Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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:

• Burundi women's national football team
• Central African Republic women's national football team
• Gambia women's national football team
• Guinea-Bissau women's national football team
• Togo women's national football team

--Batard0 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've now gone through this one, too, with edits for clarity and conciseness. Please let me know if you object and we can discuss. Here are some more specific points.

• The first sentence is excellent. Can we use the same format for the others? The whole lead is good.
  • Should mostly be close to that. Can work on that to remove it a bit from other articles. --LauraHale (talk)
• Just one question, though: can we be more specific about what we mean by a "women's football programme"? Are we talking about a programme to train young women for the national team?
  • The sources don't specify exactly what is meant by it. I can make probably reasonably accurate interpretations what it means but I wouldn't bet the the farm on it with out more sources. (Basically, player registration, club registration, spending money on grassroots football and exploring the creation of / support for a national team.) That's a guess based on having read everything else in those sources. (When not programme exists, no player numbers exist.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Best to leave it then to avoid OR.--Batard0 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Do we need to have how many training sessions the team held? This seems like a minor detail, unless I'm missing something.
  • May not be necessary but with teams with few details, it appears important to say they do actually train. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Keeping it in, in that case.--Batard0 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I deleted some of the statistics about Guinea-Bissau's rankings in individual years. It was simply a list of years and rankings: They were 100th in 2006. They were 105th in 2007. They were 153rd in 2008. Sort of like that. I think this is a distraction; readers will lose interest. I hope you agree. I tried to boil it down to only the more significant figures.
  • So long as the ranking information as it relates to the infobox is maintained... as these rankings tend to be really important for many people as they give a global idea of how well a country is doing. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• When we talk about Guinea's best-ever rise in March 2008, is this month-on-month? Year-on-year?
  • From the previous ranking period as recorded by FIFA. --LauraHale (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Can we rephrase the sentence where we talk about football being played in schools by girls aged 12 to 14? Right now it reads as if these young girls are the center of football activity in the country. Also, surely it's played not only by students between 12 and 14; there must be teams in schools where people are both older and younger, right? Perhaps this is best fixed by broadening it, saying something like it's a popular sport in the country's schools.

• What is the nature of the women's football programme? Is it run by the association?
  • Tweaked. --LauraHale (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• What's the senior national championship? Are these women on national teams?
  • No idea if they are on the national team. It would be a top level national competition. Changed the wording to hopefully better reflect this. --LauraHale (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Same issues with the human rights stuff.
  • Added more sources. --LauraHale (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's all for now. Let's talk about these issues; once we work them out we should be well on the way. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: It's looking better. Just one two things:

• In the final graf, we say the team had 80 clubs, and three four women only. Two sentences later, we say there were 24 women's teams in Guinea-Bissau. Something's not adding up, unless we're talking about two different levels of football or something.
  • • Text says: "By 2006, the country had 380 registered female players.[2] The country had 80 total football clubs, five of which were mixed and three of which were for women only.[2] By 2006, there was a national women's football championship.[2] In 2009, there were 24 active women's teams in Guinea-Bissau. " In 2006, there were THREE women's only teams and FIVE mixed gendered teams. By 2009, there were TWENTY-FOUR women's teams. Math adds up as we had an increase of around 21 teams in three years. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can we rephrase the sentence where we talk about football being played in schools by girls aged 12 to 14? Right now it reads as if these young girls are the center of football activity in the country. Also, surely it's played not only by students between 12 and 14; there must be teams in schools where people are both older and younger, right? Perhaps this is best fixed by broadening it, saying something like it's a popular sport in the country's schools.
  • • Though I fixed this? Now reads as "Football is the country's most popular sport for women, and is supported by football programmes in schools." --LauraHale (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, missed it, sorry.

Fix this and it should be ready.--Batard0 (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're good now. I made some tweaks here and there on a final cleanup sweep, but nothing major. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Having worked out various issues, the article now meets GA criteria.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is clear and concise, with no grammatical or spelling errors.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   It complies with basic MoS considerations.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   The references appear to be reliable sources and are properly formatted.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Inline citations are used in the text where appropriate.

