Talk:Togo 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) 12:23, 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) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I made some edits for clarity and concision. I think it's getting better, but let me know if you disagree with anything. Meantime, here are some specific points for clarification:


 * I'm not sure where the training five times a week fits into the article, as in the Guinea-Bissau one. I'd consider removal.
 * Removed. --LauraHale (talk)
 * I don't get how we're saying they played five games in 2006, and then go on to describe seven. Were a couple of these not FIFA-sanctioned?
 * I think I fixed this. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Standardization of "History" "Team" "The team" sections (all the sections after the leads).
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What happened with the Africa Women's U-20 World Cup qualifiers? It says Togo had a walkover win, but then doesn't say what happened next.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Same issue with human rights clause.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What does it mean for the country to have 380 registered players? Are these people registered with the national federation?
 * Yes, registered players means they are registered through the national federation. This is different than how many people play the sport casually. (No data that I can find on that.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As with the others, when we talk about organised football, can we be more specific about what sorts of teams/players these are? Are these professional or national leagues? Same goes for the national competition. It would be good to have some more clarity on what that is.
 * Can't be more specific as the sources don't really explicitly spell it out. Found a source for another tournament that may give a better idea that this is not professional women's football.  (Which is the case in Rwanda, where the sources explicitly state that.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's it for now. I think we're on the way here. --Batard0 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I think we're pretty much good to go. Just one thing:

Let me know and I think we'll be sorted.--Batard0 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about reference #23. While it comes from a German site, I'm presuming it's in French because that's the colonial language there. Second, does this really come from or incorporate info from the German Wikipedia? It looks to me like it's a website not connected with Wikipedia. I'd be concerned if we were using Wikipedia to reference a Wiki article, as I believe that's prohibited. But I'm sure I just don't understand the whole story.
 * I have no idea where the reference comes from regarding Togo and use from German Wikipedia. I put it in there based on 499836267 that edit.  Ah! I see! It is the LANGUAGE template. Der.  Fixed that problem by removing the template. --LauraHale (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed the language parameter to French in ref 23, because it appears to be in French, not German. Let me know if I'm mistaken; if not, I'll list it.--Batard0 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria After a variety of improvements, this article meets the GA criteria. Well done.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The prose is clear and concise, with no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * It conforms with basic MoS rules.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * The references are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The inline citations are adequate.
 * C. No original research:
 * There's no evidence of OR here.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * It covers the major aspects of the topic.
 * B. Focused:
 * It is focused without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No POV issues.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No edit wars.
 * 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:
 * Images are appropriate for the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It meets all the relevant criteria.