless given the first two sentences of that comment. Regarless, the topic has been discussed repeatedly on WP:FOOTY the most recent of which are here, here,here, andhere. The bottom line is that without some "official word" from the club or league (and inline citations to said "official word") sections such as these ammount to nothing more than WP:POV. Myself and a couple of editors have put a lot of effort into getting this article to WP:FA quality and will succeed at some point (hopefully with the next review). Looking at the other WP:FA club articles that exist, some have a notable former players section and some don't. All of the articles that do have such a section have inline citations or simply link to their "list of players" article. Having an unreferenced notable players section in this article will cause issues in the WP:FA review and need to be removed. I preempted that discussion and just removed it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FA review of this article was cut short because some of the prose constitute plagiarism when compared to the inline citations. For Wikipedia's guidance on how to address this, look here. I have begun a review of the entire article comparing the prose to the wording in the sources referenced. I've finished reviewing the article from the beginning through the "Stadium" section. Just taking a quick look at the first paragraph in the "Supporters" section, there is an obvious sentence that is taken verbatum from the source. I'll continue my review of the article for plagiarism over the next week. User:Awadewit has offered to assist in helping prepare this article for FA review again. After she gives the nod, it can be submitted again. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm done going through the article and comparing the prose with the sources being cited and rewording/removing any obvious similarities. There were a lot more violations that I expected. While my edits may accomplish the goal of removing plagiarism, they probably are not written in the most professional manner. Please, please review them and improve them as you see fit. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've gone through the article removing plagiarism issues, I decided to remove most of the following paragraph as well:

In early December 2008, Seattle Sounders FC reportedly offered a coaching contract to Sigi Schmid, who led the Los Angeles Galaxy to a MLS Cup in 2002 and the Columbus Crew to a MLS Cup in 2008. However, before Schmid could respond to the contract offer, the ownership of the Columbus Crew filed a tampering complaint with the MLS that put the offer on hold. The Crew's ownership believed that Schmid had contact with Sounders FC despite being denied permission to talk to other teams during the season and that he shared confidential information with Sounders FC after his contract with the Crew ended.^[2] The MLS ruled that no tampering occurred, but ordered Sounders FC to financially compensate the Crew before signing Schmid.^[3] Sounders FC officially introduced Schmid as their first coach on December 16.^[4]

I don't think this level of detail is relavant any more in the article. It might be interesting to add to the Sigi Schmid article, but I don't think it belongs in this article any longer. Please revert/discuss if you disagree. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that if it is decided to add this information back, the third sentence in that paragraph appears pretty much verbatum in the cited source. :( --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That amount of detail speculative wasn't really needed. Nice work on all the touching up.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent FAC, I agreed to do a line-by-line check of this article against its sources. I have now completed the "History" section.

• Wikipedia: "In 1994, as the US was preparing to host the FIFA World Cup, Seattle was one of more than 30 cities that expressed interest in acquiring an MLS team." - I would either quote or rewrite this.
• Source: "Seattle is one of more than 30 cities that have expressed interest in acquiring a team"

• I've rewritten this: In 1994, as the US was preparing to host the FIFA World Cup, more than 30 cities were pursuing the rights to an MLS team. Among them was Seattle. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cities seeking consideration for an inaugural MLS team were also expected to secure 10,000 deposits for season tickets. - I didn't see this information in the source.

• It was in an earlier source. I've fixed it up now. Somewhere along the way they got jumbled. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia: "Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was promoted as a venue for professional soccer." - I would rewrite this.
• Source: "That may come as a disappointment to some of the state's voters who helped pass the stadium referendum, in part, because it was promoted as a venue for professional soccer."

• I've rewritten this: Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was expected to be a professional soccer venue.--SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, in 2007, Hanauer worked with Hollywood producer Joe Roth to make another bid for MLS expansion into Seattle at an estimated cost of $30–$35 million. - This source appears to be an opinion column and notes that the cost will be $30-35 million, not that it actually was. I would suggest finding a more reliable source for this figure.

• I've found a better source that specifies $30 million exactly rather than an estimated range. I updated the prose to match. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The announcement also meant that the Seattle Sounders of the USL First Division would disband as the new MLS franchise was formed. - It is a little hard to pull this information out of the source. Do you have a more explicit statement of this fact in another source?

• There's a quote in the article from the owner which says: There has been a lot of speculation about the Sounders and what they'll do in 2008. They'll be back, and they will play their final season in Seattle in 2008," Hanauer said. This is in the context of the expansion anouncement for the 2009 season. What do you think of changing "disband" in the prose to "play their final season the year before the new MLS franchise was formed"? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your proposed rewording sounds fine. Awadewit (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made the update. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the names having been selected by internal committees and research with fans, the lack of an option to continue the Seattle Sounders moniker was an unpopular decision. - Is the phrase "unpopular decision" based on the following detail from the source - "But dozens wrote in protest that the name Sounders -- the name of Seattle's current soccer team -- wasn't among them"? Are "dozens" enough to generalize in this manner?

