Jump to content

Talk:Burundi women's national football team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBurundi women's national football team was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 28, 2012Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 7, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite having few registered women players and their team never playing a FIFA-recognised match, Burundi has an under-20 women's national team?
Current status: Delisted good article

DYK nomination

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Burundi women's national football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

--Batard0 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the article solely to improve the clarity, conciseness and flow of the prose. I did move around a couple citations from the middle to the end of sentences, however, so let me know if you disagree with any of this. I think in these cases the citations can be at the end of the sentences, since it's not contentious material or direct quotations.--Batard0 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, moving to some broader things about language that I think should be addressed:

  • I strongly suggest rephrasing or expanding upon the phrase, "several challenges that are Africa" in the lead. Africa is not in itself a challenge. You have a good listing of the challenges facing African women near the end of the article; perhaps you could put a shorter version of that here.
  • Can the first sentence be: "The Burundi women's national football team represents Burundi in international football competition."? I think we need to establish exactly what it is right off the bat since that's critical to its significance. Then again, if the team hasn't participated in FIFA-sanctioned matches, is this even accurate? Let's discuss.
      • Fixed I think. They should be the representative team and they could. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah ha. I think I understand what's going on here. We can't say the team represents Burundi in international matches because it hasn't played in a FIFA-recognised match, and yet the national team does exist. Hmm. I'm going to rephrase it a little to try to make this clear. This is a tricky one. But I think we can actually say they represent Burundi even though they haven't played in a proper international match, because the team itself is recognised by FIFA. It's like you or me being elected to, say, a legislature. Even if we haven't yet gone to the legislature to vote on anything, we still represent the people who elected us. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is probably the best summary of the situation. :) That they have FIFA recognition means they could theoretically compete at a match at any time but they have yet to do so. (Despite having been entered into tournaments.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are we getting the phrase "senior A team"? Is this official terminology? I can't seem to find mention of senior A-teams in a google search.
      • Senior A team is basically the FIFA designation for senior team, as opposed to a youth national team. In some sports and at some competitions, teams may enter two national teams, an A team and a B team with the A team being the main team and the B team being a development team. This is generally not a case for most of the teams in question. I can leave the A part out. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it the case that Burundi has FIFA-recognised senior and under-20 teams, but that the senior team has not played in a FIFA-recognised match? I'm just trying to make sure my understanding is correct.
      • The sources say a national team (senior) exists and has practices (or did in 2006) and was supposed to participate in some competitions but the team has not played in a single match. An under-20 national team exists. The under-20 national team has played in a few games. Looking through French sources again to verify the lack of match play because the French one says no matches played. --LauraHale (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, got it.
  • What happened to the senior national team that was preparing for a qualification tournament for the Women's World Cup? We kind of leave that hanging...did they withdraw before it started? Did they play but were knocked out?
