Talk:2006 CECAFA Cup

2006 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
December 29, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
July 16, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

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.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 1973 CECAFA Cup was copied or moved into 2006 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.

Cosafa

same scenario, useful gto mention? -Koppapa (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2006 CECAFA Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great article that could easily become a GA. This should be a quick review because the nominator always does a great job with his articles. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Review Notes

I do my review in a style with a "main review" in a table, and 2 side reviews. (a prose and a source) Here is a good example.

Review

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.	No issues with prose!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No weasel words, strong lead, etc.
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.	No source issues.
	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).	No issues with citing information.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues with information not being cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No unnecessary detail, good article size.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Definitely NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major edit wars/arguments.
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.	No images, but GA doesn't require images. See this page
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Again, no images and that isn't required.
	7. Overall assessment.	No prose/source issues that I found. Great job maintaining the prose and its sources! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Overall, I found no prose issues.

Source Review

No source issues.

Some remarks. The is no use of the word football in the lead, i'd include it once. Much depends on the rsssf link, some more sources for the protest in the semis would be good, also some other ref stating, that zambia won but throphy was awarded to sudan. something like this: http://allafrica.com/stories/200612110168.html the statistics at the bottom don't add up. wins has to equal losses, and goals for should equal goals against. there also is a small visual error in the bracket, first box, tanzania/rwanda ends in the zambia box, either two quarters or the semi should be switched. -Koppapa (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

2006 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 due to citation issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting this for the same reasons i delisted articles like the 2012 CECAFA Cup. That being unsourced statements and lack of broadness. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:05, 9 July 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.