Talk:Saint Anselm College/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be doing the review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a great start on the article and a lot of work has obviously gone into it. It is an interesting school and I think it could be a good article. It is not ready for GA as is, and I do have a lot of comments, but most of them are minor in nature and could be easily addressed with some concerted effort. I will put the review on hold, which will give you a week or so to make changes before it passes or fails. Not worries in any case. You can renominate it any time if you are not able to make the changes at this time.

I will go ahead and promote it to B-class, however, as it does meet the B-class criteria.

If you have comments or questions you can leave them here. I am watching this page and I will respond. As you make changes, it is a good idea to note in my comments below which you feel you have addressed. Many editors just strike the GA comments through as they deal with them. Feel free to do so if you like. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Review comments
Examples


 * As you work on the article, it may help to have good examples to look at. I would suggest Patrick Henry College, Seton Hall, Stonyhurst College, and Benet Academy as GAs that are similar in length and content and might give you good ideas on how to improve things here.

General

* Try to avoid WP:OVERLINKing. You only need to link the first occurrence of a term in the body. And common-knowledge terms (like college or America) do not need to be linked.

* The article could use some additional references. The rule of thumb is at least one per paragraph.
 * All of the images are really tiny. I would delete the px parameter and let the reader’s preferences decide how large to render the image.


 * Try to avoid taking a recent point of view. Phrases like “currently,” lately,” “recently,” etc. do not account for the fact that people may read this many years from now. Try to replace those with references to specific dates – “in 2009”, “as of 2010,” and so on.

Layout

* Everything is here, it is just organized a bit oddly. See WP:UNIGUIDE for a recommended structure. It is a guideline, not a rule. But it’s a good place to start.

Lead

* The lead paragraph should be re-written. It should summarize the entire article. Each section should be mentioned at least once. The subjects should have the same relative weight in the lead as they do in the article. For an article of this length, it should be no more than three paragraphs, but you could expand them a bit from what you have.

* In the lead, you need only cite direct quotations and extraordinary claims that are likely to be challenged. Superlatives of any sort probably need references, the rest of the claims do not.


 * In general, mission statements and such don’t add much. Most editors do not include them.

Infobox

* WP:UNIGUIDE recommends the seal at the top and the logo  at the bottom. Your call, but most college articles do it that way.


 * You have to cite anything in the infobox not found in the body (but not anything that is).


 * Coordinates do not generally go in the infobox.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

History


 * This section needs to be expanded quite a bit. There are 100+ years of history. What happened? “Describe the history of the college/university, including noteworthy milestones in its development such as sexual and racial integration, major campus expansions, foundation of new schools, notable student protests or reforms, and impact of major historical events like wars.”

Academics


 * The first paragraph is not very informative. It should be a concise overview of the philosophy and program. Phrases like “Central to a liberal arts college…” are obvious. If you say the program is “nationally recognized” you need a reference to support that.

* The Alumni Hall image is flagged for deletion because it is unsourced. Do you know where it came from? Do you know the copyright status? It’s a good image if you can use it, but it should be larger here.

* The image of the ring is flagged for deletion. The ring is someone else’s copyright and the photo is a derivative work. Can you find an image of just the coat of arms?


 * The tables for the majors and certificate programs are overkill. Just summarize them and talk about any that are especially interesting or unusual. (E.g., Liberal Arts and Engineering, Great Books, Computational Physical Science, etc.)


 * Don’t bullet list the Academic programs. Put them into prose and discuss them a bit more. These are way more interesting than the same old majors every other school offers.
 * Ditto Honor societies. Summarize them and point out the highlights.


 * You have to cite every direct quotation, even if the sentence is already cited.

* Admissions profile. You should expand this and it needs stronger references. What are the average entry grades and scores? What is the graduation rate? What else is notable or unique about the process or the pool?
 * The photo of the Dean’s List is not good. You can’t read it, and it does not add anything. Is there another image for this section?

NHIOP


 * This is very interesting, of course. What is the history? How did it start?
 * Are the excerpts from the Kennedy speech you can include?


 * The Former candidates and speakers sections is just an endless list of names. I would pick the ones you can say something interesting about (notable excerpts or occasions, things they said about the school, etc.) and name a few of the most prominent of the others.


 * The Republicans at St. Anselm picture is flagged for deletion. The sourcing is not clear. You claim it is yours. Is it?


 * Ditto the Obama photo.


 * In the Mitt Romney photo, Mitt is out of focus. Is there a better one?