• I think I've found a better source for this. It more clearly characterizes how unpopular the decision was: Fans proved much, much more vocal. They swarmed the online forums, newspaper editors and pubs, pushing for an all-out wave of write-ins. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's another source discussing the unpopular decision to leave "sounders" off the list of choices: [12]. Let me know if you think it's worth adding this additional source to the article. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That first description you gave sounds excellent. The second source seems to be a good example. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason that first description sounded so good was because I was quoting it from the source. I probably shouldn't add it or we'd have plagiarism problems again. :-) I've added the update reference already, but I'm not sure if that's enough to justify the current "unpopular decision" wording in the article. With the updated source, do you think it needs to change still? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding the source is fine. Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle was the first MLS expansion team to win their first three games, and they did so with a clean sheet in each. - I didn't see anything in the source about a clean sheet.

• The source says: posting three shutouts. A shutout is a "clean sheet" in soccer terms. They are synonyms. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm misunderstanding - what does "clean sheet" mean? Does it mean no red cards, yellow cards, etc.? Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means no goals scored. The wikilink went to Shutout. However, I'm going to change the wording in the article to "with a shutout in each" rather than using the phrase "clean sheet". Based on the WP:ENGVAR guidance, since this is an article about an American team, we should use the American term which is shutout. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle finished the regular season with a record of 12 wins, 7 losses, and 11 ties. - I didn't see those stats in the source.

• That source is for the next sentence which states a fact about the attendance record. The club's final record for the season is not referenced because I didn't expect it to be a fact that would be challenged. If you think a source is necessary for this, I'm sure I can find one. Does this seem like a fact that is likely to be challenged to you? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more later. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your efforts with this article. It is great to have a fresh set of eyes on it. I'm a little embarrassed that I missed the two plagiarism violations in the history section. I hope I haven't missed any more. I look forward to your next round of comments. I also noticed a number of minor tweaks you've made as you embarked on your review. Thank you for those as well. The devil is in the details for sure. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Seattle Sounders FC plays home games at Qwest Field in Seattle, also home to the Seattle Seahawks. - I don't think the source actually says that the Seahawks play at Qwest Field.

It was mentioned in a later reference (42). I've added a second footnote link to it at the end of this sentence. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior to the start of their inaugural season, Seattle Sounders FC created a web site identifying seating arrangements for season ticket holders based on personal interests, including preferred method for watching a game and foreign team preference. - I don't understand the "foreign team preference" bit at all.

Yeah, this sentence has bothered me as well for different reasons. It's dated at this point and the effort really didn't pan out as the club had hoped I think. I'm just removing the sentence and merging the other sentence in the paragraph (about the training facilities) into the first paragraph. Maybe this sentence could be added to the 2009 season article when we rewrite it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This source does not say that the Sounders are "the only professional soccer franchise in America" with a marching band. You need to add a reference for that fact.

• This primary source says it is the first (instead of only). Goal.com (not sure if it is considered RS also says first.[13]. Do either of those work for adjusting the wording?Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a secondary source which reported on the press release you mentioned above here. I think citing press releases from the club is fine, but secondary sources (from newspapers etc.) are preferred. This should work. I've added the ref and updated the prose to say "first" instead of "only". --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Gorilla FC was formed as the reincarnation of a local politically liberal group to support Sounders FC. - The source does not seem to support this statement.

• This one had some promotional issues originally (see the first archive). Mathew Halverson (senior editor) wrote in the Seattle Metropolitan "Gorilla FC is the reincarnation of a local anti-globalization activist group, Gorilla FC." This source may only be avilable offline. Monica Guzman (Seattle Post-Intelligencer's first online reporter and the main contributor to The Big "Blog") wrote "Inspired by the liberal German soccer club St. Pauli".[14] We tried paraphrasing it without going into too much random detail. Will these be alright if I format the refs? I was also considering replacing the soundersfc.com source with this.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your link from Monica Guzman was a bum link, but the sentence helped me find it here. I've updated the sentence and the ref in the article. Thank you. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This source doesn't say anything about how the rivalries between Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver "were only formalized in 2004" with the creation of the cup. It only discusses the creation of the cup.

I've reworded the sentence to match the source: In 2004 the fan based Cascadia Cup was created to formalize the competition between the Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver USL teams.. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious why the Spanish announcers were left out of the article.

