Talk:Southern Adventist University/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: six found, 2 repaired, four tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * During Wright's administration, Southern Junior College became accredited as a four-year institution.. Could we have some explanation of "a four-year institution". The term is unfamiliar to me and likely others. *same a four-year college, as opposed to a two year "junior" college. changed. ) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "a four-year college" still needs explanation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)❌
 * wikilinked ✅– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. This could be better phrased, I don't think that church organized that or any other date! ✅ DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually ❌, No change has been made!
 * fixed ✅ – Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not done - why do you keep saying something has been addressed when it hasn't? (Since we AGF, there must be more complexity to the issue than is first obvious. More discussion on the matter seems appropriate. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
 * The addition of "was" is better. It was a grammar issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. makes no sense as it stands. Organized what?  I don't think they organized the date?  If you can't understand that this is poor grammar, then it is unlikely this article will achive GA status within the next few years. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells, you seem to be hostile to the development of this article. Impatient at the least. Could you please explain this apparent hostility. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No hostility, just pointing areas where grammar and meaning unclear. If you don't want articles reviewed then don't submit for review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As the superintendent for the church's work in the South, Kilgore repeatedly advocated for a school. "advocated the establishment of" - not "advocated for" ✅ DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Kilgore invited George W. Colcord (1843–1902),[20] founder of Milton Academy (the forerunner of Walla Walla College), to come to Graysville and establish a school. Colcord arrived in 1891. Milton Academy and Walla Walla University should be wikilinked to provide context (Milton Academy of Massachusetts is not the same Academy. The Milton Academy in the article has no WP article.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, lets explain the location, importance, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ❌ location was need to allow for student manual labor. Manual labor was considered part of the Adventist way of educating its youth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to provide this context in the article, not in the review! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is provided in the quote, take another look. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Trimmed so it's more readable; doesn't appear to need additional context--2nd opinion welcome.– Lionel (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need all that bolding in the first section of History, as per Manual of Style/Text formatting ✅ DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * District #2 Superintendent, We don't use abbreviations in Wikipedia (What if that was how it was called? Do we still not use the abbreviation? ✅ DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:Mos Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done?– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ' 'The community was soon renamed, "Collegedale" and the school, "Southern Junior College".  THe quiotes are unnecessary. Likewise The term "training" school had become associated with "reform" schools while at the same time the "junior college" designation had become a popular one.'' ✅ by Donald
 * In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, $113,000. How where these assets accrued? ❌–DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, due to a the construction of needed buildings on campus, the school's assests totaled $113,000. Apart from being illiterate, there is no explanation here.
 * If buildings are built, assets acrue. Do we need a statement which says that so and so donated so that the supplies could be purchased. This building program explains the increase in assets. What are you looking for? Apart from being illiterate??? Again this seems to be a hostile statement on the part of our reviewer. Aren't we on the same side here? What gives with the mean spirited review? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We are looking for a clear explanation. If you put in a phrase such as "In 1916, the school's property holdings had a value of $32,000. ", it would help.
 * Done? – Lionel (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1918, three students were taking the post-high school classes; students totalled 175. Ungrammatical. ✅– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ' 'The college built the girls' dorm first.'' "dormitory" not "dorm". ✅ – Lionel (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this needs copy-editing to remove unnecessary quotes and abbreviations. ✅– Lionel (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not very keen on the lists, most, with the exception of the list of principals, could be converted into prose.
 * ✅ Assumed the alumni list is OK – Lionel (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead could do with some slight expansion to more thoroughly provide an executive summary of the article as per WP:LEAD ✅– Lionel (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Four dead links, two tagged since September, two tagged in November.
 * Looks Done – Lionel (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply.
 * Sources appear to be WP:RS
 * Statements are adequately cited, but the dead links need addressing. ✅ (not by me) – Lionel (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence of WP:OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad enough, without trivia
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable, the semi-protection appears to have stopped the edit-warring.
 * 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):
 * Licensed, suitable non FUR rationale and captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that the nominators are incapable of understanding the GA criteria or understanding comments on the prose or lack of meanings in it. Frequently points are claimed to have been addressed when in fact they have not.  Corrections have been made sloppily without any attention to detail. Consequently I am failing this nomination now. Find someone to copy-edit who can write good plain English and when that is done take it to peer review before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Following an email from one of the nominators, I have re-instated the review. I will look at it again on Friday evening and make a decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thanks Jezhotwells. – Lionel (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, the article is much improved, happy to list. In future, please consider getting an independent copy-editor and taking to peer review before nominating for GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent advice, and your patience Jez. I think it has been a learning experience for Donald Ken and myself.– Lionel (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)