   C. No original research:

   There's no OR here.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It covers the major aspects of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   It's focused and does not veer into unnecessary detail.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality's not a problem.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars at all.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are tagged where relevant.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate for the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass. Well done.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guinea-Bissau women's national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414133659/http://www.cafonline.com/competition/african-women-championship_2010/results to http://www.cafonline.com/competition/african-women-championship_2010/results
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510122431/http://www.cafonline.com/competition/all-africa-games-women_2011/groups to http://www.cafonline.com/competition/all-africa-games-women_2011/groups

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'll be reassessing this page to determine whether it still meets the GA criteria. The article was originally promoted on 29 June 2012 following this review. A link to this reassessment will be posted to the talk pages of the following WikiProjects: Football/Women's football task force, Guinea-Bissau, and Africa. Comments will follow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Overall comments

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few points here, which are broken down by section below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'm sure this goes without saying, but lists aren't supposed to be empty; one list at "Recent call-ups", two at "Most capped players", and two at "All−time record against FIFA recognized nations" are empty. Layout-wise, there are two sections orange-tagged as being totally empty, and four that are orange-tagged as needing expansion. Redlinks are certainly not a problem but I can see no reason to have a {{Main article}} populated with a redlink, as in Guinea-Bissau women's national football team results and List of Guinea-Bissau women's international footballers. There are numerous other layout issues that can be sorted out if anyone is interested in fixing this up, as this is looking a disaster at the moment.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References No. 18 and 19 are formatted incorrectly; the former is a bare URL, which is even more problematic.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Individual sources can be assessed once the other issues have been taken care of.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The first sentence in the second paragraph, detailing some of the teams ranking history, needs to be cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig looks good apart from a Wikipedia copycat site, which is not an issue.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Numerous empty sections that do not provide context on the topic, and numerous other sections without prose or meaningful information.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	If anything, the opposite is the problem, see above.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues with NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article has been updated numerous times in spurts on 14–23 February, 17 April, and 30 April of this year, but mostly all by one editor.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image used (team logo); fair use checks out.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only image is the team's logo, which is relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.

Issues with criterion 1(a)

History

• "which ended in a 1-1 tie after Guinea-Bissau led 1-0 at half-time" → both hyphens (-) should be converted to en-dashes (–).
  • Y Done. --SuperJew (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• "where Guinea-Bissau lost to Guinea 1-3." → same as above point
  • Y Done. --SuperJew (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• "The team has not participated in some of the major international and regional football competitions, including the Women's World Cup, the 2010 African Women's Championship and the 2011 All-Africa Games." → Is there a need to specify the years of the last two competitions if the team has not competed the tournaments since then either?
• "but fell to the 33rd in Africa" → remove bolded word
  • Y Done. --SuperJew (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• The abbreviation "(CAF)" can be given after the organization's full name is given for the first time, and used subsequently.
  • Y Done. --SuperJew (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Background and development

• Link UEFA to "Europe" and Soccer in the United States to "the United States"
  • Y Linked United States to Women's soccer in the United States as I think that's a more appropriate target. I'm not sure UEFA is an appropriate target to link Europe to. --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• "...also an issue: Most of the financial..." → comma instead of a colon, and a lowercase "most"
  • Y Reworded,. --SuperJew (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Coaching staff

• Needs to be updated to include the full current staff as well as past managers, etc.

Current squad

• Needs to be cleaned up and information should be added for listed players.

Competitive record

• I'm not sure of the need to include tables for tournaments which the team has never qualified for, especially since they're just lists of "Did not enter" and "Did not qualify", repeated. There is no actual "Competitive record" listed at all for these tournaments.

All−time record against FIFA recognized nations

This section is the most bizarre, for multiple reasons:

• A different country, Djibouti, is mentioned numerous times.
• Placeholder information seems to be present "*As of xxxxxx after match against xxxx."

Overall review conclusion

WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity. As there has been no activity on the review for ten days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 1b, 2a, 2c, 3a, and 3b, at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)