• "Calling the game in Spanish on THIS-TV (Comcast channel 114) will be Jaime Mendez with analysis from former USL Sounder Hugo Alcaraz-Cuellar, and on 1210 AM Ke Buena will be Rene Aleman, Noe Menendez and Victor Hernandez."[15]. Any thoughts on how to paraphrase this, Skotywa?Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at it. Thanks for finding the ref. I'm embarrassed that something obvious like this was missing from the article. Thank you for pointing this out Awadewit! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was talking to a soccer fan about this article and he was telling me that the reason that the Sounders did so well is because they bought foreign talent. I didn't remember reading that in the article - is that really the case?

• MLS has a set number of foreign players each team can have, and I haven't heard of any shenanigans. I was actually trying to look this up since one player might be considered a refugee (would be exempt if I recall correctly) and another is Puerto Rican (not sure how its status as a territory is handled by MLS). I was not able to find and coverage. Seattle did use the Designated Player Rule/Beckham Rule for Ljungberg. I think any addition might be SYNTHy unless someone does know of a source discussing it. Also, they did good but not amazing. There performance (good and bad) can be credited to a number of things.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't suggesting they did anything wrong. I was suggesting that one reason they did well was because they had as many foreign players as possible - that sort of thing. Their stars are foreign, not American - is that right? Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it isn't a stretch looking at the numbers. There top goal scorer and 3 of the 4 all-star selected for the '09 all star team were foreigners. I haven't seen anything equating foreign talent to overall performance, though. Detail would probably be best in the season article but a line saying something like "in there first year, foreigners such as so and so and so and so made x impact" could work if there is a source tying it together. Skotywa might have come across such an analysis of the season (would be really curious, actually) but it hasn't come through as a major variable in the coverage I have seen.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they "bought" one major foreign player in Freddie Ljungberg and then discovered a few more players who turned into stars after arriving with the team in Fredy Montero and Jhon Kennedy Hurtado. These details are discussed more in the specific season articles (or will be once Cptnono and I start focusing on them). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I've finished going over the article now. I'll start looking back over your responses later today. Once I strike through everything in the above lists, you are free to renominate. However, as a lot of people brought up prose concerns regarding the article at the last FAC, I would recommend some more copyediting first. I am willing to work on this and can suggest some good copyeditors as well, if you are interested. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you for your help reviewing this article. Given how far the subject matter is outside your normal body of work, I'm honored to have had your help with this article. It's cool to hear you're discussing the club with your friends. If it's not too much to ask I'd appreciate any further help you can give on copyediting and I'll follow up with any editors you suggest as well. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for the eyes Awadewit. Nice work as always for spearheading this Skotywa.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - it is nice to stretch my comfort zone. I'll start copyediting tonight. I would also recommend: Scartol, Brianboulton, 4u1e, and almost-instinct. Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done copyediting. If you respond to the comments above, I'll finish striking off my concerns in the above list. Awadewit (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been stricken! Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just list questions here as I go:

• The announcement provided a return of top-level soccer to Seattle for the first time since the dissolution... - What does "top-level" mean? Can we explain this in any way? Is this like Serie A? Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, there are several leagues, each at a different level of play/pay/quality. Currently in the US, MLS it the highest level, followed by USL-1, then USL-2, then a bunch of other smaller semi-pro leagues. Back in the 60s (before MLS existed), the NASL was the highest (and I think only) level of professional soccer in the country. So to say "return of top-level soccer", the point is that we had top-level soccer once with the NASL team, and we finally have it again with the MLS team. Between those time periods, Seattle had the USL-1 team for a number of years, but that was not the top league in the country. England has a similar "soccer pyramid" as well but it goes much, much deeper in levels. Did all of that make sense? --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 04:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may help... You mentioned Serie A. In Italy, Serie A is the top-level league in the Italian soccer pyramid. For comparison, here is a link to the current United States soccer pyramid. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe it could be reworded to something like: The announcement provided Seattle with a team playing in the highest league in the country for the first time since the dissolution.... Ugh, that's pretty poor I think. My brain can't come up with anything better for that though right now. Hopefully the concept is clear even though the phrasing is far from elegant. You can probably come up with something much more satisfying to read that gets the point across. Sorry for my stupor of thought right now. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about: With this announcement, Seattle will be playing in the highest league in the United States since the dissolution .... However, this is not entirely true, as the APSL in 1994 and A-League in 1995 were the top leagues in the country, but were still not considered div-1 (see American Professional Soccer League). Quite confusing, I think the pharase top of the United States Soccer Pyramid or division 1 of the United States Soccer Pyramid could be used but not highest league. Yukata Ninja (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the lower divisions being considered "professional" and the pyramid structure being confusing to those who don't know all of the ins-and-outs. The previous Sounders were playing in professional leagues but not necessarily the premier professional league. It is different than the farm systems seen in US baseball and basketball. "Top flight" is a common term for the English game but isn't really a term used often in the US. "Top tier" is used in the lead of Major League Soccer. "Top tier/level/flight" is somewhat self explanatory and might work with a wikilink to the pyramid structure. "...a return of top something soccer to Seattle..." Alternatively, we could spell it out word for word but I'm not sure if that would be better since it is kind of long and complicated. Those unfamiliar might be better judges of what is and is not clear.Cptnono (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to United States soccer pyramid would help a lot - I'm not sure which wording is best. Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using YukataNinja's wording, but it didn't fit right with the rest of the sentence. Instead, I've just added the wikilink to United States soccer pyramid as suggested. Let me know if you think further changes are needed here. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the abject pedantry, but that's my style :-/ I've avoided making many suggestions because my own prose style is very different to the one consistently employed by the writer/s of this article

