Talk:Burundi women's national football team/GA1

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 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) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the article solely to improve the clarity, conciseness and flow of the prose. I did move around a couple citations from the middle to the end of sentences, however, so let me know if you disagree with any of this. I think in these cases the citations can be at the end of the sentences, since it's not contentious material or direct quotations.--Batard0 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Now, moving to some broader things about language that I think should be addressed:

Ooops. Yeah. Everything in the infobox is supposed to be cited based on my understanding, and that's the trigramme. I could probably bulk up more of the football federation part indepently if necessary? --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest rephrasing or expanding upon the phrase, "several challenges that are Africa" in the lead. Africa is not in itself a challenge. You have a good listing of the challenges facing African women near the end of the article; perhaps you could put a shorter version of that here.
 * Fixed I think. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I put in a couple brief examples just to make clear what sorts of challenges we're talking about, but looks good.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Can the first sentence be: "The Burundi women's national football team represents Burundi in international football competition."? I think we need to establish exactly what it is right off the bat since that's critical to its significance. Then again, if the team hasn't participated in FIFA-sanctioned matches, is this even accurate? Let's discuss.
 * Fixed I think. They should be the representative team and they could. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ha. I think I understand what's going on here. We can't say the team represents Burundi in international matches because it hasn't played in a FIFA-recognised match, and yet the national team does exist. Hmm. I'm going to rephrase it a little to try to make this clear. This is a tricky one. But I think we can actually say they represent Burundi even though they haven't played in a proper international match, because the team itself is recognised by FIFA. It's like you or me being elected to, say, a legislature. Even if we haven't yet gone to the legislature to vote on anything, we still represent the people who elected us. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is probably the best summary of the situation. :) That they have FIFA recognition means they could theoretically compete at a match at any time but they have yet to do so. (Despite having been entered into tournaments.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are we getting the phrase "senior A team"? Is this official terminology? I can't seem to find mention of senior A-teams in a google search.
 * Senior A team is basically the FIFA designation for senior team, as opposed to a youth national team. In some sports and at some competitions, teams may enter two national teams, an A team and a B team with the A team being the main team and the B team being a development team.  This is generally not a case for most of the teams in question.  I can leave the A part out. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is better.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it the case that Burundi has FIFA-recognised senior and under-20 teams, but that the senior team has not played in a FIFA-recognised match? I'm just trying to make sure my understanding is correct.
 * The sources say a national team (senior) exists and has practices (or did in 2006) and was supposed to participate in some competitions but the team has not played in a single match. An under-20 national team exists. The under-20 national team has played in a few games.  Looking through French sources again to verify the lack of match play because the French one says no matches played. --LauraHale (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it.
 * What happened to the senior national team that was preparing for a qualification tournament for the Women's World Cup? We kind of leave that hanging...did they withdraw before it started? Did they play but were knocked out?
 * They did not play. I can find some sources that say they were supposed to play in games, but then no FIFA match record and no follow up to suggest a match went ahead. example of where they were supposed to play but FIFA says no match played. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's bizarre. I'm surprised by the number of times teams are scheduled to play in games but end up withdrawing. Just out of curiosity, is there any easy explanation for this?
 * Money. Relative importance of the women's game to the men's game.  Ability to travel.  (One team I have written about could not get visas to travel to another country to play.)  Religious issues.  Political stabilility.  A number of factors explain it. --LauraHale (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When we say Congo, are we talking about DRC or Republic of the Congo?
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the 2012 African Women's Seniors Championship different from the 2012 African Women's Championship?
 * Erk. Almost 90% certain they are the same thing. --LauraHale (talk)
 * I'm a little bit confused by the team not formally existing despite preparing to compete in various matches...any clarity on this point?
 * Not sure how to put it other than not having a played a FIFA recognised match means on Wikipedia that they do not exist. Some sources suggest the team exist but no information about practices, who was chosen, etc. doesn't mention women and the team is not ranked. These are all generally indications of a team being active and well, existing. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, interesting. We may have a conflict here. So from my understanding the team is recognised by FIFA but 1) has not played FIFA-sanctioned matches and 2) is not ranked by FIFA. Because it has not played a FIFA-sanctioned match, it does not technically exist. But if FIFA recognises the team, then surely it must exist. And there is evidence that it does exist, as you point out. Let's talk about this some more. Maybe there's an ideal way to phrase it so it's entirely clear.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the three articles we've been looking at (as opposed to an article like Saudi Arabia women's national football team where they do not want or where they lack FIFA recognition and thus you have unofficial national teams like Zanzibar women's national football team or Sudan women's national football team), there does not appear to be opposition to creating a team from the sources. Other factors appear to explain the lack of a national team record.  I can explain this but I don't know how to concisely word this. --LauraHale (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a grammatical error in Musonye's quote ("women's," not "women"). I fixed this, but let me know if you object.
