Talk:University of Virginia fraternities and sororities/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Agtx (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Not perfect, but very close. Writing is overall good, tone is right, and it is generally concise. The main UVA article uses UVA instead of UVa. This should match. There are two "1970s" sections in the History section, which is a little odd. The sororities section says "1970s and 1980s" but then doesn't talk about anything related to the '80s. Can those two sections be combined in some way, if we're doing this chronologically as opposed to by topic? -- All resolved
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Solid here. The style is right, the layout is good, and the way that the table of organizations has been incorporated is, I think, the best way to do it. That avoids going into unnecessary detail on each organization.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference list looks good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Although many of the sources are primary sources, I'm not sure where else we'd get a lot of this information. I'd say, therefore, that the quality of the in-line sources is sufficient.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are some areas that are missing sources. The lede of University_of_Virginia_Greek_life#Service_fraternities.2C_professional_fraternities_and_honor_societies is entirely unsourced claims ("thriving social atmospheres") and needs to be rewritten. The last paragraph of "early 1900s" is missing inline cites, and contains claims that the 1981 book can't support ("still in place today"). The second paragraph in the 2000s section has the same problem. -- All resolved
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Does not appear to be missing coverage on any key areas.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Although the table listing every Greek organization is lengthy, I think it's well-sourced and the best way to present this information.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Does not appear to have any neutrality problems. Treatment of the Rolling Stone controversy is good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images looks good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and add to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Agtx, thanks for reviewing this for me! I just finished addressing all of your comments. I'll list them below:

I changed all instances of UVa to UVA.
I consolidated the two 1970s sections under a new "Late 1900s" section.
I shortened the lead of the Professional and Honor Fraternities section, removed unsource-able claims and added a reference describing the nature of professional and honor societies
I more explicitly cited the early 1900s paragraph, including a couple new sources
I more explicitly cited the 2000s paragraph, including a couple new sources

With these improvements I hope the article will be able to pass GA review. Let me know if there are any other issues.Puppysnot (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agtx, any other comments or concerns? I want to make sure I'm able to address them before the 7-day window is up. Thanks! Puppysnot (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]