Talk:Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

I will do the review of this article. Lampman (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   It does not follow WP:LAYOUT; there are far too many short pararaphs and short sections. There are also issues with the language: "The building was occupied by Embry-Riddle prior to moving to Daytona Beach, Florida." Surely that big building didn't move anywhere? "an eerie turn of events" is an example of unencyclpaedic language. Most of all though, much of the article reads like a promotional pamphlet. "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is one of the best accredited aviation-oriented universities in the world.[5] Utilizing a fleet of over 90 aircraft, the university serves culturally diverse students primarily motivated toward careers in aviation and aerospace." No amount of sources can save that bit. Also: "Prescott is a short drive to Phoenix and within a day's drive of Las Vegas and California." How is that relevant for anyone but a university recruiter?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are five dead references that I've marked of.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There are sections that are far too short, particularly "Worldwide campus" and "Notable alumni". It's hard to believe there's nothing more to be said about these topics, particularly since there are actually sub-articles. Also "Organization" could probably be expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   Tagging and captions seem ok, but the images should be thumb size rather than forced.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lampman (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll start working on these now that I have time. Thanks for bringing those links to our attention. Longbowe (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)