Talk:Central African Republic women's national football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning a review of five articles about African women's football teams simultaneously. Unless they're finished earlier, I will put them on hold for at least a week and a half as the review process continues, recognizing that this will likely be somewhat more complex than the average GA review. For reference, the articles are as follows:

--Batard0 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done the first pass on this one too. I made some edits for clarity and conciseness of the prose; let me know if you have any issues on that front. Here are some specific things, as usual.

~~Same concerns on first sentence in first point about Burundi.~~
- Think I fixed here by adding additional sources. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under Performance, I'm not sure if the team's training schedule fits in here. I felt surprised when I read it and thought, "hmm, what is this doing here?" Perhaps we should delete this, because I'm unsure exactly where to put it. Any thoughts on this?
- I tend to think it should be there as it indicates they do train, even if the team plays in minimal games. Also, given minimal information on the team, I tend to be include as much as possible about the team. Tried better flow for it but would be okay with being removed. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to standardize the section heading names across these teams. The Burundi one is "The team" and this one is "Performance". Are they different because CAR's team has actually played in some matches?
- Changed all three to actually say team as the sections in all are pretty much about the national team (and its daughter national teams) both for performance and specific team histories. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Same issue as with Burundi with the "trigramme". I now believe this refers to the team's FIFA code. Can't we take it out of the main text since it's in the info box? I don't think it adds a lot.~~
- I would be okay with it being removed. The only reason I had it in the article was because my understanding was everything in the infobox needed to be sourced in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to take it out, because I really think it's incidental and it's already included in the box.--Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happened after the walkover win in the African Women's U-20 World Cup qualifiers in 2010? Did the team lose the next game?

~~Same issues as with Burundi on the human rights abuses.~~
- Think I fixed by adding more sources. Not sure how to go about it more than that because I have problems of going "human rights abuses in Africa seem obvious" to me. Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Somalia abuses have been pretty well documented elsewhere and going into it too much more feels like it makes it a much bigger problem. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to lift the text from Burundi on this one, because I think we had it sorted there pretty well.--Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~When we say 80 teams with women on them, are we talking about local clubs or what?~~
- My assumption would be clubs registered with the national football federation. The source (added page to reference) just says:

Football clubs 80 Total number of football clubs 60 Number of clubs with both men’s and women’s teams 20 Number of clubs with women’s teams only --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok, sounds good. I changed the phrasing just slightly to say "club-level" teams. Let me know if that's not correct.--Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I assume we're not talking about national-level play when we're discussing FIFA giving assistance to develop a programme.~~
- The money may go there, but most of the sources I've seen has been developing the game in general to help eventually elevate the national team. One feeds upon the other. Which comes first? Chicken (grass roots support of the game) or egg (viable national team)? In some cases, FIFA funding has gone towards international umpiring and improving the pitches at national stadiums. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to eliminate the passive voice in the last two sentences, but I need to know who developed the women's programme with help from FIFA, and who created the national competition and school competition. Any guidance?
- That would be the national federation. In this case, Fédération Centrafricaine de Football. FIFA works with the national federation for these development programmes. --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there nothing to say about Fédération Centrafricaine de Football and its promotion of women's football?~~
- - See above comment. I think I fixed this better? --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. If we can get these things resolved, we're well on our way. Getting to a consensus on the points that are common to all of these articles will also make other reviews easier. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now putting this on hold and will proceed to the next one.--Batard0 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is looking good. Just two outstanding issues I see:

~~What happened after the walkover win in the African Women's U-20 World Cup qualifiers in 2010? Did the team lose the next game?~~
- - Added information to the text to say they then did not participate because they did not play another match and did not qualify. --LauraHale (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a contradiction of sorts when we say in the lead that there are "only 400 players" competing at the national level, but then at the very end, we say there are 20 women's teams and that football is one of the most popular sports. Is there any way to resolve this? I think it's probably ok as is, but it would be good if we could clarify it at least a little.
- - The issue is player registration. If you have a kickabout and go to games, it makes the sport popular. This is different than joining an organised club. (Football/Soccer really only requires a ball to play. Cheap and easy to do.) Hence for me, not a contradiction but yeah, a way to word it needs to be better.--LauraHale (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we can sort this out, I think we'll be on our way.--Batard0 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine now. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Having made some improvements, the article now meets the GA criteria.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is clear and concise, with no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
It complies with the relevant MoS criteria.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
References are there, and they appear to be good sources.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
There are inline citations where appropriate.

C. No original research:
There's no evidence of OR here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It covers the major aspects.

B. Focused:
It's focused without getting into unnecessary detail.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No issues with POV.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
It's stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images have appropriate fair-use rationales.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are appropriate for the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass. It meets GA criteria.