Talk:Guinea-Bissau women's national football team/GA1

GA Review

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

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.