Wikipedia

Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team/GA2

< Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PCN02WPS in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

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

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)Reply

Overall comments

edit
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)

edit

History

edit
  • "which ended in a 1-1 tie after Guinea-Bissau led 1-0 at half-time" → both hyphens (-) should be converted to en-dashes (–).
  • "where Guinea-Bissau lost to Guinea 1-3." → same as above point
  • "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
  • The abbreviation "(CAF)" can be given after the organization's full name is given for the first time, and used subsequently.

Background and development

edit

Coaching staff

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

Current squad

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

Competitive record

edit
  • 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

edit

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

edit

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)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guinea-Bissau_women%27s_national_football_team/GA2&oldid=1087647747"