Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2021 [1].

2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the FIFA World Cup, football's greatest prize, each continent has its own prestigious tournament for national teams. In Europe we've just completed one, the UEFA Euro 2020. And in Africa, the equivalent competition is the Africa Cup of Nations. This article is about the final of the 2017 edition of that tournament, which featured 7-time winners Egypt against 4-time winners Cameroon. As with similar articles, there are details about how each nation reached the final, as well as some background information and reactions. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Note that I have another FAC currently open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry City 2–2 Bristol City (1977)/archive1, in which I'm a co-nominator, (and more feedback on that one is certainly welcomed!) while this one's a solo nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the speedy check!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Generally looks pretty good, but some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • the CAF (CAF)— Two problems with this; why is it ‘’the’’ CAF? We normally have EUFA, FIFA etc without the definite article. Secondly, it seems very odd to have (CAF) indicated as the abbreviation of CAF, which is already an abbreviation.
    Not sure how it happened, but that's just an error. It was meant to say "the Confederation of African Football (CAF)", and I've now amended it thus. I assume the is appropriate when using the fully spelled-out name? But I do agree it should just be "CAF" elsewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • they represented the Confederation of African Football (CAF)— still in the lead, we again have (CAF), at least this time as an abbreviation of the full form, but why repeated, and why is the full version left until the second mention, instead of in para 1?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In “Background”, we have Confederation of African Football (CAF) again, beginning to look like overkill for an obvious abbreviation.
    I think here it does belong, as we usually treat the lead and the body as separate entities and acronyms are introduced afresh in each. I've now amended it so we have one full title in the lead and this one in the body, with just "CAF" everywhere else.
  • Egypt appeared in their 23rd tournament... Cameroon appeared in — were appearing seems more appropriate to me
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1. Is there really nothing better than Twitter for this? I know it’s their official account, but we try to avoid generally unreliable sources if possible. Incidentally, I note that that on that page they don’t put the before Confederation of African Football, let alone CAF.
    I have replaced it with a better one. Thanks Jimfbleak that's all your points for now, happy to look at anything else you find. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better now, and I can't see any major issues arising from the other two reviewers below, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
  • can we link the 1957 event on the first mention? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four groups of four with each team playing the other three group members once in a round-robin format. - could probably be a bit more succinct, maybe "four round-robin groups consisting of four teams. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • four quarter-finals, two semi-finals and the final - do we need to specify this? Aren't single-elimimation tournaments always like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I've removed that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (3rd among African nations), while Cameroon were 62nd (12th among African nations).[7 - could we maybe say "Cameroon were the 12th highest ranked African team (62nd in the world), as the rankings for Africa are important to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple duplicate links, such as Gabon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gabon links are actually different - the first points to Gabon the country, which hosted the event, while the second points to the Gabon national football team. Are there any others?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore. Although I do wonder if we need to link to the country of Gabon Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look there very soon, thanks Lee Vilenski. Looking forward to some more comments from you here as and when you can.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: I've looked at your second tranche of points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for prose and MOS integrity. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Echo the comments above that "the CAF (CAF)" looks ridiculous and there is no reason to explain the acronym twice in the lead
    Yep.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would merge the two-sentence final paragraph of the lead onto the one before
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the background section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    True, although there's always that caveat about "comparable amounts" being written the same way. Since most the numbers are low, I've flipped them all to words, including sixteen, four, two etc.
  • "had won only ever" => "had only ever won"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the route to the final section, the little tables make it look like there were first, second and third rounds like in the FA Cup, but there weren't. All those matches should have the round shown as "group"
    Do you mean just "Group", with no number? I've done that for now. Having "Group 1" would seem strange, because that could be the name of an actual group.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the goal was discounted" - the usual term is "disallowed"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking of substitute
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in the match section, numbers less than 10 should be written as words
    In this case, wouldn't the number of minutes qualify for comparable values clause, as per MOS:NUM? 2 minutes, 7 minutes, 22 minutes, 59 minutes etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "attackingly" a word?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @ChrisTheDude:, looking forward to any other points you have.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN with a view to it heading to FAC, so was a little stricter than the normal GAN reviews. Since then the minor tweaks made in response to the comments above have assured me that the article is now suitable to be promoted to featured status. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The weather given is for the airport quite some distance from the stadium, correct? Any idea how closely the two generally match? Do any of the sources note the weather at the stadium at the time of the match?
    I can't find any source giving the weather at the stadium. And as you say, the cite given is for a location 8km away, and at an unspecified time of day. Is it best to remove the weather in your opinion, or leave as is?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about putting it in the body instead, and providing that context? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESPN is a publisher not a website. Ditto CNN, check for others
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still issues here - compare for example FNs 25 and 31, which are the same site but differently formatted. (Really there you only need |publisher=CNN, or if you really wanted you could use |website=CNN.com, but you don't need both). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should use article title
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: what's the purpose of |quote= here?
    This was an oversight, based on an automated tool which provides a quote parameter.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The About page for AfricanFootball.com seems to be broken - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    It is published by Backpage media,[2] which is as far as I can tell a reputable South African media outlet, providing services to agencies and corporates and suchlike. The website certainly seems to be under editorial control. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/if publication location is included
    The location is included only in the case of The Guardian (Nigeria), to avoid confusion with the more well-known UK Guardian. Otherwise I'm not using locations.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36: publication title formatting doesn't match other instances. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I think I've looked at all these now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: sorry for slow turnaround, I've been away from home. I've added the weather detail in the body as you suggested, and also tidied up a few of the refs such as CNN, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America, that seemed to need a "publisher" rather than a "website" format. Please let me know if anything further is needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

I'm not particularly familiar with football in Africa, but I'll do a spotcheck. First a few minor comments on the text:

  • is the primary international football --> it should probably say association footbal, just like in the lead
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • we have sixteen in the lead and 31st in the body. And 9th and seven. Seems a bit inconsistent. Check for more MOS:NUM issues.
    I think this is probably OK myself. MOS:NUMERAL suggests using digits for more than two words, numerals for one word, and either for two words. When it comes to consistency though, it insists only that comparable values are rendered equivalently. Thus the sixteen/four/four is consistent, but the 31st/23rd/18th are also all comparable with each other and unrelated to the sixteen/four/four. The one exception I found was a "seventh" after the 31st/23rd/18th, which I've now changed to 7th. I don't think it would really benefit the article to switch wholesale to "thirty-first" etc. Minute counts within the match are all numerals too. Let me know if this doesn't seem right or there are any blatant errors of consistency.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the Evening Standard is FA material. Is there another source saying something similar? Then we can avoid the discussion of whether it is a reliable source in this context.
    As you wish, Eurosport also commented on the state of the pitch so I've switched to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20:00 WAT --> earlier it said it was 9pm local time
    Ah, good spot. It was 8pm local time.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tournament's best player and best goalkeeper of the tournament --> a bit awkward
    The second "of the tournament" has been removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

  • #1 #3 #4 #6 #29 #30 #31 #35 #39 #40 all ok
  • #2 is ok except for it doesn't state that CAF is the organiser
    Added a new source verifying that factlet.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5 is ok except for: does not mention the stadium or Addis Abbeba
    New source added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #36: archive link goes to something completely unrelated and the first link times out
    New archive added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #38 Guardian article does not mention 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup in Russia
    New ref added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a few more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: thanks for the review, and I've looked at the points so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked #37 and #38 and all is fine. I support. Nice work. Good to see African football represented on the list of FA articles. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2017_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_Final/archive1&oldid=1037665640"