Talk:Tajikistan women's national football team/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get started on the review this evening. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (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.	Could be better, lead is fine but a bit short. History section needs to be reworked as the grammar isn't good. Sentences need to start with capital letters and a number of the sentences need broken up as they are too long and read as if several sentences have been pushed together. Doesn't need a table for the home stadium section, expand with prose. World ranking section needs a prose overview. Don't need irrelevant See alsos in Results and fixtures.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too short and doesn't adequately summarise the article. This would be easier to achieve if the article was expanded as there is no information in the history section covering the last five years. Needs WP:ENGVAR (I don't know if this is British or American or another variety) and WP:DATEOVER templates. Not sure about the colours used in the tables, they appear purely for decoration and don't match with the MOS. Competitive record tables don't meet MOS:FLAGS, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record for an example of one which does.
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 sources provided for the Team image, Current coaching staff, Players, Records and Competitive record sections. First manager stats need a source as well. Sources in the Results and fixtures section should be properly cited as bare URLs are exposed to WP:LINKROT. If possible, use a more reliable source than Twitter as well.
	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).	Sources used appear reliable, not sure about the Tweets though.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Can't verify whether or not their is OR due to lack of sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The prose covers a brief period in 2017 to 2019 but little before and nothing since.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Doesn't go into enough detail.
	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.	Recent history is stable.
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.	Valid fair use rationale for the federation's logo, other images are licensed through commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article isn't ready. It's a good start but needs expanding. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]