Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar women's national football team/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 07:23, 9 June 2012.

Zanzibar women's national football team

 * Nominator(s): LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is meets all the criteria for featured article and represents the best article about a women's national football team in Africa despite the lack of recognised FIFA status and recognised international matches. The article underwent a lot of scrutiny both at the DYK level and the GA level. I have gone to the Australian National Library and the National Sport Information Centre to make sure I have any offline sources that might be available. I've also searched extensively through various databases and the web to make sure it is as comprehensive as possible. Given the short playing history, the article is shorter than most featured articles but it should still be comprehensively covering the team. No pictures beyond the logo because I cannot find any free images. LauraHale (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

'''1a: comments on the lead ... not encouraging, I'm afraid'''
 * "Zanzibar women's national football team, nicknamed the "Women Fighters", is the women's representative team from Zanzibar, a semi-autonomous part of Tanzania. Founded in 1988, ..."—I wondered momentarily whether it was Tanzania or Zanzibar that was founded in 1988.
 * I think I have addressed this. --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the team has limited recognition as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, ..."— recognition as the regional governing body? No, we then learn that it's a causal as. As is a problem word in English: "the team has limited recognition since/because the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is neither a full member of CAF nor FIFA".
 * Fixed I think. --LauraHale (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "is neither a full member of CAF nor FIFA."—neither A nor B. Not A, and not B. not a full member of CAF, and not FIFA. So to fix this, move "neither" into a better position: "is a full member of neither CAF nor FIFA".
 * Fixed I think. --LauraHale (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is a partial international match? Stopped at half-time?
 * Removed partial. Implication was not FIFA recognised but they played against other countries. (Despite extensively looking, cannot find match scores or additional information about the Women's Challenge Cup.) --LauraHale (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The team plays domestically against men's sides in the country." The country is Zanzibar or Tanzania? Z is already framed as not a country in itself. Same issue for "country" in the next sentence.
 * Replaced country with Zanzibar or island to be more clear. --LauraHale (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the referent for "their"?
 * Best way to refer to players? Not sure other way to write it. :( --LauraHale (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a rather short article for FA status. Could it not be conflated with sibling articles for the purpose? Tony   (talk)  05:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't fit on Tanzania women's national football team. It is pretty much three articles in one as it is including Zanzibar Soccer Queens and Women's football in Zanzibar. --LauraHale (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are at least three current featured articles that are shorter than this one, including a recent TFA, so I don't think length alone should disqualify it. Of course, we should pay extra attention to 1b and 1c. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Zanzibar has its own unique problems relating to the development of the women's game." I think you could remove "its own" here without changing the meaning. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FN10: publisher?
 * Fixed.--LauraHale (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in when you provide publisher location. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. All references now include a location. --LauraHale (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't doubt that sources on the topic are scarce, but the article does not give the impression of comprehensiveness. It comes across more as an article about Women's football in Zanzibar than one specifically about the national team. It lacks basic facts about the team. What colours do they play in? How have they fared in their matches? We are only told about a single friendly against a Swedish club.

Specific comments: Oppose – There are just too many little things that point to this article not being our best work.
 * The team soon played an unofficially recognised international game against the Swedish women's club side Terresso FC – If it was against a club side it wasn't an international match at all.
 * Changed wording to make it more clear they played against a touring club side in Sweden rather than an international. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time the team was created, there were few opportunities for it to compete against other women's team inside Zanzibar Why would a national team play against domestic opposition?
 * Because this is a team in Zanzibar where the women's game has limited funding, domestic opposition for their existence, etc.? A similar situation exists for Sudan women's national football team and other national women's football teams in certain parts of Africa where there is little support, cultural reasons that deter female participation and political instability. --LauraHale (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the lead we are told that Zanzibar "is neither a full member of CAF nor FIFA", and in the body that the Zanzibar FA "is recognised by the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations, but not by FIFA or the Confederation of African Football". The infobox is different again, saying that it is an associate member of CAF. The membership status for each body needs to be laid out more clearly.