    • They did not play. I can find some sources that say they were supposed to play in games, but then no FIFA match record and no follow up to suggest a match went ahead. example of where they were supposed to play but FIFA says no match played. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, that's bizarre. I'm surprised by the number of times teams are scheduled to play in games but end up withdrawing. Just out of curiosity, is there any easy explanation for this?
          • Money. Relative importance of the women's game to the men's game. Ability to travel. (One team I have written about could not get visas to travel to another country to play.) Religious issues. Political stabilility. A number of factors explain it. --LauraHale (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we say Congo, are we talking about DRC or Republic of the Congo?
  • Is the 2012 African Women's Seniors Championship different from the 2012 African Women's Championship?
    • Erk. Almost 90% certain they are the same thing. --LauraHale (talk)
  • I'm a little bit confused by the team not formally existing despite preparing to compete in various matches...any clarity on this point?
    • Not sure how to put it other than not having a played a FIFA recognised match means on Wikipedia that they do not exist. Some sources suggest the team exist but no information about practices, who was chosen, etc. doesn't mention women and the team is not ranked. These are all generally indications of a team being active and well, existing. --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, interesting. We may have a conflict here. So from my understanding the team is recognised by FIFA but 1) has not played FIFA-sanctioned matches and 2) is not ranked by FIFA. Because it has not played a FIFA-sanctioned match, it does not technically exist. But if FIFA recognises the team, then surely it must exist. And there is evidence that it does exist, as you point out. Let's talk about this some more. Maybe there's an ideal way to phrase it so it's entirely clear.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a grammatical error in Musonye's quote ("women's," not "women"). I fixed this, but let me know if you object.
  • I'm having a little trouble understanding the following: "fundamental inequality that occasionally allows for female-specific human rights abuses." Is there any way we can be more specific? I mean, how does inequality "allow for" human rights abuses? Can we name specific abuses that this inequality allows for? I also have some slight concern about this on neutrality grounds; I'm sure it's absolutely true, but it sounds just a little un-neutral, as if we're accusing somebody of human rights abuses that we don't name.
    • The source says human rights abuses to women. Source actually says "It also raises the wider question of sport, leisure and women's access to resources across cultures. Women's football in in each of the case study nations here deserves a more in-depth study, but the situations in South America and in Africa are no less important. Against the fundamental issues of female poverty, lack of access to education and denial of human rights, a discussion of 'women's football' and 'football' may appear to be one of those semantic points of academic interest at best, at worst estentiall pointless." (Pages 185-186) Hard to figure out how to convey that with out getting into copyvio problems.--LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. I'm going to rephrase it a little to make it sound more neutral...if we can come to an agreement on the phrasing, we can apply it across all these articles.--Batard0 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that FIFA would fund the sport, and yet the team hasn't participated in FIFA-sanctioned matches. That's really just an observation. I guess it's part of FIFA's agenda to promote football in places where it's underdeveloped.
    • FIFA pours in a lot of money to football around the world. I have my own speculation why. (Think World Cup hosting and other corruption allegations.) Sources don't really explain why, just that they do. It is one of the reasons I think these articles are so important to write, because there is a bit of "Huh. Interesting and weird."
  • I'm confused by the following sentence: "Fédération de Football du Burundi has the FIFA trigammed of BDI." I've never heard of a "trigammed" and we haven't talked about anything called "BDI". Guidance? Edit: Oh, I now see that BDI is its FIFA code. It'd be clearer if we spell out what this all means.

