Talk:University of California, San Diego/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Major style and neutrality issues to address

1. 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)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Citation formatting is inconsistent and redundant ([1]), many citations originating from UCSD domain (see WP:SPS), majority of citations seem to be for rankings and are redundant or inconsistent

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Missing citations throughout History, Recognition, Research, Admissions, Student Life

   C. No original research:

3. 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.

4. 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)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Lots of enthusiastic and good-faith editing

6. 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

7. 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)

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)