Talk:Sierra Leone women's national football team/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications needed[edit]

I have completed my initial review of this article, and most things look to be in order. However, there are a few things I would like to have clarified in the article:

The team ranks 130th, but out of how many teams in the world?
- This actually changes from ranking period to ranking period, depending on how many teams are active. (In some cases, a team can be on the bottom at 136, but in other cases, if teams are playing, the bottom could be 146.) In this case, they are last at 130 along with about 46 other teams. Clarified the wording to hint that. --LauraHale (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the "under 20 national team" section, I'm confused about Togo's "walk over win" against Sierra Leone. Could you explain more about what happened? Why did Sierra Leone withdraw?
- Cannot find sources that explain that. --LauraHale (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the first paragraph in the "Background" section, why is commercialisation not a solution? What happened in other countries?
- Fixed wording. Basically, source says in African countries don't need commercial success in terms of a viable commercial domestic league. They just need player participation and player training. Tweaked wording. --LauraHale (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the wording is stating "commersialisation [...] is not the solution" as a fact rather than an opinion/speculation, which I feel it is. I'm also not entirely sure what is meant by "commersialisation" --to me it might mean advertising matches of national games to increase ticket sales, but perhaps you (or the author of the source) means it as creating a professional, profit-making football league. So, I'm still a bit confused by this. I would appreciate some further clarification. --Tea with toast (話) 14:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialisation is pretty broad and the text implies that broadness from what I can tell: Making money off women's football no matter what the form in order to make it commercially viable IE self sustaining in terms of funding. --LauraHale (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough --Tea with toast (話) 23:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, in the last sentence -- why is popularity of the sport declining? Are there any sources speculating on the reason?
- Sources I have seen haven't explained why. The source just say it is. --LauraHale (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this article on hold until these are addressed. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 23:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
--Tea with toast (話) 23:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]