* In the Petraus photo, he is really tiny. Can you crop it so he is more visible?

Media Center

* The sentence “Apparent in the center’s name …” is not necessary.


 * What are some examples of the service they do?


 * Can you expand on the Service learning section? And reference it?

Campus


 * Five images of Alumni hall are overkill. Pick one you like and go with it. The ones you took are all very nice.
 * The freshman dorm picture sandwiches the text between it and the Holy Cross image. That’s a layout problem. I suggest deleting the dorm picture in this case. It does not add much. The RECYCLES logo image is tagged incorrectly. As you do not own it, you cannot release it to the public domain. Non-free logos are generally usable under a fair use rationale. See WP:LOGO for how to tag them correctly.
 * The interior Abbey photo creates another sandwich problem. You should rearrange them or delete one.

* The Abbey Players image is tagged for deletion. It needs source info.

Athletics * “The most popular sports…” Needs citation.
 * The Hawks logo has the correct image tags, if you want an example.

Student Organizations

* In general, do not use bold text in the body.

Student Publications

* “The Crier perennially receives…” Needs citation.


 * The quotation needs a citation.

References


 * Some of the references are bare URLs. They should all use the template and be cited completely, including publishers and accessdates.

* Several links are broken. Go to http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Saint_Anselm_College and check the ones in red.

External links


 * This is really too many. See WP:EL for guidelines.

A few things,

1) Lead re-written
 * I will take a look. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, you be the judge of that! :) --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2) I think the image I took of Alumni looks better than the seal, so I know most colleges have a seal, but I like the image : )
 * Your call. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Kept image --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

3) I’ve met with the college archivist and I now have a book I will work with in updating the page for that… not much is published on the history of my college… I’ve added history of alumni hall under the Alumni Hall section
 * Great. It will make the article much more interesting.

Cited more --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

4) The image is of my personal college ring, is this OK for the website? The jpg of the seal isn’t as pretty as the gold one on my ring
 * Unfortunately, no. You own the ring, not the copyright. The photo is a derivative work and will have to be deleted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Image removed --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

5) I like the tables for the majors, they make everything more accessible, is this OK to keep?
 * It is not against the rules, but it is not very interesting. First, there is nothing all that notable about the list. Most all colleges offer those subjects. Listing them does not add very much. And the preference is to avoid lists (even in tables) wherever possible, but try to convey the information in prose instead. In general, if you can't write it in paragraph form, you should ask yourself why you are including it.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still rooting for keeping Majors and Honor societies like this because wikipedia is a source for people to get a quick overview... If anything I'll add information about each major below the table... I really like how it keeps the page organized for people that don't care as much about an indepth report of each major but just to get a quick glance at what the college offers --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the college catalog is for people who want this information. Wikipedia is for people who want an encyclopedic view of the school. None of this information is encyclopedic, actually. You really need to summarize it or omit it altogether. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

6) Ditto honor societies (I’ve added what they are, but they aren’t that active enough on campus to have something to say about each inparticular chapter)
 * Same comments apply. If there are not interesting enough to comment on individually, why include them at all? Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I really want to keep these included because it is important to know the college participates in these national organizations... there is just not that much to say about each one in particular --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "the college participates in a number of national honor societies, including X,Y, and Z"? And they say how that is relevant and interesting? Again, this is better material for the catalog than the article.

Tables removed for both... --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

7) For the Academic programs, I like the bullet points, they are more organized that way, yet I do go into prose and explain a pretty good deal about each… is this ok?
 * Again, the preference is to avoid bulleted lists. If you can write it in prose, it is always better. Think about what you might see in an encyclopedia article (as opposed to a news article, for example).Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I really like these for convenience + they are in a prose-like form now... is this a workable compromise? --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. If you want to do it like that, you still need to lead in with some prose that gives an overview. See WP:LIST for more discussion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Prose added as you suggested with a strong lead in and overview... --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

8) I like the impressive list of candidates and guest speakers. There isn’t that much to explain about each one as they all come with their pre-planned event rally speeches and so on… I believe it is important to show the viewer such a large list to show how important this college in national politics! : )
 * It is impressive, but not interesting to read. You don't have to list them all to make the point that the college is important. Much better to cite a reliable source explaining how important the college is. If you feel strongly about the list, you can write it up as a separate list article (List of Notable Speakers as Saint Anselm College). Summarize it here (very briefly) and use the main article template to point people to the list. That would be a much better way to do it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the college is not that well known and does not have that many reliable exterior sources explaining how important the college is. I like the list and see it as a good for the article; yet soon I will try to take some of the less important names out --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:LIST for more discussion. If you want to keep them all, they should really have their own article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-wrote paragraph...All fixed :) --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

