Talk:2022 CAFA Women's Championship

2022 CAFA Women's Championship was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 30, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Football

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women in Green: Wildcard Edition

This article was created or improved during the Wildcard Edition GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 CAFA Women's Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm glad to see that you're eager to expand Wikipedia articles and get them to Good Article status! Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article, as it does not meet the Good Article criteria. I'll describe the criteria and explain why the article does not meet them below so that you and other contributors know where this article needs to be improved. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: There's not much writing here to work with. The prose of the article is only a few sentences. It doesn't follow the lead rules because the lead doesn't summarize the rest of the article. It also uses too many lists instead of describing the information in prose.
Verifiable with no original research: Twitter is not allowed to be used as a source. It's important to make sure all sources are reliable when writing an article. A lot of the information in this article doesn't have any source at all.
Broad in its coverage: This article has hardly any information. For a good article, you would expect many paragraphs that describe each part of the subject in detail. There should probably be a few paragraphs about how the events was set up, about the different participants, about how the event happened, any commentary on the event, and any other notable things that happened. Consider looking at some successful good articles about sporting events to see how much information they have.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: This one is good. The article doesn't take sides in any way or suggest one country deserved to win over another.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: This one is good. There's no arguing or fighting about what should be in the article.
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: This one is good. There are only two images and they can both legally be used through Creative Commons. More images would be better, but it's not required.