Talk:University of Nevada, Las Vegas/GA1

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

Reviewer: JonRidinger (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * There are quite a few one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article, particularly in the Sustainability and Academics sections. In the Athletics section, the second sentence "Commonly referred to as the Rebels, or Lady Rebels (men's basketball is referred to as the Runnin' Rebels and men's baseball is referred to as the Hustlin' Rebels)." is not a complete sentence.  There are other issues as well including flow and clarity.  For example, in Athletics, the sentence about the men's soccer team competing in a different league is out of place.  It needs to be mentioned with the conference affiliation of the school.  Most sections could use expansion, especially Academics and History.  The use of direct quotes, such as in the Sustainability section is questionable.  Is there a better way to word how the school was criticized by the Nevada Policy Research Institute that would be more encyclopedic?
 * b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead is only one paragraph and does not summarize the article as a whole, plus it contains information not present in the rest of the article, like the Carnegie Classification. For word choice, there are a few POV terms, such as "new" or "recent" ("In recent years...") which are already dated.  The entire "New initiatives" section is dated from 2005 and 2006 and is unsourced.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * As noted above, the "New initiatives" section is completely unsourced, some of the notable alumni still have citation needed tags.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * There are three references to Wikipedia articles in the Athletics section. Wikipedia cannot cite itself. The references section has a cleanup tag from over a year ago that needs to be addressed.  A large number of the references are bare links.
 * c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Most sections could use expansion as previously noted. History ends in the 1960s and then suddenly picks up again in 2005.  What about the 1970s-2000s?  Academics is the same; what are some of the notable programs?  As an outsider who knows virtually nothing about UNLV, this doesn't tell me much more than I already knew.
 * b (focused):
 * There is hardly any information on the specific programs or colleges.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):
 * The Campus section has two images on either side of the text. One of the images needs to be removed until more text is present.

7. Overall: Article has multiple issues and very little was addressed in the 11 days the article was on hold. While many of the technical aspects can be taken care of, much of it needs rewritten and expanded, which will take some time.
 * Pass/Fail: