Talk:Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
To uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of March 2, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Lead: The solitary sentence at the start of the lead should be consolidated into a paragraph. The lead could bear some slight expansion to fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD
 * Firsts: Lists are deprecated in the WP:MoS
 * Modern Campus, 1961–present: The modern campus features more modernly styled structures... poor grammar; expansive - weasel word taken out ✅
 * Faculty: Lists are deprecated in the WP:MoS
 * The number of faculty has been steadily growing - the number of faculty?
 * The acronym RPI is used a little too frequently, would be better replaced with "the institute" at times.
 * Statistics for the undergraduate class of 2013: Lists are deprecated in the WP:MoS. Perhaps present as a table?
 * Student life: See the official listing of clubs and organizations for a full and up to date list. This sort of direct html linking is not encyclopaedic. ✅
 * The tone of the article verges on promotional, please copy-edit and remove weasel word.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Modern Campus, 1961–present: Although final designs have not been announced, the plan is to build an adjacent building in a fashion similar to the Biotechnology center, with the second inner L-shaped building being built adjacent to the Science Center, with a glass-enclosed atrium between the two. It is expected that the Hirsch Observatory may be renovated as well. Also similar to the the biotechnology center, the new addition will house mostly lab facilities, and the older building will house mostly classrooms and offices. needs a cite (and possible update. -- this section was revamped. {[done}}
 *  The new residence hall is part of a growing initiative to involve students in the Troy community and help revitalize the downtown. RPI owns and operates offices in several buildings in downtown Troy, such as the Rice and Heley buildings and the historic W. & L.E. Gurley Building. RPI also owns the Proctor's Theater building, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979.  ✅
 * Academics: needs fuller citing.
 * I can't find anything in ref #17 that supports the assertion that the incubator is or was the first in the US. ✅
 * A citation needed tag from December 2008 in Climbing the Hill, 1824–1905 remains un-addressed. ✅
 * A citation tag from September 2009 in Gender ratio remains un-addressed. - sentence removed. ✅
 * A citation needed tag from October 2007 in Rensselaer Plan needs addressing. - controversial statement removed. ✅
 * RPI songs: completely uncited. ✅ (citations added)
 * Notable alumni: Completely uncited. ✅ (citations added)
 * By far the majority of sources are WP:primary sources. More independent third party sources need to be found.
 * Citations would benefit from being formatted using citation templates to clarify the source and publication date. ✅
 * I tagged 3 dead links and repaired six others.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See above, the article has a rather promotional flavour. ✅
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks so much for taking the time to do a review. I agree the prose on this page has degraded and some sections could use overhauls. I made some quick fixes, for instance, I removed the weasel words you mentioned and added some references. Also, the reference for the incubator program does say that RPI had the first "incubator fully funded by a university in the United States", Its in an image near the middle of the article, which is maybe why you didn't find it. An independent reference would be nice, but probably hard to find.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks so much for taking the time to do a review. I agree the prose on this page has degraded and some sections could use overhauls. I made some quick fixes, for instance, I removed the weasel words you mentioned and added some references. Also, the reference for the incubator program does say that RPI had the first "incubator fully funded by a university in the United States", Its in an image near the middle of the article, which is maybe why you didn't find it. An independent reference would be nice, but probably hard to find.
 * Hi. Thanks so much for taking the time to do a review. I agree the prose on this page has degraded and some sections could use overhauls. I made some quick fixes, for instance, I removed the weasel words you mentioned and added some references. Also, the reference for the incubator program does say that RPI had the first "incubator fully funded by a university in the United States", Its in an image near the middle of the article, which is maybe why you didn't find it. An independent reference would be nice, but probably hard to find.


 * Regarding the use of the word "RPI", I remember a while ago someone went through and changed all the "Institutes" and "Rensselaers" to "RPI"'s. The students prefer to use the name RPI, while the name "Rensselaer" is the official name given by the administration. In anycase, I agree its overused here. I don't think its a a critical issue though.


 * I agree that this article could use more independent references, and that a few areas are deficient. In particular, there have been a few books written on the history of RPI. I would love to see the history section expanded using these resources, however I don't have the time to do it myself. Also, I think the lists are ok, but theoretically they could be expanded into paragraphs. Hopefully someone else can do some more thorough improvements. Danski14(talk) 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whilst Danski14 has made some improvements, many issues remain unaddressed, so after seven days, I am delisting. When the article is in good shape it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Jezhotwells, with very few remaining problems, why did you move this article from GA to C? B-Class seems much more appropriate for an article with only 3 identified, unresolved issues. -- Darktower  1 2 3 4 5 04:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * B Class is generally determined by (varying) project guidelines, so my standard practice is to set at C class or lower and let the projects determine. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have upped it to B. I'm a member of all four projects and this is definitely in the B area.  upstate NYer  01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)