Talk:St. Francis College/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Aiken   &#9835;   18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I find the article to be quite void of references. IMO, in order for this article to pass GA exam, you would need to add more sources. Everything else looks neat after a small glance.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk   18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the criteria, 3a, 4, 5, 6a are met. As for the other points, there are issues. I'll go through the entire article bit by bit and I'll point them out.


 * Lead:


 * Should be at least three paragraphs for an article of this size. It needs to accurately summarise all the important points in the article.


 * History:


 * What is a "young diocese"?
 * "With time the school expanded" - can you be more specific? "With time" is extremely vague.
 * What are "row houses"?
 * What are "smart" classrooms?


 * Campus:


 * Is it the 'Sciences' or 'Science' building?
 * "The lounge is also located in the Frank and Mary Macchiarola Academic Center..." Also?
 * Comment about section as a whole: are all these descriptions really needed? The sections are quite short. Perhaps you could merge them by building?


 * Academics:


 * "As of 2008..." Needs updating.
 * "enable students to pursue degrees in Physician Assistant..." Doesn't seem to work.
 * Majors section: is that all there is to say?
 * "Recently, the college has added a combined..." When is recent?
 * What is "B.S" and "M.S"?
 * "It has become a well-known center..." Known by whom?
 * "sponsored conferences, symposia and colloquia" Not clear
 * "and introduced novel curriculum development" What does that mean?
 * "one of the top Baccalaureate Colleges in the North..." North of what, and why is it capitalized? Appears again later.
 * "and is ranked at 22..." Out of how many?
 * Duns Scotus is very short - could be merged if it's important
 * Is the list of speakers that necessary? Might be better to trim it down and say why they were chosen (with references of course).


 * Accreditation and memberships/Student Life:


 * As with the list of speakers, it would be better to remove the list and turn the section into prose.


 * Demographics:


 * I don't see the point in listing data from two years ago, because it will have changed. Is there anything more up to date? If not, it would be better to remove this list.


 * Faculty:


 * Very short.


 * Alumni:

Again, should be put into prose. It would also be good to say how they are notable, rather than just their name.


 * General:
 * Is it a college or a school? Be consistent here, and ensure you're consistent with capitalization. Also, you refer to it as SFC, St. Francis, The College, the college etc. Very confusing.
 * Lots of paragraphs entirely unsourced, or with a single reference. Please ensure you source properly, per WP:CITE and WP:V, and ensure that your references are formatted consistently and appropriately, with all the appropriate fields filled out.
 * Lots of typos on simple words/punctuation (such as putting an apostrophe in colleges when it was a plural, misplaced commas etc). I've done my best to give it a good copyedit, but you might be better off getting someone else to do that. Try putting the text into Microsoft Word or something and see what it says.
 * Why are there two logos? Pick the current one and delete the other.

Most of these are 1a/b issues and are fixable. 2a and b need a lot of attention (references). 3b - not sure if this is focussed enough, as there are some sections which talk at length about clubs and buildings that may be more appropriate to a prospectus. 6b - I've mentioned the images.

I'll put this on hold and give a week to fix the issues. If you need more than a week, and you're clearly working on it, I can extend the time if necessary.  Aiken   &#9835;   20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to step on Aiken's toes or anything, but I am adding my thoughts on this article. Some of these might be duplicates of previously mentioned notes.
 * User:GrapedApe's thoughts
 * The lead should be a summary of the main body of the article and should not contain any information that is not present in the main body. Thus, there do not need to be any references in the lead, since those facts should be referenced in the main body.  The lead should not contain anything about the rankings.
 * Listing the past speakers for the Volpe Lecture series is not really necessary.
 * There are a lot of tiny sub-sections that should be combined under high-level sections.
 * The "Accreditation and memberships" section isn't necessay.
 * The "Student life" section should be prose-ified.
 * Actually, most of the sections apart from "History" should be changed from lists into prose. Some of these sections, like "Majors," are just 1 sentence long.
 * A sample of some sections failing NPOV:
 * "The goal of this curriculum is to graduate well-rounded students, who will have a broad foundation outside of their areas of specialization."
 * I know this sometimes can't be helped, but the two logo images are really pizellated and grainy.
 * --GrapedApe (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No edits in a week, I've no choice but to fail this.  Aiken   &#9835;   16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)