Talk:Gambia 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) 12:21, 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) 12:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made some edits for clarity and conciseness; please change if necessary and let me know. Here are some specific points:

That's about it for now. It looks all right; addressing these things will go a long way toward getting this in line with GA criteria. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * First sentence issue, as with Burundi and CAR.
 * Done I think? --LauraHale (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In the third sentence of the Team section, can we put in the year in which the Gambia Football Association was founded? So "since the founding of the Gambia Football Association in XXXX" etc.
 * Fixed? --LauraHale (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first section is called "Team", but it's "The team" in Burundi. I suggest we standardize these, however you suggest.
 * Changed. --LauraHale (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the outcome of the Sierra Leone game? Was it played?
 * At the time it was nominated, I don't believe the game had been played. In any case, this information has now been added. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find a wikipedia page for the African Women's U-19 Championship. Does one exist under another name? Would be good to link it if there is, or perhaps redlink it if not.
 * Made a link. Pretty much the competition before they did the age change to reflect FIFA changes. --LauraHale (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Same stuff with the human rights issue in the background section.
 * Added more sources like the other articles. --LauraHale (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It confuses me that the national football association was founded in 1952 and became affiliated with FIFA in 1968, while the women's team hasn't played a FIFA-sanctioned match. I assume this means there were men's teams but no women's teams until more recently. Could we say something like "became affiliated with FIFA in 1968 as the men's team began to compete at the international level."?
 * As the information is repeated in the second section, I've removed it and reworked the sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When we talk about national competition being launched, what exactly does this mean? Are we talking about clubs within the country and not national teams?
 * National competition would be a national league for domestic players to compete domestically. Different from a national team.  (But often seen as a key thing to have in place for national team success.) --LauraHale (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the bit about the FIFA-sanctioned MA women's course. What does this mean?
 * FIFA teaches some courses that basically highly qualify people in the country for certain things. It can be removed I think if needed as it isn't necessarily that important. --LauraHale (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to make it a little clearer, describing it as a women's football education course...that work?--Batard0 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah. That works. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed: any chance we can get a date for the Gambia U-17 team's first World Cup qualifiers? I looked at the source, and it doesn't seem to contain any dates, unfortunately. That's a little bizarre; perhaps there's some other source? If not, we'll have to just go with what's there.--Batard0 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is pretty much ready to go. I made some other edits for clarity, all of which were pretty minor. Best to take a look and see if you agree with them.--Batard0 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that concerns me much. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria After making a few adjustments, the article meets the GA criteria.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The article is free of spelling and grammar mistakes, and the prose is clear and concise.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Basic MoS compliance is there.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * It contains adequate references, formatted correctly.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Inline citations are included.
 * C. No original research:
 * No evidence of OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It covers the major aspects.
 * B. Focused:
 * It doesn't get into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutrality isn't an issue.
 * 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 properly tagged.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Images are appropriate for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It meets all the relevant criteria. Well done.