Talk:University of Miami/GA3

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I have completed the review and believe the reliable source issues are still an obstacle to GA at this time. I am requesting a second opinion to get additional perspective. See my other detailed comments below:


 * At this point, I think Racepacket should just stop sending the article to GA repeatedly.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comment is not the second opinion that was requested, but rather a comment from a recent UM graduate. I agree that it is important that Wikipedia articles should be objective and that college articles have more WP:BOOSTER problems than other articles.  Both before and after GA2, we put a lot of work into removing that bias. I also agree that Wikipedia articles should not have excessive dependence on the website of the subject.  However, this article cites to a wide variety of sources including Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the South Florida Business Journal, the Sun Sentinel, a non-fiction book, a graduate dessertation, and official reports that are merely hosted on the UM website.  Hence, I would invite a second opinion regarding sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the request of the reviewer, I would like to provide another opinion for the article. I'm inclined to agree that the article still uses too many sources from the university itself. This is usually okay for demographics or details about individual schools within the university. Yes, it is going to be difficult to find additional sourcing, but articles can be found through Google news archives or perhaps a university database. I'd recommend looking to other GA/FA university articles to see how they get their sources to determine if they can be applied to this page as well. About the above comment about continuing to nominate the article, I disagree. Some articles can have difficulty getting through GAN the first time, and there is no need to be discouraged if it fails again (I've had several GANs fail and although it wasn't the greatest feeling, helpful comments can assist in improving the article further). Address the other issues raised by Nasty Housecat, and continue to search for additional sources. Consider asking for assistance of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page, including WikiProject Universities, as there are probably experienced members who can help with gathering sources (especially if it means another GA for the project). If you have any questions or need assistance please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will place the review on hold to let the nominator continue work on revisions. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. We will continue to work on the noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well (I was asked to comment here). Also, many of the footnotes are not properly formatted, and need to be filled out with publication details. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The UM website is now less than half of the citations:
 * does not reflect references moved out of the article after 2/4/10

I am sorry to have to say the article is not eligible for GA at this time due to the stability issues noted above. I respect and acknowledge the amount of work that went into improving the article for this review, and do think it is much improved from where it started out. When the article stabilizes again and the copyvio issues are resolved, I hope you will not be too discouraged to try again. Best of luck. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)