Talk:Kalyani Government Engineering College

Notice tags
why this link has been rated as disputed ??? This is the wiki entry of our college .... can some body pl explain. Mrikapa (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The existence of the article is not being disputed; the notice tags only indicate that the article fails to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to writing style.
 * The first tag relates to using a neutral point of view in the writing style. This relates to many sections of the article which read more like a brochure or an advertisement, rather than as an encyclopedia article.  This is primarily an issue in the two sections "Campus life" and "Student performances & global alumni success".  These same two sections are also the same reason for the fourth notice tag which references the need to "avoid weasel words".
 * The second tag relates to the need to add third party references to the article. It's important to note that the "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".  If content cannot be validated via references to reliable sources, then the subjects notability could be questioned, eventually resulting in potential deletion of the article.  In this case, I believe there are enough reliable sources available, they just need to be documented.  Ideally, the references should be attached via in-line reference tags for citing sources.
 * The third notice tag refers to the general layout of the article, as it does not currently follow Wikipedia's manual of style. This mainly relates to the use of text blocks, which should usually be avoided; but also there are some links within the article which do not currently follow the external links guideline (in most cases on Wikipedia, external links should only be within infoboxes, within "ref" tags, or in external links sections).
 * I hope this helps clarify the reasons for the notice tags. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

we have reviewed/reorganised the article - is this complying ?? Mrikapa (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin re-check the contents here ? we have reviewed the article & we think this at par with the wiki guidelines. pl chk & revert back. thanks. Mrikapa (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some additional cleanup to the article to bring it closer to standard Wikipedia article formatting requirements. The main issue that I still see remaining is in the "Notable Achievements by the Students & Alumni" and "KGECian as Top of Company" sections.  Individual names should only be mentioned if those individuals meet Wikipedia's criteria under WP:N and WP:BIO (which would also justify articles about those individuals).  Otherwise, the sections should just mention the achievements without naming the individuals. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Barek, We will check those Guidelines & do the changes accordingly. Mrikapa (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

@Barek:Our college is relatively new, Our alumni is still not at par with the other prominent fellow - or they dont have/want to put a BIO in wiki right now, so, it is hard to To follow WP:BIO guideline but their achievements are worth to mention. so we are keeping those Alumni Info there with proper Cite/ref. thanks. Mrikapa (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Article Review
I have completed a preliminary review and have the following points for the main contributors of this article. First of all, the tone of this article is not consistent of an encyclopedia. It sounds like either a current student, alumni, or member of the university wrote this article, causing significant bias to be present in addition to weasel words. This needs to be fixed ASAP. Please note that articles promoting or advertising on Wikipedia will be promptly deleted.

Please review WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines and structure the article into this specified format. This is the standardized format for all university/college articles on Wikipedia worldwide.


 * Heavy copyediting is required throughout the article. (First and foremost: "College emblem and its significance" not it's.)
 * Emblem/logo should be in the University Infobox and should not require an additional section devoted to its description.
 * Section on campus location is too short.
 * Undergraduate and Graduate studies: list of degrees and program should not be on this particular article since degree programs change frequently. It is preferred if a simple reference to the university's course catalog be used instead.
 * Affiliations and Accreditation: Please note that all references to accreditation boards should have the specific country name included. (National Board of Accreditations is too broad, as every single country have their own respective accreditation standards)
 * Admissions Procedures: not encyclopedic. A simple link to the university's admissions webpage should suffice.
 * Computer Laboratory & Networking Infrastructure:
 * First of all, that's not "top grade"
 * Second of all, "top grade" is a weasel phrase
 * Third, this is not necessary nor notable
 * Societies, please do not write "~ coming soon" or similar messages. It gives the article a completely unprofessional image.  Note, do not list every single school society/clubs/organizations on this article, as it is not a notable fact.
 * Campus life section lacks proper descriptions
 * Technical & Cultural Events: are these notable events or are these just events posted by the university's public relations office?
 * Global Alumni Rollouts: Absolutely unnecessary section. In fact, this might as well be a list of meta phrases to try to attract web traffic into this article, thus promoting the university.  This section will be deleted within 24 hours.
 * Notable Achievements by the Students & Alumni: Again, unnecessary. Student awards are considered one-time events, which do not serve as notable mentions.
 * KGECian as Top of Company: How does this one sentence deserve its own section. And how does this relate to the university itself (and not its people)?
 * Reference section should be renamed to "External Links", and the individual PDF link to one person's Google award should be promptly removed.
 * Notes section should be renamed to "References"

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to inquire on my talk page. I would suggest that the contributors of this article read up on Wikipedia policies before more of their content gets removed.

Please note that if proper rewording/rewriting is not performed in the next three days, sections in question will be removed.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  07:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the ranking given in the article, and its source
As per the article, KGEC has been ranked 72 and 69 among top 100 engg. colleges in India in 2011 and 2012. But, there is no source of that information. My thorough google search yielded no such result. Can anyone please post the link of such a report in the references area? Because without it, it surely seems an act of advertisement and misguidance, not proper information. The present links in the reference area only include Top 10 engg colleges in WB, and top 10 tech colleges, not the link of top 100 engg colleges in India, as given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susobhang70 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)