Ooops. Yeah. Everything in the infobox is supposed to be cited based on my understanding, and that's the trigramme. I could probably bulk up more of the football federation part indepently if necessary? --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it right for Sub-confederation to come before Confederation in the info box?
  • The quote in the box at the end seems to be missing a word: "Women's football is now big deal." Is this intentional? I put an [a] in there for now.

Fix these, and I think we'll be in pretty good shape. The refs look pretty much as good as they can be. I'm a little concerned about using the Musonye quote at the end of the Team section, because it's not referring directly to Burundi, which brings up focus issues. Let me know if you have any thoughts. --Batard0 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now putting this on hold. I plan to allow plenty of time for responses, so no worries about that. Well done.--Batard0 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this is almost ready. Just three things:

  • I want to make sure you're good with the changes to the sentence about challenges including inequality and human rights abuses targeting women.
  • I removed the country's FIFA code from the text. Should we put this back in because it's required by someone's guidelines?
  • I took out the bit about the team not formally existing, because I think it creates confusion. Instead I just left it saying the team is not ranked by FIFA. Is that all right?

If you're good with these, I'll take a final look and pass it unless anything comes up (I doubt that there will be anything else).--Batard0 (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All those things look good to me. :) Thank you for spending the time and doing a comprehensive review. :) It is much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Having fixed some issues, we've reached GA criteria compliance.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Clarity, conciseness, grammar and other issues have been fixed (see above).
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead and layout look fine, and words to watch aren't an issue. Fiction and list guidelines aren't applicable.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    The ref formats look fine to me.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    The article is properly cited.
    C. No original research:
    There's no evidence of OR here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The major aspects of the topic are here; nothing important is missing.
    B. Focused:
    It doesn't stray from the topic in unwarranted ways.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    There aren't any neutrality issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    It's stable.
  6. 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:
    No issues with appropriateness of images or captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well done.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Burundi women's national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burundi women's national football team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

[edit]

Burundi women's national football team

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the criteria at WP:GACR, a Good Article should be well-written, verifiable with no original research, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated if possible. This article severely struggles to meet the verifiable and broad categories, and with my own research mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 12#African women’s football teams it seems like the topic does not pass WP:GNG (as WP:NTEAM says it should, for the record) and ought to be merged into a new article on Women's football in Burundi or outright AFDed. Keep in mind that there really isn't a true women's national team, just a youth team and and adult team that occasionally are organized (one does not appear to currently exist). As for the specific issues:

  • Most of the academic sources cited here make zero mention of a Burundi women's national football team. Many don't even mentioned Burundi, they speak of generalities about women's football in Africa.
  • While the sport grew in popularity worldwide in the ensuing years, Burundi did not have an official team until more than two decades later. A likely WP:SYNTH violation, since ref #3 (an old Fifa database page) is dead and ref #4 makes no mentioned of when the team was first established, or makes any comment on the "growing popularity" of football during this time.
  • The team has withdrawn from numerous other events. Also seems like a WP:SYNTH violation, which is cited to two dead refs and another which is just a chart of women's championship games from the Confederation of African Football (CAF).
  • Burundi was scheduled to participate in a competition in 2007 organised by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) in Zanzibar. Nicholas Musonye, the secretary of the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (Cecafa), said of the event, "CAF wants to develop women's football in this region in recognition of the milestones Cecafa has achieved over the years. CAF appreciates what Cecafa has done despite the hardships the association has gone through, from financial problems to political instability in member states and poor management of associations. Member states in the Cecafa region have not taken women's football seriously. CAF now wants to sponsor a long-term campaign to attract women from this region into the game."[16] The competition was canceled due to lack of funds.[17] Aside from the first sentence, this whole paragraph is not about a Burundi women's national football team. GA criteria requires that an article "stays focused on the topic". This could simply be trimmed down to they were scheduled to participate in a contest that was cancelled.
  • Burundi has not participated in other major events on the continent, including the 2011 All-Africa Games. Another likely WP:SYNTH violation, shows another CAF chart of games in which Burundi is not mentioned. It is pure WP:OR to describe what is not mentioned in a given source.
  • The development of women's football in Africa faces several challenges, including limited access to education, poverty amongst women, inequalities and human rights abuses. Cool, but not about a national team and not even about Burundi. While the same probably applies to Burundi, we need a source which says so. It's not good logic to use a source which says "Africa has problems" to mean "X country in Africa has problems".
  • The Football Federation of Burundi, the country's national association, created a woman's football programme in 2000.[3][5][23] By 2006, there were just 455 registered women players, and the absence of a thriving women's game has been an obstacle for the national team.[24] Lydia Nsekera is the head of the national football association.[25] Outside the national federation, the Commission nationale du football féminin was established by the 1990s, and a league and women's teams were organised in the same period in Bujumbura. About women's football in Burundi, but not about a national women's team.
  • The "Home Stadium", "Managers", and "Coaching staff" sections are all empty, and these things probably barely exist, since the team exists on an on-off ad hoc basis.
  • The majority of the article is taken up by CRUFTy infoboxes and tables of records and scores, all of which have zero sources.
  • The only materials which seem to directly address the sometimes existence of this team are FIFA documents, but those might lack independence. My WP:BEFORE turns up only really this which gives the name the women's team uses and nothing more. I've searched under the sports section of Iwacu, Burundi's only private newspaper, and gotten mention of women's football but nothing about a national team. There's little hope for expanding this article using reliable secondary sources about the topic.

