Talk:Harvard University/GA1

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

Comment: Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * ❌ The history section is poorly cited and written, entire paragraphs devoted to relatively minor episodes such as Agassiz's class etc. while impact of major episodes of American history (Civil War, World Wars & Great Depression, racial integration & coeducation, 1960s-70s student activism on campus, etc.) are wholly ignored; inappropriate use of embedded lists which need to be prose-ified; several single-sentence paragraphs throughout
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
 * ❌ Several sections have embedded lists which have been templated since June 2009 and need to be prose-ified; the faculty & staff section has been templated and needs to be expanded; the "In popular culture" needs to be integrated, summarized, or done away with.

Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * ❌ Several sections such as Athletics, Student Activities, Research lack citations for many statements.
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
 * ✅ Inconsistent citation formatting,
 * (c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * ❌ No discussion of research contributions or activities, architectural history of campus(es), student or faculty government, athletic activities beyond football & crew, notable art or other holdings in libraries & museums,
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * ❌ Likely undue weight on student activities, recentist coverage of campus expansion

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
 * ❌ The article just had several major changes to the lead and other sections introduced in the previous week, there's an on-going discussion about incorporating some mention of prestige in the lead.
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * ✅ A few images of campus, more needed given the length of the article. Several sections have no images.
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * ✅ Images need alt tags, possibly wikilinks to topic mentioned, etc.
 * A very premature nomination that should be speedily closed. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that WP:GAN explicitly states "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review," and you definitely made significant contributions to the article, I would say you shouldn't review this article.  ~DC  Let's Vent 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is precisely because of my contributions to this article that I did not close this GAN but rather voiced my objections which are hard to dispute. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you have an axe to grind. You spent much of August systematically going through college articles and whitewashing them to conform to your own essay.  ~DC  Let's Vent 18:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion has now become tangential from either incorporating prestige into the lead or evaluating the GA criteria. You appear to be editing while angry. I would caution you against making bad faith assumptions of other editors, unless you want to raise specific accusations on a dispute resolution forum. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how you can separate "prestige" from Harvard in the lead. they go hand-in-hand (no i did not go to harvard and have only been to Mass. as a child) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont understand how you can separate "prestige" from Harvard in the lead. they go hand-in-hand (no i did not go to harvard and have only been to Mass. as a child) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:GAN rules clearly state "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review". On that basis I am usurping Madcoverboy's status as reviewer in this nomination. Cheers! Edge3 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Madcoverboy that this article is not ready for GA at the moment. Numerous statements remain unsourced, many embedded lists need to be converted into prose format, and trivial information is receiving too much importance in the article. I suggest that you take a look at similar university articles at GA or FA status. GAs include University of Chicago, University of Oxford, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. FAs include Dartmouth College and Georgetown University. Edge3 (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * alright fair enough. What would you consider trivial information so I can work on removing it?  ~DC  Let's Vent 03:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the article is to be rated GA I suggest also making it clearer what is undeniable fact and what is merely opinion. Quantifiable info, years, dates, etc., are factual. How beautiful something is, how ugly something is, how prestigious something is, etc., are not. This issue arises in the following sentence: "Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the country, as well as one of the most prestigious". In this sentence, the part before the comma is factual information, and the part after is opinion. It is a fact that Harvard is REGARDED by the referenced source as one of the most prestigious; it is not necessarily fact that Harvard IS one of the most prestigious - such a claim is largely unverifiable so it is best to make it clear from the onset that this is opinion. Thus, you should make this clearer by modifying the sentence so that it is phrased in a manner similar to the following: "Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the country, and regarded as one of the most prestigious." --82.31.164.172 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The trivial information needs to be reduced, not removed. The "In fiction and popular culture" section, for example, should present only the most notable references to Harvard in popular culture. Edge3 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)