Talk:University of California, San Diego/GA3

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: domesticenginerd (talk · contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. --domesticenginerd 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed review of article. Improvements made since last GA review. Still needs some work, though. Marked as "fail" but will give a week or so for improvements to be made before closing out officially. --domesticenginerd 03:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It has been over three weeks since the above: domesticenginerd hasn't edited since July 24, and the nominator, Horserice, hasn't edited since June 29. Under the circumstances, I'm closing the nomination, as no improvements of any significance have been made since the above, and the article has four "citation needed" templates, which is not what you want to see on an article wishing to attain GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) See discussion points 1, 2, and 3. On hold On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See discussion point 1. On hold On hold
    (c) (original research) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Meets criteria. Addressed concerns in GA2. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) See discussion point 4. On hold On hold
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    See discussion point 5. Fail Fail
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Meets criteria. No major disputes and has a lot of good faith contributions. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Meets criteria. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Fail Fail Many strides made since last GA review. Nonetheless, still at standards of a B-class university aricle. Need to work on references, expanding some of the topics, and neutralizing article.

Discussion[edit]

  1. Many references (over 50%) are from UCSD domain.
  2. Citation format is inconsistent.
  3. A few citations needed, particularly for viewbook-esque statements.
  4. Undue weight to diversity of student body. For instance, there is a table of the ethnic enrollment under "Student Life"; however, there is no reference to it in the text. Also, should elaborate further on background of student body (e.g. in-state, out-of-state, international percentage).
  5. Primarily seems like viewbook/advertisement for school. Outside of brief mention of chancellor's salary, does not address any controversies (e.g. 2010 diversity job, 2008 admissions mistake, racism issues [including 2010 fraternity party & 2011 noose], etc.)

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement 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.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, 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. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_California,_San_Diego/GA3&oldid=1038145308"