I advocate delisting and probably eventually deleting or merging to a new Women's football in Burundi article (an actually notable topic). The existence of this article seems to totally hinge on false expectations that a national sports team is/should be notable. Sorry to say, that is not the case here by my read. But I open the floor to others who may have new sources or ideas. Courtesy @Aircorn: who first brought this to my attention. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree generally with the above but as for merging altogether, the team are active in AFCON qualifying this season - if that doesn't confer notability on its own, I'd suggest that it at least indicates the team is becoming more active and warrants a 'stay of execution' for the NT article, pending the evidence of their involvement in other upcoming tournaments? Crowsus (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I see no rush per se -it's not like this is a vandalism magnet or major BLP violation risk- but we don't have a WP:CYRSTAL ball which tells us that Burundi's team is going to get SIGCOV in such an event. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is what the article looked like when it was promoted; 2/3 of what is written is not about a Burundian women's national team. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would delist from GA, but keep the article. Nehme1499 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I remember these African women's team GAs were done as a sort of 'job lot' in a single splurge of creativity which was a very impressive feat. There are some imperfections, for example In 1985, almost no country in the world had a women's national football team is obviously false in light of things like 1984 European Competition for Women's Football qualifying and 1983 AFC Women's Championship. While The senior national football team has never competed in a FIFA-sanctioned fixture seems to be out of date, considering the team is currently competing in the 2022 Africa Women Cup of Nations qualification. I suppose the complained of imprecision will be there until someone writes an academic paper focused specifically on women's football in Burundi. So I could live with a delisting, but talk of AfD or redirection is a bit much.
There is no doubt that the senior team currently exists, they named a 30-player squad earlier this month: [1]. In March 2016 (four years after the article was created) the national team had still never played a match, but its formation was allegedly a priority for the FFB: "The Burundi Football Federation (FFB) plans to expand the women’s game. A priority for the FFB’s 2015-18 development strategy is to get a squad up and running. The national team has never played a match – a frustration for Saidi. Funding shortfalls and the lack of equipment have hampered its development, meaning it has not managed to play the five matches against Fifa-ranked teams that it needs to get an official ranking." They definitely played at the 2016 CECAFA Women's Championship:[2] and I found a pre-tournament friendly in which they were beaten 3–0 by eventual winners Tanzania: [3]
They were slated to play at the 2018 CECAFA Women's Championship ([4]) but when it was shambolically postponed at four days notice, they weren't at the edition which went ahead: [5] They played at 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship and reached the semi-final. It's not clear what happened to the 2021 CECAFA Women's Championship after Djibouti pulled out of hosting it. I can't read French/Swahili/Kirundi and (until today) my knowledge of Burundian football was nil, but I have certainly found some coverage of the matters inhibiting the women's national team. Lack of funding, prejudice against women etc. [6], [7] The coach Daniella Niyibimenya (yes she exists!) has complained about a lack of friendly matches to sharpen up before the tournaments: [8] While Lydia Nsekera says a lack of female representation in the corridors of power has held back the development of women's football: [9]. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Jimbere Magazine source, I had never encountered it before and it does seem to give good coverage to the women's team. I've added coverage about the 2019 CECAFA Women's Championship to the article, but I don't think there's enough to rescue this GA entirely. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that all of them need to be delisted, but quite a few do. Depending on how this GAR goes, it could be a precedent for the other national teams listed above. Nehme1499 09:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They all probably need some improvement. The Zanzibar article actually looks quite salvageable, and since Rwanda tends to punch above it weight in media I'd bet there's some sources that could be found to improve it. Others, like the Central African Republic and Niger, probably should have never been promoted in the first place. Same problems with women's programs that have barely gotten of the ground and issues with text and sources pointing to challenges for women's football in Africa generally, but not actually discussing those countries specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tags

[edit]

I added clean-up tags to the article. It appears that parts, including severely incomplete lists, body section omitting lead information, references inferiorly related to the lead and overall undesirable quality observed throughout, which are lacking for GA-VickKiang (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burundi_women%27s_national_football_team&oldid=1218276014"