9) The pics of the debates I got from the PR office, they are not mine in persay but I had no idea on how to upload it because I had the original jpg…
 * I am not sure I follow. If they are from the PR office, they will have to submit their permission to use them here. Otherwise, you will have to delete them. If you are the photographer and retain the rights, you can release them to PD, just make sure the sourcing is clear. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

How does the college pr department release them? --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:COPYREQ

IMAGE REMOVED --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

10) The Romney pic is nice b/c I did take that one at the Romney event : ), the girl with the Saint Anselm sweat shirt is a nice contrast presenting the idea students can get involved and close to presidential candidates
 * But it is very blurry. Not something you would see in an encyclopedia. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I really like this picture, I understand what your saying but I think its obvious it's romney (see sign and see person though blurry)... the idea of pic I took is to show Mitt and students, that students can get involved --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But the caption says Romney while the focus is on the girl. I see your point, but it's pretty subtle. To the outsider, it just looks like an out of focus photo. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image kept, caption changed to avoid confusion --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

11) I really like the 4 images, giving the viewer a complete overview of the seasonal changes around campus; plus the building is so pretty. Also, I took the images : ) I value their presence in the article
 * I can see why you like them, but they are not that important to the article as a whole. You have at least six images of one building, which heavily overweights that one topic. And visually, it is not only not very compelling, it is kind of confusing. If you feel strongly about the images, put them in a gallery on Commons and use the commons template to point people to them there. That would be a better way to handle it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved an image, to lower section... I think 3 works good here --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You still have six photos of one building in the same article. Doesn't that seem like a lot? Most articles might have one or two.... --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Images removed from table, one removed, the final one was moved to a different section --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

12) The Saint Anselm College RECYCLES logo is in fact my logo. I am the founder of the greening organization so I am releasing it into the public… Does this need more citing?
 * I think it would help. Be clear in the sourcing that you yourself are the copyright holder to avoid any questions later. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

13) I don’t know how to fix the 5-6 References that are now dead links, How do I do this?
 * The original links have either moved or been deleted. If you can, find a new link for the material that works now. If not, you can check archives (like wayback machine) to see if it is available there. Otherwise, you will have to find new sources for the material. Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Again thank you so much for the help you’ve gave me, I hope to get this article GA then FA!

Thanks!!!

Hi Nasty Housecat, Thanks for reviewing this a second time by responding back so promptly to my questions. I've done about half of those, and almost all of the suggestions of your first review... Is this going to be a GA this time around? Or will it require more editing

Thanks! I'll have some free time when I get done with classes in May to give this page serious attention! : )

--Ericci8996 (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. On quick review, the remaining obstacles to GA will be the image issues in general and the layout issues (lists, bullets, tables, etc.) Many of the most recent edits are unsourced, but I assume you will drop those in shortly. The rule of thumb is at least one per paragraph, and all challenge-able claims and direct quotes must be cited. You have made a lot of changes, which I will need to review more carefully and some light copyediting might be in order.


 * Overall, the article certainly has GA potential and if all of the issues can be addressed, I will be happy to promote it. If you need a bit more time to make changes, let me know. I will keep the review open as long as progress is being made.


 * It will help me if you can indicate above which issues you feel you have addressed, either by striking them through (like this )or indicating "done" on an indented line under each comment. That way I can check as you go.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC) With these changed I need atleast another week, please grant this and thanks again for your work --Ericci8996 (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding... I crossed out stuff above! please respond at your leisure

Review summary
While a lot of progress has been made and the article is much improved, it is not quite ready for GA at this time. A number of the issues above remain to be addressed. The image and list incorporation issues, in particular, are specifically addressed by the good article criteria and will need to be resolved. I am confident this can be a good article with a bit more work, and hope you will not be discouraged from continuing to improve it. Because the GA has been open for some time already, I am failing the article. You can renominate it at any time when you feel it is ready. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed the old images and uploaded new ones with new and correct sourcing...

I've done almost everything on the list, can I re-nominate?? --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can relist whenever you like, although in practice most folks would work on it for another week or two to make sure it is ready the next time. In particular, you will want to make sure that any of the issues above that are not yet struck through have been resolved before bringing it back to GAC. That will be the first thing a reviewer will look for. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, All the changes have been made, please when renominated put in additional imput --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)