Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues with GA criteria 2 and 3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2015. Just like the 2000 CECAFA Cup that was recently delisted. This article fails the broadness aspect of a GA because there is practically no prose for any of the matches in the Cup, which is something that you should expect in an article about a sports match. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• De-list looks like most of the reasons I voted to de-list the 2000 article also apply here. 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. None of the fixtures/results/tables or the goalscorers list have any sources, which mean it fails criteria 2b and 2c. Whilst this article is slightly better than the 2000 one, it doesn't meet the current standard for a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. I was the GA reviewer and am surprised that I promoted this. I am more concerned about the lack of citations for the tables etc. than about the summaries; I see the argument for more text about each stage, but there's a subarticle for that so only a sentence or two would be enough. But without the citations this can't remain a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]