Talk:1991 UNCAF Nations Cup/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Will complete this within 48 hours ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! If there is anything you would like me to do to improve the article, let me know! Hawaiifive0 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * Bearing in mind that the article is just the form of lists, the lead acts as the main point of prose. Usually the lead shouldn't contain any information that is not mentioned later on in the article, so I checked for that and found it to be alright
 * "It was organized by the Unión Centroamericana de Fútbol or UNCAF" - why is that italicised? Usually institution names aren't. It might read better as It was organized by the Unión Centroamericana de Fútbol (UNCAF) (if that is what UNCAF stands for)
 * I found that non-English terms are usually in italic.


 * The lead can be expanded to summarise the article better - a merit I usually go by is that the lead should act as a "mini article" and that is should contain snippets of every section in the lead. At the moment the lead is missing content from the mascot, squads and host selection sections. I think that this can be easily achieved by shifting content around
 * Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawaiifive0 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Four teams qualified to enter the tournament" - later in the article is says that "four teams qualified for the finals", so did more than four teams take part?
 * Fixed.


 * "During the CONCACAF Congress" - what does CONCACAF stand for? Should be explained before its use
 * Fixed.


 * All red links from the Referees section should be de-linked if they're not notable
 * Fixed.


 * "for Central America took place in Guatemala City" - link Guatemala City (or the stadium itself)?
 * Guatemala City is already linked.


 * Can the prose of the Venues section be expanded in any way at all? I would hate for this article to not meet the "broadness" criteria
 * Only one venue...


 * The prose underneath the Accommodations and Training Grounds subsections looks like that it inter-laps with each other, but in fact the line between "UNCAF Nations" and "Six" makes it look like it is the same section. Do you know what I mean? It wouldn't affect the GAN, but I found it confusing at first!
 * Fixed.


 * Can the Format section be expanded anyway? Was there more to it? Any more rules or regulations for its starter year?
 * Fixed.

On hold
I like this article, but in its current standing I think it is missing some prose content and the lead could also summarise the article a bit better. But I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days for you, so if all the improvements could be made I think that this could have a fighting chance of meeting the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed due to inactivity. Please feel free to renominate when ready ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 20:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was dealing with a winter storm. I will be able to fix everything by tomorrow evening. 2602:306:BD58:CDD0:180D:7348:90FA:4CDF (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok...done!Hawaiifive0 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing them, please make sure to renominate the article at WP:GAN and then I can review it again if you like? ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok...it has been renominated! Hawaiifive0 (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)