Talk:Goucher College/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Taewangkorea (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will be starting this GA review. It is my first GA review so I will mostly follow the criteria. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the Quick-Fail Criteria[edit]

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria

2. It contains copyright violations

Copyvio and spot check passed. The violations shown are quotes that are appropriately cited, or specialized terms such as (U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).

3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {cleanup}, {POV}, {unreferenced} or large numbers of {citation needed}, {clarify}, or similar tags.

4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

Overall, none of the quick-fail criteria are met. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the Main GA Criteria[edit]

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. :@Wikieditor19920: Please see comments below. [1]
      3. layout - Maybe things in MOS:LEADORDER such as a short description might be added? Also, perhaps a "further reading" and/or "see also" section can be added?.
      Lead section - the lead should summarize what is discussed in the rest of the article, parts on notable people and the "campus" section should be added. Also, in the lead, "and was one of 40 institutions profiled in Colleges That Change Lives by Loren Pope" is not in the body. Finally, some refs that are in the lead are not talked about in the article, maybe you can try to incorporate some of that stuff into the article.
      Done. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wikieditor19920: The lead could use one sentence or so on notable alumni, and it would then be a good summary of the entire article. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Words to watch - The title of the "recent construction" section might be changed to prevent the usage of the term recent (it may be recent now but not in several years) but I think it is not that important.
      Done. Incorporate section on construction into rest of article.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Fiction -
      List Incorporation -
  2. Verifiable with no original research :[2]
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; @Wikieditor19920: Please see comments below : What reference style is being used? [3]
      2. OK. I guess MoS does not have a specific citation style guide. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. 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);[4]
    3. it contains no original research; @Wikieditor19920:: Please see comments
      On the Design, Layout, and Sustainability section, the source (nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/how-college-campuses-can-lead-fighting-climate-change) says "all new buildings or major renovations to existing buildings with a goal of achieving at least a Silver rating" but the article says " implemented a plan for all new and existing buildings to achieve at least a Silver rating according to the U.S. Green Building Council's" which is different from what the source says (mainly renovations to existing buildings vs all existing buildings.
      and
      4. Rewrote this segment to conform with your suggestion above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
      Copyvio detector and spot check passed. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Broad in its coverage :
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;@Wikieditor19920:: Please see comments
      Information regarding organization/administration of the university (maybe under Academics section) would be helpful. Also, the "rankings" and "Admissions" and "graduate level" sections under academics might be expanded more. Also, perhaps information regarding faculty research might be added under the "academics" section. Finally, in the student life section, parts regarding "athethics" and "clubs and extracurriculars" sound rather short. Maybe there can be more info added.
      I can only include what I find in reliable sources, and there is only limited information available to put into these sections. I'm hoping that this article can serve as a good example of how to make proper and efficient use of a subject (institution) with moderate reliable source coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wikieditor19920: OK. I see. I think it is OK then. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      [5] and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
      3. Uses summary style: Taewangkorea (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [6]
    No edit wars or content disputes. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio :[7]
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content ; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Status query[edit]

Wikieditor19920, Taewangkorea, where does this review stand? While Wikieditor19920 has made some edits to the article since this review was opened, they have made no response yet on this page to indicate what progress they have made on the particular points raised in the review, and Taewangkorea hasn't edited this review page since December 5. It would be great if this review could become active again. Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear that I was supposed to respond on this page. I've made some change and will indicate above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, I have almost completed the review, and I will do an image review Tuesday, Feb. 4 UTC. Thank you for the wait. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, I have just completed the review of the images, and there is just one comment that I have above before it will be good to go. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taewangkorea Sure thing, thank you. Is it up yet? I'm not seeing the comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, its regarding the lead. "The lead could use one sentence or so on notable alumni, and it would then be a good summary of the entire article." Taewangkorea (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taewangkorea Done! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikieditor19920, I have passed the GA review. Congratulations on helping improve Wikipedia. If you could reciprocate the favor by reviewing any of my current GA noms of Kim Sung-uk or Gongnyong Ridge, that would be great! Taewangkorea (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taewangkorea Thanks very much. I'd be happy to give one of them a go. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
  3. ^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
  4. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but preferably not both in the same article. In-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style.
  5. ^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  6. ^ Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold.
  7. ^ The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goucher_College/GA1&oldid=938754268"