Talk:Hamline University/GA3

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

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. First, I will give some basic/general suggestions for improvement. After they are completed, I will go into the more specific suggestions (such as minor MoS problems, grammar, pics, etc). Here is the first set: I'll give the editors of this article seven days to make these initial changes before I give another set of suggestions. Nikki ♥  311  01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be about three or four full paragraphs summarizing the whole article.
 * There are some dash problems. See WP:DASH for when to use dashes, endashes, and emdashes. Please be consistent throughout the article.
 * See MOS:BOLD for when bolding is and is not appropriate.
 * Ref #59 is dead and will need to be fixed or replaced.
 * The alumni section needs to be cleaned up and referenced.
 * What's with the random "Men's Basketball[64]" in the middle of the Athletics section? Should that be a subheader?
 * The web citations are improperly formatted. See Template:cite web for information on how to fix this.
 * The vast majority of the sources are from Hamline University. That leads to a point of view problem. I'd like to see some non-primary sources in there, as well.
 * In approximately an hour the seven days will be up, but I am going to go ahead and fail this article for lack of response. Please consider addressing these issues before renomination. Thanks. Nikki  ♥  311  03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow respone, I haven't had time lately to make any changes to article yet. One of the problems you mentioned was the lack of non-Hamline sources. Getting information that is not from university sources that is also not original research could next to impossible. Hamline University is a small school and does not have historical research done that is not somehow connected to the school itself. Is there another way that this entry could be reviewed so that this problem could be recitfied? --Flashdornfeld (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)