 * No objections. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm having a little trouble understanding the following: "fundamental inequality that occasionally allows for female-specific human rights abuses." Is there any way we can be more specific? I mean, how does inequality "allow for" human rights abuses? Can we name specific abuses that this inequality allows for? I also have some slight concern about this on neutrality grounds; I'm sure it's absolutely true, but it sounds just a little un-neutral, as if we're accusing somebody of human rights abuses that we don't name.
 * The source says human rights abuses to women. Source actually says "It also raises the wider question of sport, leisure and women's access to resources across cultures. Women's football in in each of the case study nations here deserves a more in-depth study, but the situations in South America and in Africa are no less important. Against the fundamental issues of female poverty, lack of access to education and denial of human rights, a discussion of 'women's football' and 'football' may appear to be one of those semantic points of academic interest at best, at worst estentiall pointless."  (Pages 185-186) Hard to figure out how to convey that with out getting into copyvio problems.--LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'm going to rephrase it a little to make it sound more neutral...if we can come to an agreement on the phrasing, we can apply it across all these articles.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that FIFA would fund the sport, and yet the team hasn't participated in FIFA-sanctioned matches. That's really just an observation. I guess it's part of FIFA's agenda to promote football in places where it's underdeveloped.
 * FIFA pours in a lot of money to football around the world. I have my own speculation why.  (Think World Cup hosting and other corruption allegations.)  Sources don't really explain why, just that they do.  It is one of the reasons I think these articles are so important to write, because there is a bit of "Huh.  Interesting and weird."
 * I'm confused by the following sentence: "Fédération de Football du Burundi has the FIFA trigammed of BDI." I've never heard of a "trigammed" and we haven't talked about anything called "BDI". Guidance? Edit: Oh, I now see that BDI is its FIFA code. It'd be clearer if we spell out what this all means.
 * Yes, that's a good idea. I'd suggest not talking about the trigramme within the text itself, because we have that in the box and it's a relatively minor thing. I'll rephrase this slightly; let me know if you disagree.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the next bit, are we talking about a professional women's programme within Burundi created in 2009? Club-level matches, that sort of thing?
 * Yes, pretty much. I don't know if it is professional, just run by the national federation to formally organise the sport in the country. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is "Fufa"?
 * Federation of Uganda Football Associations and fixed/linked. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it right for Sub-confederation to come before Confederation in the info box?
 * infobox is set up that way. hence, I assume it is a MOS issue the footy people worked out. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote in the box at the end seems to be missing a word: "Women's football is now big deal." Is this intentional? I put an [a] in there for now.
 * Quote is accurate, so likely the speaker left it out. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fix these, and I think we'll be in pretty good shape. The refs look pretty much as good as they can be. I'm a little concerned about using the Musonye quote at the end of the Team section, because it's not referring directly to Burundi, which brings up focus issues. Let me know if you have any thoughts. --Batard0 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * One other thing: what do you think about moving Mulindwa's quote to the Uganda article? He seems to be talking about Ugandan issues; there's nothing that specifically relates to Burundi as far as I can tell.--Batard0 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Erk. Yeah.  Completely logical.  Done.  Moved from Burundi to Uganda. --LauraHale (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm now putting this on hold. I plan to allow plenty of time for responses, so no worries about that. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: this is almost ready. Just three things:


 * I want to make sure you're good with the changes to the sentence about challenges including inequality and human rights abuses targeting women.


 * I removed the country's FIFA code from the text. Should we put this back in because it's required by someone's guidelines?


 * I took out the bit about the team not formally existing, because I think it creates confusion. Instead I just left it saying the team is not ranked by FIFA. Is that all right?

If you're good with these, I'll take a final look and pass it unless anything comes up (I doubt that there will be anything else).--Batard0 (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All those things look good to me. :) Thank you for spending the time and doing a comprehensive review. :) It is much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Having fixed some issues, we've reached GA criteria compliance.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Clarity, conciseness, grammar and other issues have been fixed (see above).
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead and layout look fine, and words to watch aren't an issue. Fiction and list guidelines aren't applicable.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The ref formats look fine to me.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The article is properly cited.
 * C. No original research:
 * There's no evidence of OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The major aspects of the topic are here; nothing important is missing.
 * B. Focused:
 * It doesn't stray from the topic in unwarranted ways.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There aren't any neutrality issues.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * It's stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are appropriately tagged.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * No issues with appropriateness of images or captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Well done.