Talk:2013 CECAFA Cup

Final ranking

There seems to be a game missing. SHould add up to 26. -Koppapa (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it, I think; one win was missing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 CECAFA Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• The lead contains some information which isn't repeated in the body. You currently start the body with a section on sponsorship, but I think you need a background section that includes much of what's currently in the lead. The lead is not only an introduction to the article, it's a summary of it, so everything in the lead should be in the body. Conversely, the most important information in the body should appear in the lead -- so you should certainly name the champion, and some more details wouldn't go amiss -- who they beat, what the score was, perhaps the date. Any other high profile information in the article should also be considered for the lead.
• The lead doesn't need citations except for controversial material, or direct quotations.
• "On 21 November, CECAFA announced": Give the year.
• In the participants section can you give a quick summary of the rules for participants? Is it purely invitational? What is the body that decides? Are there eligibility rules?
• Why would Ivory Coast require a payment?
• The drawing of lots is part of the tie break criteria, so technically it's wrong to say that the criteria could not be used to break the tie in Group A.
• In the key to the colours in the group tables, why do you have "team already eliminated" instead of "team eliminated"?
• Change the description of the tie break criteria to past tense.
• I looked at 2014 FIFA World Cup to see what sort of coverage other articles give about football tournaments. Any information on testing for doping, for example?
• Are any pictures available for either the stadiums or any of the players, or any members of CECAFA itself?
• What do the colours mean for the top three teams in the final rankings?
• The external links tool shows two dead links and a failed connection; the latter was probably just a temporary issue.
• The sentence about Zambia replacing Djibouti needs a citation.
• Why is it worth mentioning that Djibouti did not compete for two consecutive years? Surely this is true of a lot of teams?

-- I'lll place this on hold. Not too far off GA; the issue with the lead is the main concern for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I'll do my best to work on all the points you've outlined above. However, a summary of the rules of participants isn't really necessary; the lead clearly explains that the tournament is contested by the national teams of the member nations of CECAFA. Aside from that, the colours in the final rankings table are quite obvious; gold is for the winner, silver for the runner-up and bronze for third place. Keys are never given for such tables in other articles because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what they mean; the same is the case in 2012 CECAFA Cup which is also at GA-class. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK on the colours; to be honest I didn't think it was obvious but if this is standard I won't object. I've struck that point above. On the rules, what confused me was the discussion of inviting Ivory Coast, Malawi and Zambia. I'm guessing from your response that the rules are: all CECAFA countries are invited and other African nations may be invited to join the competition if another nation drops out. Is that correct? If so I think it wouldn't hurt to state that directly. I was assuming that it was like the World Cup in that there were some qualifying steps, which is why I asked why Djibouti's omission was mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I believe the point on inviting other African nations in case a CECAFA nation drops out is true; the most recent edition not to have any invited nations was in 2007, which had 11 teams participating (South Sudan gained independence in 2011 and joined as the 12th member the following year). I think I made that point sufficiently clear in the lead. Other than that, I believe all the other issues you raised have been ironed out, and I think the article is ready to be promoted to GA-class. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've read through again. Some of the notes I put above weren't required for GA (e.g. removing the citations from the lead, though I still recommend doing that). Some are still an issue:

• Footnotes 9 and 16 are still dead links.
• The lead is much improved but everything in the lead should be in the body too. Much of the first sentence is not in the body, nor is the information about the tradition of inviting other nations to fill gaps, for example. You can fix this with an introductory section after the lead that says things like "This is a football tournament contested annually by all members of CECAFA, with other African nations often invited to bring the number of participants to 12, either to replace nations that drop out or in years when there were less than 12 nations in CECAFA. The 2013 tournament was the 37th and was also named the GOtv CECAFA Cup after the sponsor, GOtv." (I wouldn't put that sentence in as I wrote it; I didn't try to make it concise or coherent, I just wanted you to see what I meant by saying there's information that is missing in the body.) This information is only clearly stated in the lead.
• Why were additional invitees mooted if the goal of inviting non-CECAFA nations is to bring the numbers to 12? There were already 12, at least till Djibouti dropped out.
• Tense is still mixed up: "The knockout stage began on 7 December with the quarter-finals and ended on 12 December with the final. In this stage, teams play against each other once. The losers of the semi-finals played against each other in a third place playoff where the winner will be placed third overall in the entire competition" has three different tenses: past, present and future. I think you should stick with past tense. I think you could cut everything after "playoff", actually; a reader can be expected to understand what a playoff is.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Right, all the additional points you've outlined above have been dealt with. On the point of bringing the numbers to 12, I just cut that information out because that probably might not be the reason for inviting other African nations in the first place (since the 2011 tournament had invitees and ran with 11 teams taking part). I also realised reference 13 was another dead link but I corrected that as well. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This is over the line now; congratulations. I'm passing this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2013 CECAFA Cup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2015. Just like the 2000 CECAFA Cup that was recently delisted. This article fails the broadness aspect of a GA because there is practically no prose for any of the matches in the Cup, which is something that you should expect in an article about a sports match. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• De-list looks like most of the reasons I voted to de-list the 2000 article also apply here. It quick fails good article criterion 3a, as it's not broad enough in its scope. At a minimum, I'd expect some sort of tournament summary for each phase, like in 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group stage. None of the fixtures/results/tables or the goalscorers list have any sources, which mean it fails criteria 2b and 2c. Whilst this article is slightly better than the 2000 one, it doesn't meet the current standard for a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delist. I was the GA reviewer and am surprised that I promoted this. I am more concerned about the lack of citations for the tables etc. than about the summaries; I see the argument for more text about each stage, but there's a subarticle for that so only a sentence or two would be enough. But without the citations this can't remain a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.