Talk:2000 CECAFA Cup

Football: Africa / Season Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Football in Africa portal This article is supported by the African football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

2000 CECAFA Cup 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
August 15, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
June 15, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 25, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2000 CECAFA Cup final was between Uganda and Uganda?

Current status: Delisted good article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1973 CECAFA Cup was copied or moved into 2000 CECAFA Cup with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2000 CECAFA Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this.

"The matches were played in Uganda as opposed to Tanzania, and although Tanzania protested at the resolution, the tournament was still held in Uganda, perhaps partially due to the reason that Tanzania were banned from international football by FIFA, the world football governing body", this reads discombobulated. There is no citation to support this and needs to be rephrased to avoid repetition.
Per MOS:B&P, use square parentheses when bracketing a bracket. In other words “Ethiopia to mean that "the Cranes" (Uganda [A])”
Remove unnecessary spacing in the scores (Rwanda on penalties 4–2, not 4 – 2)
Hide the F.C. bit of Express.
"The CECAFA Cup is considered Africa's oldest football tournament, and involves teams from Central and Southern Africa.", considered by who?
Avoid noun plus -ing cases like "The tournament was originally named the Gossage Cup, contested by the four nations of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika (modern day Tanzania), and Zanzibar,[4] running from 1929 until 1965.[5]". This sentence for example could be more concise: The tournament was originally named the Gossage Cup, contested by the four nations of Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika (modern day Tanzania), and Zanzibar; it ran from 1929 until 1965."
Why are full names used in the scores?
Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation isn't a work, but a publisher. There is no 'The' in its name.
Book publisher for Ref 5?

No dead links or dabs. Will pass once comments have been addressed; on hold for a week. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all mentioned except the full names in scores thing which I didn't quite understand. I am on holiday until the end of the month, and am trying to stay off Wikipedia for a bit. Thanks for the review, Mat ty.007 18:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, have made a few changes and will pass this now. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

2000 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: Delisted per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2014. While there are some citation needed tags, what shocked me was how much "nothing" there was. The article has ZERO information on the actual tournament. It's genuinely astonishing how much this fails broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De-list 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. The "Background" section is about different tournaments and so is barely relevant, and thus falls foul of criterion 3b. There's also almost no referencing, the whole set of stats is sourced to one article (which doesn't verify some of the tables), thus it also fails criteria 2b and 2c. Can't believe it was ever listed as a GA in the first place, the standards in 2014 must have been ridiculously low back then for this to be considered good. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.