Talk:2012 CECAFA Cup

Article format

Hey fellow editors,

I just wanted to start a discussion on the format of the article to reach a consensus and prevent future edit-warring. I think the article should be like this; the tournament's stages in their own sections with tables showing the standings and the scores for the group stage and a bracket and tables showing the scores for the knockout stage (except the third-place playoff and final), like the 2012 Kagame Interclub Cup article. I think it should be like this because it gives the reader an easier time reading and understanding the article. It also enables him to view the details of the various stages in their sub-pages, or if he doesn't want to view them he can just read the summaries on the main page. This saves time, energy and possibly even money (to pay for the modem, etc.) for the reader. What do the rest of you think? Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I know my involvement in this article may seem a little over-the-top or too much, or maybe even ostentatious, but I'm an East African. And those of us who live here want to know as much as we can about what's going on within our boundaries. So I'm just working hard to ensure that those of us living in East Africa can know as many details as possible about a tournament that's important to them and is happening in their backyard (like the notice above says, WikiProject Football is a collaborative effort to improve coverage of association football on Wikipedia, and that's what I'm trying to do with this tournament and other tournaments/leagues). So if you don't even care enough to discuss with me in order to reach a consensus on the article's format then I don't think you're being as collaborative as you should be. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 01:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Davy, I personally don't have any problem with how you format the article. As far as I am concerned, the more information provided the better, it wasn't long ago that there wasn't even article on CECAFA or the Cups on Wikipedia! Where about in East Africa are you from, Kenya? TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear, then. And that's very true! The more information, the better! Other editors just want to keep it simple because it's a "small tournament" but they're not bearing in mind the people who actually live in the areas they're editing on and want to know more about what's going on within their boundaries. I'm Rwandan but I live in Kenya. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 15:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Totals table at bottom of article is incorrect

Goals scored & conceded 62 in 26 games is 2.38, not 1.19. Every goal is a goal for and a goal against, not one or the other, or half and half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.149.11 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's a problem with the template (fb cl3 footer); it was dividing total goals by total matches (wins+draws+losses, when it's meant to be wins+(draws÷2) since all total wins are equal to all total losses and since all draws involve two teams), but I've fixed it. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 20:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 CECAFA Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Good888 (talk · contribs) 09:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I found the following issues.

Background

• "However, in August 2012, CECAFA General Secretary Nicholas Musonye said that it would be moved to Uganda after a request from the tournament sponsors, East African Breweries." Change said to stated and also link East African Breweries.
• "However, CECAFA Secretary General Nicholas Musonye decided to move the remaining group games from the Namboole Stadium since it had been in bad shape due to heavy rains." Unlink Nicholas Musonye.

Participants

• "Tournament sponsors East African Breweries set a US$450,000 budget for the tournament" Unlink East African Breweries as you are going to link it in the Background section.
• "They replaced Djibouti" Link Djibouti.

Group stage

• "The matchdays were 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 November and 1 December." Rewrite to: "The matchdays were 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 November and 1 December."
• Add the results of the third place qualification matches.

References

• Link more of the publishers of these sources such as Goal.com.
• Refs 1, 8, 14, 21, 22, 24 and 27 are all dead.

External links

• Remove all bar the offical website.

The dead references are the biggest concern for me, especially ref 1 which is used three times. Going to place on hold for now. good888 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Good888: First of all thanks for the review. I'm going to implement the above changes except the point on the third place qualification. Matches weren't played to determine the best third-placed teams; they were ranked together as if they were playing in the same group and then the same tie-breaking criteria used for the groups themselves was used to determine who would go through to the next round. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Good888: I've implemented all the changes you outlined above (except the one I just mentioned), and hopefully the article is now GA material. Happy New Year! Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Davykamanzi: Thanks for addressing the issues. I am now going to promote to GA class. good888 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2012 CECAFA Cup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Uncited tables fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2015. Has the same issues as the 2000 CECAFA Cup and the 2013 CECAFA Cup which were delisted. That being unsourced statements and the article not being broad enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.