Talk:University of California, San Diego/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Major style and neutrality issues to address
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Inconsistent, over-complex parallelized sentences in some places, mission statement-ese in others,
- B. MoS compliance:
- A variety of issues with en/em dashes, non-breaking spaces, inconsistent citation formatting; overall structural style is inconsistent with WP:UNIGUIDE (outreach and television having top-level headers); no discussion of organization or administration (board of trustees, relationship with UC system, president & provost, student and faculty governance, endowment and fundraising, etc.); no discussion of campus (overview of layout, some history, geographical context and proximity, notable buildings, transportation, sustainability (I'm not a huge fan of the this, though it is popular)
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Missing citations throughout History, Recognition, Research, Admissions, Student Life
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- History section is far too short and neglects major topics like campus protests and activism in the 1960s and 70s, gender/racial integration, declining gov't sponsorship, town-gown tensions, 2008 admissions snafu merits no more than a sentence; academics section neglects any mention of accreditation, academic calendar, honors, enrollment distributions throughout schools, core undergraduate curriculum, popular undergraduate majors & graduate programs, tuition & financial aid, etc.; Alumni sections makes no mention of any notable alumni; no discussion of makeup/diversity/background of student body; research section omits important NSF data (
- B. Focused:
- Undue weight on rankings and neglect of major topics such as administration/organization, campus, academic information, alumni, etc.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- I think it should automatically fail for having rankings in the lead (see WP:UNIGUIDE) as well as unduly devoting a non-trivial percentage of the total written content to unencyclopedic rankings and recognition to the detrimental omission of other encyclopedic information (see 3a); several instances of weaselly/peacocked/boosterish statements ("especially well-respected", "academic strength and athletic prowess", "consistently rated", "Stellar faculty were recruited", etc.); mission statement-ese ("foster a lifelong, mutually beneficial relationship", undergraduate colleges)
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Lots of enthusiastic and good-faith editing
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Someone should look more closely at the logos especially, but they appear to pass
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A map or some other image providing a general geographical context for the campus might be nice, but it's not essential
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is what a B-class university article should look like. To the detriment of this article's quality, many many university articles currently assessed B-class need to demoted to C-class or lower. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Is this a fail or a hold? I honestly can't tell. Wizardman 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's been almost one month since this was posted. I've removed it from WP:GAN and closed the review as a fail. It can be renominated when it meets the GA criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)