Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Central African Republic women's national football team/1

Central African Republic women's national football team edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: outcome (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am opening a community GAR due to it being poorly written, with questionable refs and most sections being empty. Note its similarity to a previous article on the Burundi Woman's Football Team recently delisted as GA. See the table below:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Indisputably poor prose with most sections being empty.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Most sections are empty with no info provided, as several tables, lead contains info not mentioned elsewhere, e.g., " It played its first international matches in 2018 in the Cup of Nations qualifiers."
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Most of the refs (2-6) seems to be generally about all African teams, and not specifically this team, so I am tentative on this entire paragraph.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 12 and 14 does not seem reliable, with no editorial standards and an extremely dated interface.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some lead info as per above not found elsewhere nor verified by any refs.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Does not have copyvios.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most sections seem entirely empty, and the article does not address all of those.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Verbious info on 2002 performances, but almost none for post-2010 ones.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Mostly adhere to NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Highly stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Adheres well.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions extremely short but tolerable.
	7. Overall assessment.

As a result, based on my speedy check it seems that this article fails at least three, and IMO it should not be a GA and is a C or start class. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I came to the same conclusions some time back when I viewed this article after it was mentioned at the Burundi GAR. Unfortunately, it also seems like the source material to truly make this a GA doesn't even exist. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]