Talk:2021 Africa Cup of Nations final

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

I'll be taking this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   While spelling and grammar are mostly accurate, the prose is often awkward. I will provide specific examples down below, once other issues have been fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   MOS:LS - Fail. The lead section fails in its main duty - to summarise the most important contents of the page. It, instead, only talks about the background and post-match sections!!!. This must be improved immediately. In addition, it fails MOS:REDUNDANCY - why is an opinion of a not-very-well-known reporter presented as the definitive statement on the match?

   Done, expanded and improved the lead section. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUT - Hold. The pre-match and team selection sections can be merged. The post match section should be enlarged. The number of single-sentence/single-line paragraphs should be minimized (see MOS:PARA).

Done with that. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:WTW - Hold. As noted, 'biggest party in country's history', being unsourced, fails MOS:PEACOCK. 'Egypt's strategy was to frequently time-waste' - possible breach of MOS:EDITORIAL - using a statement of opinion in an article as a statement of fact on Wikipedia. etc. - will discuss after more egregious problems are fixed.

I sourced the statement about the party, and removed the opinion statement. Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:WAF - N/A

MOS:EMBED - N/A

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Some statements, presented as facts, are unsourced. See facts presented in the background section. Also, there isn't any need for the same reference to be repeated for every match event - see WP:TOOMANYREFS. One citation of that Guardian source at the end of a paragraph, with additional citations for claims that weren't made in that source, should do.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Marca saying that the post-match parade was 'the biggest party in the country's history' is likely hyperbole, unless you can find specific figures that say it was bigger than every Independence Day celebration, for example. Will go through sources to check WP:V soon.

I found a few more sources that back up that claim. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Will check the article thoroughly later to make sure no incidents of WP:SYN.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I have moved the Olembe stadium image to the main body, and have implemented File:2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final Poster.jpg which I uploaded and tagged, for the main infobox image. I did this without waiting because it is a fair-use image, with all that entails.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @ArsenalGhanaPartey:, this article will be a lot of work to get it up to GA-class. I will put more suggestions up as we work through them, but for now, I would suggest getting started on the lead, the layout, and the citations. I'd like to hear what you have to say about the image change, in addition.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If you need inspiration, I would suggest looking at articles such as 2010 FIFA World Cup Final, 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final and 2005 UEFA Champions League Final as examples of comparable-size football events which have achieved GA-class or higher. You need to be near the standard exhibited by these articles, which this article is not, at the moment.

---

Please respond below this line.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, Thank you for the detailed review. I noticed the match poster that you uploaded had been tagged as "non-free" at Wikimedia Commons. I also originally wrote the lead and tried to cover the entire article in this revision, (although it wasn't perfect and could have used some improvements as well), but another editor removed most of its content, and it was my fault for neglecting to add it back. I will work on the issues that you mentioned as much as I can. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@ArsenalGhanaPartey:, thanks for your response. Yes, the poster is non-free use — limited use of certain non-free images is allowed per WP:NFCI (this poster comes under #4 on the list). That earlier revision's lead is much better, but will still need work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, I've now made the improvements you've recommended, can you possibly have another look if the article meets the criteria? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Hello, I am giving you another reminder. I've now made the improvements you've recommended, can you possibly have another look if the article meets the criteria? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Sorry for the delay, @ArsenalGhanaPartey:. I will go through the article now. Lead

• The participants in the match should be in the first sentence — see MOS:FIRST

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:LEADCITE — there should not be citations in the lead, as nothing in the lead is controversial enough to warrant them.

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:NUMERAL — integers from zero to nine should be in words.
• "Senegal reached the final by finishing on top of their group with 5 points" — no, they progressed from the group by finishing top. Clarify.

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• A detailed rundown of the penalties is not necessary in the lead. Something like "the score was 3-2 to Senegal when Edouard Mendy made a decisive save from Mohanad Lasheen; Mane, who had missed his earlier penalty, ..." will do fine.

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "After the match, Sky Sports' Janine Anthony said about Senegal, "They were the better team...it is Senegal's night." — as stated above, irrelevant, maybe move to the post-match section.

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "It ended up becoming the biggest party in the country's history." - neither source follows WP:RS; unless you can find reliable evidence that the party was the biggest in Senegal's history, the sentence can go.

I changed the sentence to: "It ended up becoming one of the biggest parties in the country's history." I hope that is appropriate. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Last sentence — see both MOS:NUMERAL and MOS:NUMNOTES — the sentence should be written "Senegal rose up two spots in the world rankings to 18th, their best-ever ranking, while Egypt rose up eleven spots to 34th."