History

• "These low numbers were a result of competition between the ticket campaign for the MLS expansion team" - This European reader has no idea what an "expansion team" is

  Wikilinked. ← George ^talk 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many of the state's voters who supported the referendum to construct Seahawk Stadium did so because it was expected to be a professional soccer venue" seems grammatically unclear
• "Just as the stadium problem in Seattle was resolved, a new problem emerged" - could be more elegant
• "Seattle was again listed as a possibility for a MLS expansion team in 2002" - the purpose of the date in this sentence is unclear. Suggest putting it at start.
• "Despite the names having been selected by internal committees and research with fans" - again, not very elegant
• "In response to the fierce fan reaction" - What fierce fan reaction?
• "Seattle Sounders FC began play in the 2009 season as the MLS's 15th team" - Were they no longer the 15th team by the end of the season?
• "and they did so with a shutout in each" - does shutout means the same as a clean sheet?

  Yup; wikilinked. ← George ^talk 10:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "(Chicago again was first)" - suggest "(again, Chicago had been first)"

  Changed. ← George ^talk 10:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The club set an all-time MLS record for average attendance of 30,943 fans per game" - is "of" the correct preposition here?
• "As part of the ceremony, the presenter of the Golden Scarf is also recognized" - unsure what this means

  I must admit, I don't understand this well myself. The source cited (the team's website) says: "Because of the arrangement of the ceremony, the club also has the opportunity to honor a presenter as well", but the website only lists recipients - not presenters. My suggestion would be to just remove this (somewhat confusing) sentence. ← George ^talk 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium

• "While Seattle Sounders FC plays on FieldTurf currently" - this might be an American/British English thing, but this feels very odd to me

  I think it's a minor grammar issue. I moved the word "currently" to before the the word "plays", yielding: "While Seattle Sounders FC currently plays on FieldTurf..." Does that sound better? I also reworded the latter half of this sentence, changing it from "Qwest Field has previously had a temporary natural grass surface installed for international soccer events" to "Qwest Field has previously had temporary natural grass installed for international soccer events"... it just felt too wordy to me, but editors should feel free to revert if they disagree. ← George ^talk 10:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters

• "The Sounders FC Alliance Council consists of members nominated annually by receiving at least 25 nominations from other members" - again, inelegant

  I changed this to "Members can also be elected to the Sounders FC Alliance Council by receiving at least 25 nominations from other members annually." Is that any better? ← George ^talk 10:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

• "Another of Carey's requests prior to his involvement with the team was that they have a marching band, making it the first franchise in the MLS to have one" - something seems to be missing from the middle of this sentence
• "in the all-inclusive sections 100 and 144–152" - what's an "all-inclusive section"?
• "Immortal Fury was formed in the fashion of South American torcidas" - more information would be nice at both ends of this sentence
• "The fan-based Heritage Cup competition with the San Jose Earthquakes was begun in the 2009 MLS season" - what's a fan-based competition?

  Not sure how to handle this one. The Heritage Cup was created (and funded?) by the Soccer Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SSVCF). That group describes itself as "the only all-volunteer, fan-based philanthrophy in American professional sports."[16] Maybe changing fan-based to fan-sponsored, fan-created, or fan-funded would make more sense (not 100% sure which of those is accurate though)? ← George ^talk 11:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership and team management

• "The team ownership is split among several investors" - again, could be more elegant; suggest something simpler.
• "Sounders FC officially introduced Sigi Schmid as their first coach on December 16, 2008.[63] Schmid led the Los Angeles Galaxy to a MLS Cup in 2002 and the Columbus Crew to a MLS Cup in 2008" - suggestion "Schmid had previously led..."

  Fixed. ← George ^talk 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Joining Henderson in the front office is" - I don't know what you mean by this

  I've wikilinked front office for now (a business term used to describe customer-facing operations). Others might have a better idea how to word this. ← George ^talk 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is useful, to some degree! almost-instinct 09:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all feedback is most welcome. Thanks much! ← George ^talk 10:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]