Talk:Bowling Green State University/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cupco (talk · contribs) 19:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Reply
Cupco- Thanks for the GA review!

Reply to 1A, Copy vio: I'm not sure how those facts on the nickname escaped myself, peer review, and copyedit. I think it may have been paraphrased but not enough. I reworked the wording and paraphrased better, please have a look at those sentences and see if it suits you better. I believe that was toward the top of the Early growth and development section

Reply to 3A, Coverage: I agree the grad/attrition rates and tuition are missing. I'll work on putting together that information this evening, there's some good data here: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Bowling+Green+State&s=all&id=201441#retgrad and I'll look to bring in a cpl more reliable sources as well. I'm a little weary of adding crime data and have not seen it included in other GA and Featured university-related articles. According to the data, BG's campus is one of the safer ones for a larger university but I haven't found articles to that, safe campus awards, etc... really anything notable regarding campus safety. http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=Bowling+Green+State&s=all&id=201441#crime Also, other than no notable murders or crimes, I have not seen anything on big/notable controversies. The only thing I can think of, occurred while I was on business in Toledo in early Aug. BGSU demolished a 1920s kit home that held staff offices. It was not on a historic registrar and had been modified so much, the university argued it was not representative of a kit home and basically beyond repair or additional renovations. http://www.toledoblade.com/Education/2012/07/31/BGSU-building-supporters-gather-to-protest-demolition.html http://www.sent-trib.com/front-page/updated-demolition-of-pop-culture-house-begins If the property is used for a new health center, some mention of the site and the house could be added, but I personally wouldn't call it a notable controversy. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's cool. Take your time to google at least a few excerpts from each section please -- when I was looking at verifiability there were definitely some other very close paraphrases (but I didn't make a note of them, sorry.) If you want me to check back before the full 14 days, just say so on my talk page when you're ready. Cupco 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra work to clear up those issues. ✅ Congratulations! Cupco 22:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for the review! It's a nice honor after myself and some of the other regular editors put it extensive work toward the GA status. Cheers and happy editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)