Talk:Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • I removed an expand tag from the section on the foundation as clearly there is a separate article on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • The lead does not sufficiently summarize the entire article. Most sections would deserve a mention in the lead which is not currently so. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • The vast majority of references are WP:SPS, in fact Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities appears to be the only independent source. This must be addressed. I would suggest that a minimum of 40% third party sources is required. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • as noted above most sources are SPS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • Not possible to determine at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Exceedingly thorough, but there is no independent comment on the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Needs independent commentary on the organisation. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, there are problems here in that all but one of the sources is related to the organisation. I will place on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Follwing the comment below I shall close this nomination as not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After consulting national officers and staff of the fraternity, it seems there is very little chance of finding sufficient independent references as sources for the information in the article. There are numerous university and local newspaper articles written about chapter events, but little in the way of general references that would be useful in this article. If such sources exist, it will likely require more research than can be completed during a hold period. As a result, I'm withdrawing the GA nomination for this article. Thanks for taking the time to review. Michael07lu (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)