Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Nottingham/archive1

University of Nottingham

I would very much like to try and help with getting this article up to WP:FA quality. Any pointers greatly appreciated. Lan3y 15:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's some low hanging fruit here:

The sections are in an unusual order - Research looks odd to me, coming first. There's a suggested structure at WP:UNI#Structure.
Done — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing. Always room for more references. See Oriel College for a well-referenced FA, and Ohio Wesleyan University for, well, you'll see.
Just one bare external link floating around in Student life needs to be zapped.
Done — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one {{fact}} tag needs mopping up (just delete the redlink, I think).
Done – that particular one, but unfortunately I've added more requests for citations. — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few daughter articles (List of University of Nottingham people, University Park Campus, Jubilee Campus, Sutton Bonington Campus, University of Nottingham Halls of Residence, University of Nottingham Students' Union...) where the text could/should be rewritten in summary style and linked using {{main}}
Done — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some dates and linked date fragments need tidying, per WP:DATE.
Done — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lan3y's script tore all of the whitespace out of the infobox (I added the spacing last week). Whitespace is helpful there!
Done — mholland (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more more work might be necessary for the following:

Go through Fawcett and Jackson (1998) and Tolley (2001) to provide inline refs for the History and Campus sections. At the moment, they're bulleted as refs, but look unused. I think if these are book-length works, they're both likely to be very relevant and quite reliable for expanding a lot of this article.
Image:Nottingham logo.gif needs a source, name of copyright holder (probably the University) and a detailed Fair Use rationale. The tag should be changed to {{Univ-logo}}, too.
Image:Nott logo.gif needs a detailed Fair Use rationale and re-copyright-tagging.
Perhaps create a navbox to tie together this article and its daughters? (Like Template:University College London, Template:Duke University) (Not sure about this. What do others think?)

I can't see any major problems with this article, just room for improvement. I've probably missed some basic stuff though. — mholland (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is with the lack of referencing: much of the historical stuff is well cited, but the rest of it is a little bare - take for example the lead section paragraph on student numbers: there is no reference supplied, so I have no idea where they came from; and particularly because they are now a couple of years old nobody is likely to be able to check them against say, whatever's on the university's website. There are numerous instances of this which occur right throughout the article. There are also instances of editorial opinion creeping into the page e.g. "The University of Nottingham is a leading research and teaching university": what makes it leading, who says so? I know these are quite trivial points - the overall thrust of the article is good and all the information is there, it just needs to be tidied up a bit to turn it into a featured article. --John24601 11:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]