 * Fixed wording so it is all harmonious. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Zanzibar is part of Tanzania, and we are told "National team players are eligible to play for Tanzania...", why does the team exist at all? Is it a national team, or a sub-national one? This is not clear.
 * It is the national team of Zanzibar. Players are eligible to play for Tanzania just like people from Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Northern Marianas Islands are able to represent their national teams but also to represent the United States on the international level. Beyond that, they have played in a CAF sanctioned competition. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's why I think this needs clarification: players can only represent one FIFA member in international competition. Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are all FIFA members. A (say) Puerto Rican is also eligible to play for the USA, but has to choose between one or the other (articles 15–18 of these FIFA statutes). As Zanzibar is not currently a FIFA member, this may well be different to the norm, and so could do with explanation. What would happen if Zanzibar faced Tanzania in a CAF competition? Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the state of the team in question and that they have yet to play a full fledged FIFA recognised international owing to their lack of FIFA recognition, this point seems moot. The national team coach for Zanzibar is also the assistant coach for Tanzania so it would suggest involvement with one does not preclude or disqualify the other.  (Though this is a bit of conjecture based on available sources.)  They just aren't playing recognised matches near as I can tell for this to be an issue. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game Such as what? Oldelpaso (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what happened here. :( In the GA level, things were moved from the development section the team section so those issues are there instead of in that paragraph.  In any case, fixed that sentence. --LauraHale (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure these are unique to Zanzibar, or Africa. Like on the hijab issue, there was a high profile incident last year involving Iran, which resulted in Iran forfeiting an Olympic match . Oldelpaso (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can remove the statement and just leave the better sources problems for the whole of Africa section as the unique to them stuff has basically been integrated into the team section. --LauraHale (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose For a featured item I would expect at least some summary table with the results that the team has played throughout the years. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Tables added. Were not originally included because putting zeros and zeros and did not participate for every single event seemed a little bit pointless. --LauraHale (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what I ment. How many games did the team play? how many goals it scored, etc. Infobox would be a fine place to put these numbers. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article basically says it: They have played in local competitions and only have played one game against a foreign club side. Thus, not sure how that would be put in the infobox.  Do you want the Swedish club side there as the team's only international match and that as the loss? Which article text do you want put into the infobox? --LauraHale (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely "The" should be the first word of the article in this case? It is in Germany women's national football team, a similar FA.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * CAF and FIFA should be spelled out in their first usage, like CECAFA is.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations and CAR, but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognized by FIFA as an independent national association." Absolutely no need to repeat the association's name in this sentence. That's three excessive words, which is three more than I'd expect, particularly for an article so short.
 * Team: "which eventually became the national team, and the team was created...". Again, a redudancy in the writing, this time "the team". That doesn't need to be there either.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a space needs to be removed before a block of four refs here. Are that many really needed to cite this?
 * Fixed spacing. Four citations are needed because of the complexity of the facts being presented and cited: The Women's Fighters are the national team.  They have become the national team known as the Zanzibar Queens. They were founded in 1988.  They were founded by Nassra Juma Mohammed of Tanzania. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What stadium did they play in in the game against Tyreso? If it was the largest stadium in Zanzibar, it's worth mentioning this fact.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "the" should probably be added to "from Zanzibar Football Association", and at the start of the section's next paragraph.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another space needs removal, before ref 17.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to link CECAFA twice in this section, and I don't understand why the abbreviation appears in the second usage and not the first. By using it the first time, you can reduce the second usage to just the abbreviation.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The federation is an member...". "an" → "a".
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why was the 2007 CECAFA Women's Challenge Cup canceled? That isn't clear at the moment. Also, we have "canceled" in the lead and "cancelled" in the body; those should be made consistent throughout.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove space before ref 21.
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Background and development of women's football: Kind of surprised that this isn't the first section of the body, as it would provide context for everything that follows. That's what a background section normally does.
 * Fixed: Swapped sections around. --LauraHale (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent is that higher ability players leave to play in Europe or the United States." Is this really a problem, or a positive? The players are likely improving by playing in bigger leagues worldwide, which may end up improving the team in the long run. Personally, I've never felt that American players leaving to enter European leagues has hindered development here, but maybe that's just me. Is it due to a lack of players? If so, that seems well worth noting.
