Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article currently meets the third quickfail criterion - it contains outstanding tags, and in general is insufficiently referenced. There is an uncited quote in the second paragraph of the "Student body" section, and several sections are not referenced at all. In order to avoid the hassle of a second nomination I'm placing the article on hold for now - please correct these issues within seven days and I will conduct a full review. Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Good work over the past week! You've clearly put a substantial amount of effort into this. There are still a couple of issues, but I'm confident we can work through them. Here's what I see:


 * Lead: Good articles must meet our guidelines for lead sections, which says that a lead should be a summary of an article's most important aspects. The current lead leaves out lots of important aspects, and is shorter than it needs to be.  Could you expand it?
 * Uncited quotes: All quotes and statistics in good articles must be cited. The second paragraph of "The harkness gift" section has an uncited quote, and the third paragraph of the "The student body" section has some uncited statistics.
 * Original research: Good articles cannot contain original research, and the way we verify that information is not original is with citations. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have at least one citation, and definitely every section, but the article currently has no citations in the "Off-campus study" section and many uncited paragraphs.
 * Neutral point of view: The second paragraph of "Harkness teaching method" doesn't sound very neutral - saying that the learning at the Academy is "active and student-centered" and that "theorems and principles emerge more organically" sounds more like an opinion or even an advertisement than a fact, and needs to be cited or removed.
 * Sources: It's okay to use primary sources in moderation, but the current article relies on exeter.edu almost overwhelmingly. Do any third-party sources have this same information?

I don't want to discourage you, but with these problems I think it is best to fail the article so that you can improve it and resubmit without time constraints. Keep working and hopefully it will be a GA before long :). --Cerebellum (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)