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Background

• citation 9 (""Cameroon stripped of hosting...") can be placed at end of sentence.
• "CAF President Ahmad Ahmad later said that Cameroon had agreed to host the 2021 tournament instead." citation does not verify statement.
• End of first paragraph needs a citation.
• "Egypt appeared" --> "Egypt were appearing". Same with Senegal.
• In the "They had previously won..." sentence, the RSSSF citation is unnecessary, and the Encyclopedia Britannica one should be placed at the end of the sentence.
• "With this final, Egypt surpassed Ghana in number of final appearances" - repetition of 'final' unneccessary, I suggest combining the sentence with the first one in the paragraph.
• "This tournament also marked the first time Carlos Queiroz have guided a national team to the Final of a competitive football tournament, having done so only with Portugal U-20." Not entirely sure why this is relevant, but it should be referenced, and "Final" should not be capitalised.
• "Senegal appeared in their 16th tournament, and their third final. They had lost in both of their previous finals appearances." --> "Senegal were appearing in their 16th tournament, and their third final, having lost on both previous occasions..."
• The Senegal paragraph needs a citation.
• "Senegal were topping the FIFA World Rankings among African nations (20th in the world)" --> "Senegal, in 20th place, were the highest African nation in the FIFA World Rankings.

Done with all of them. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to work in the near future. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I have now improved the article in the ways you asked me to. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@ArsenalGhanaPartey:, please note that I have substantially edited the pre-match section for better paragraphing — please let me know if there is anything you disagree with. I will be busy tomorrow, but I should provide further notes on Thursday. Thanks for bearing with me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 No problem. I think everything is fine, but I'll try to improve the article in any way I can. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Do you have any further comments on how to improve this article? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

ArsenalGhanaPartey, thank you for reminding me.

Route to the Final

• Table looks good.
• "of the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations" isn't needed for either side - we know the tournament.
• "However, the Pharaohs came back quickly four days later with a 1–0 win to Guinea-Bissau" — very informal, please rephrase.
• "behind Nigeria which became the only team of the competition" --> "behind Nigeria, who were the only team across all six groups"
• "who topped their group" --> "who had topped their group", "and defeated" --> "having defeated"
• "A goalless match saw both teams advance to a penalty shootout; as Eric Bailly kicked his team's third spot-kick he saw it saved by substitute goalkeeper Mohamed Abou Gabal (Gabaski), who came on as a replacement for Mohamed El Shenawy in the 88th minute; Salah converted the decisive spot-kick..." --> "A goalless match was followed by a penalty shootout; after Eric Bailly's shot was saved by substitute goalkeeper Mohamed Abou Gabal, Salah converted the decisive spot-kick..."
• "Then they met Morocco" short unneccessary sentence.
• "the equalizing goal" --> an equalizer
• "This victory meant Egypt reached their 10th Africa Cup of Nations final and were the first ever team to win three consecutive knockout matches in the competition after extra time." source(s) needed.
• "they met one of the best third-placed teams in Cape Verde" - awkward, rephrase.
• "During this match, Patrick Andrade and goalkeeper Vozinha from Cape Verde were sent off in the 21st and 57th minute respectively; as such, striker Garry Rodrigues got replaced by Márcio Rosa two minutes late" - late=later? later than what? clarify.
• More detail needed about the semi-final — scorers, etc.

Done with all. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Pre-match

• There shouldn't be a comma after being.

Done. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Match

• "Abdelmonem picked" --> "was awarded"
• "Senegal dominated the first half by playing mainly down the wings, aiming crosses towards their forwards, but none resulted in a goal." Source needed.
• "Senegal got an indirect free kick of their own in the 39th minute. Famara Diédhiou flicked Ismaïla Sarr's cross towards goal, but it was easily saved by Abou Gabal." -->
• "Another Senegal chance came in the 39th minute, when Famara Diédhiou flicked Ismaïla Sarr's cross towards goal, but Abou Gabal easily saved the shot."
• The creative penalty descriptions ("smashed his penalty down the middle", "sent Mendy the wrong way", "slotted away", "smashing it into the roof of the net", "decisively saved the penalty") are unneccessary; "scored" and "saved" are perfectly fine to repeat.

@AirshipJungleman29 I completed all the suggestions you asked for. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A further few touches after these and GA status should be a formality. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on those soon. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Have done one or two further edits. Article now ready for promotion. Congratulations! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the great review! ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Appeared as a bold link on ITN and is thus ineligible for DYK.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Cissé managing Senegal at the 2018 FIFA World Cup

• ... that Sadio Mané scored the winning goal in the penalty shooutout of the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final after missing a penalty earlier in the match? Source: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/60186276
  • ALT1: ... that Sadio Mané scored the winning penalty for Senegal in the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final after missing one earlier in the match? Source: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/60186276
  • ALT2: ... that Senegal coach Aliou Cissé (pictured) won the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final as manager after losing in the final 19 years ago as a player? Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/6/mane-converts-decisive-penalty-as-senegal-win-afcon-final
  • ALT3: ... that Senegal coach Aliou Cissé (pictured) managed his team to a victory in the 2021 Africa Cup of Nations Final after losing 2002 final as a player? Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/6/mane-converts-decisive-penalty-as-senegal-win-afcon-final
  • Comment: I have less than 5 DYK Credits, so I am exempt from QPQ.

Improved to Good Article status by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk). Self-nominated at 16:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC).

• Unfortunately, I believe this article is ineligible for DYK per WP:DYKCRIT, criterion 1d: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". The article's talk page shows it was featured as the bold link in a hook in the "In the News" section on 11 February 2022, posted at the conclusion of the tournament in accordance with WP:ITN/R. The article does look very good, though, and congratulations on the GA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)