 * The first sentence of the section's second paragraph has multiple items repeated from the Team section, which isn't optimal. Makes it look like the material is being stretched to the limit, which it probably is.
 * For newspaper refs, the name of the paper should be italicized. Refs 3 and 18 stick out as needing them; there may be others too. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm afraid that I cannot see this article reaching FA level in its current state. An international team that has not played any matches? Even if all the available information is included here, can it ever reach the required level of comprehensiveness for a FA? Putting this question aside, there are several other issues which make me oppose, and there is some way for this article to go. And generally, it is rather confusing and lacking in focus. I've read to the beginning of the "Team" section and commented in detail on the lead and first section. But these comments are examples only and there are plenty of other issues which need addressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Founded in 1988, the team has limited recognition as the regional governing body, the Zanzibar Football Association, is a full member of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (CECAFA) and Confederation of African Football (CAF), but Zanzibar Football Association is not recognised by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) as an independent national association": Long, convoluted sentence which does not quite make sense. Maybe better to split after "recognition" then remove "as". And should there be "the" after "(CAF) but…"?
 * "The national team was supposed to have its first international matches": Clunky. Possibly "The national team should have played its first international matches".
 * Last three sentences of lead all begin "The", which is not ideal.
 * Background: The first paragraph seems a little thrown together, as if we are just cramming in whatever seems relevant, but is not really about the Zanzibar team.
 * "Women's football in Africa has not developed compared to elsewhere because of a variety of factors, including limited access to education, poverty amongst women in the wider society, and fundamental inequality present in the society that occasionally allows for female specific human rights abuses.": This seems a very sweeping claim about an entire continent, particularly when referenced by a football book. And why does Africa need linking?
 * "Another problem with the development of the game throughout the continent": Clunky, and unnecessarily re-states the opening of the previous sentence.
 * I agree with Giants' comments above that top players playing overseas does not necessarily mean a problem exists.
 * "According to Kuhn": Who is Kuhn? Some indication should be made in the text, otherwise it is just a name.
 * "According to Kuhn, funding for the game on a regional level is problematic as national associations do not fund the women's game adequately": What does "regional level" mean here? And is this not about a national team, not a regional one, which makes this irrelevant. And this a wordy way to simply say "The women's game [in Africa? In Zanzibar?] is not well funded by national associations".
 * "Zanzibar has unique problems relating to the development of the women's game": I find it extremely hard to believe that these problems are unique to Zanzibar. I can think of many places where this may be a similar problem.
 * "There is minimal support for the game at schools, with the national federation not responding to requests from the national team coach to work harder to get girls to play the sport in school.": Long and clunky sentence.
 * "A national women's league was created in 2004 after a twenty-six year effort": Can we not detail the 26 year effort? (And it should be 26, not twenty-six)
 * "however, the league has since collapsed": Why? When?
 * Are there no more details about the league, assuming it is relevant to the national team? For example, how many games were played? How well received was it by critics or the public? Who were the leading players?
 * "the Women Fighters, which eventually became the national team": When? Where? Why?
 * Refs in the wrong order at the start of the team section.
 * "and the team was created at a time when there were very few women's national teams in existence": How many? Some context would be good here. Although they were not a national team at the time, apparently.
 * "Prior to 1988, women had played informally or on men's only teams; several of these players, as well as those from other sports, including badminton, made up the inaugural team": Is this speaking of the Zanzibar team, or women's football in general? What inaugural team? When it says "several of these players", no players have really been referred to, just women in general.
 * "The national association, founded in 1926": Presumably the men's association? This should be made clear.
 * On a more general level: So, have the team actually played any games? It looks like they have never played. In an article like this, some details of performances should be given. And who are the players? Who are the officials? What colours do the team play in? If this info cannot be provided, I really can't see this being a FA. It is just too brief and does not give any of the information a reader would be looking for.
 * The article seems to be more about general women's football, not this team in particular. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.