Talk:Togo women's national football team

Togo 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
Date	Process	Result
June 29, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
May 13, 2022	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 2, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Togo women's national football team participated in the 2007 Tournoi de Cinq Nations in Ouagadougou but was disqualified after the first match for sending a club team?

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Women's sport: WOSO Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Africa: Togo Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Togo (assessed as Low-importance).

Football: Africa / National / Women's football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Football in Africa portal This article is supported by the African football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the national teams task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

DYK nomination

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Togo 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) 12:23, 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) 12:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits for clarity and concision. I think it's getting better, but let me know if you disagree with anything. Meantime, here are some specific points for clarification:

~~I'm not sure where the training five times a week fits into the article, as in the Guinea-Bissau one. I'd consider removal.~~
- Removed. --LauraHale (talk)
~~I don't get how we're saying they played five games in 2006, and then go on to describe seven. Were a couple of these not FIFA-sanctioned?~~
- I think I fixed this. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Standardization of "History" "Team" "The team" sections (all the sections after the leads).~~
- Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~What happened with the Africa Women's U-20 World Cup qualifiers? It says Togo had a walkover win, but then doesn't say what happened next.~~
- Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Same issue with human rights clause.~~
- Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does it mean for the country to have 380 registered players? Are these people registered with the national federation?~~
- Yes, registered players means they are registered through the national federation. This is different than how many people play the sport casually. (No data that I can find on that.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As with the others, when we talk about organised football, can we be more specific about what sorts of teams/players these are? Are these professional or national leagues? Same goes for the national competition. It would be good to have some more clarity on what that is.
- Can't be more specific as the sources don't really explicitly spell it out. Found a source for another tournament that may give a better idea that this is not professional women's football. (Which is the case in Rwanda, where the sources explicitly state that.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I think we're on the way here. --Batard0 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think we're pretty much good to go. Just one thing:

I'm confused about reference #23. While it comes from a German site, I'm presuming it's in French because that's the colonial language there. Second, does this really come from or incorporate info from the German Wikipedia? It looks to me like it's a website not connected with Wikipedia. I'd be concerned if we were using Wikipedia to reference a Wiki article, as I believe that's prohibited. But I'm sure I just don't understand the whole story.
- - I have no idea where the reference comes from regarding Togo and use from German Wikipedia. I put it in there based on 499836267 that edit. Ah! I see! It is the LANGUAGE template. Der. Fixed that problem by removing the template. --LauraHale (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I changed the language parameter to French in ref 23, because it appears to be in French, not German. Let me know if I'm mistaken; if not, I'll list it.--Batard0 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks good to me. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know and I think we'll be sorted.--Batard0 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

After a variety of improvements, this article meets the GA criteria. Well done.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose is clear and concise, with no grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
It conforms with basic MoS rules.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
The references are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The inline citations are adequate.

C. No original research:
There's no evidence of OR here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It covers the major aspects of the topic.

B. Focused:
It is focused without going into unnecessary detail.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No POV issues.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars.
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:
Images are appropriate for the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It meets all the relevant criteria.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Togo 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) 19:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Togo women's national football team/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Over the coming days, I will be reassessing this article to determine whether it still meets the Good Article criteria. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Some issues, those are detailed below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Numerous issues. Team rosters need missing information added, Individual records have two empty and orange-tagged lists, honours section is empty, managers section is unsourced, the first all-time records section has no citations or a color key, the second all-time record section which is named identically to the first one has two empty lists, etc. See also section doesn't need "Women's football in Togo" if there's no link there.
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.	Refs 14 and 15 are formatted incorrectly, Ref 17 is a bare URL. A couple other inconsistencies (Ref 8 and 9, for example)
	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).	Happy to go through these individually once other issues are taken care of.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Managers list and Achievements section are unsourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Only one line of unsourced prose about the "Team image", which just gives the name of the home stadium. No background info or anything like that is given.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Team logo is fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Team logo is relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.

Issues with criterion 1a

Lead/infobox

Article has been orange-tagged for an update since September 2020
No need to include "unknown" in the infobox, just take those fields out
The lead first paragraph says "The team has played five FIFA-recognised matches" but the second paragraph says "Currently, they are unranked on the FIFA Women's World Rankings for not having played more than five matches against officially ranked teams", this seems contradictory to me. Also their FIFA ranking is listed as 115 in the infobox so this second paragraph of the lead seems inaccurate.

History

In the second paragraph, is there any explanation as to why they withdrew?
Third paragraph, "The performance of the new team, however, wasn't good as expected" → how good were they expected to be?
Third paragraph is entirely unsourced.

Overall review conclusion

WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity. As there have been no improvements made on the article and the reassessment has been open for nine days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 1b, 2a, 2c, and 3a, at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]