Talk:Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Too many short choppy paragraphs. Footnotes are poorly formatted, with all caps titles, no publisher, mixture of written-out and all-numeric dates, excessive capitalization in image captions.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some paragraphs have no references. Most importantly, the whole article has very few third-party, neutral sources.  Almost every citation is to a .miami.edu website!  This is a fundamental violation of WP:V and WP:RS and would alone disqualify the article from GA consideration.  Surely some newspapers, magazines, journals, or books have written about the school.
 * At the time of the review, 8 out of 14 references were to UM sources, 6 independent. Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A pure count doesn't convey the extent of the problem. This is the version of the article at the time of review.  There are only three and a half sentences in the entire article that have non-.miami.edu sourcing: "It is the only subtropical applied and basic marine and atmospheric research institute in the continental United States.[2]" and ", during the 1960s it was part of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences.[5]" and "RSMAS's Marine Affairs & Policy Division also conducts archaeological and paleontological research at Little Salt Spring in Sarasota County.[11][12][13]" and "The site was donated to the University of Miami in 1982.[14]"  The entire rest of the article either has .miami.edu sourcing or no sourcing at all.  To me, there's simply not enough third-party, independent sourcing for this article to qualify for GA status.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article reads like a brochure for the school. There is no analysis of how well the school does it function – how does it compare with other oceanographic and atmospheric sciences schools?  Are there US News & World Report rankings, or rankings by some other body?  What about tuition expense metrics, faculty-to-student metrics, success of graduates metrics, etc.?  What do environmentalists think about the school? Members of industry?  Government bodies?  All of that is missing, another lack that disqualifies it from GA status.
 * I can't find any ranking of marine science programs. Generally, WP:UNI Guidelines seeks to avoid tuition or puffing discussions. Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This kind of material doesn't have to be 'puffing'; a school may rate average or below-average by such metrics. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * See previous comment.
 * 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):
 * Images are good, although one inside a building or classroom would be nice.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article needs a lot of work before it can be considered for GA status.
 * This article needs a lot of work before it can be considered for GA status.