Talk:University of Saskatchewan/GA1

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

While the amount of work in this article definitely showcases the a lot of hard work, dedication and collaboration, it is my unfortunate belief that this article no longer meets the criteria for a Good article. The major reasoning behind this reassessment is due to the fact that this article contains several contentious issues with criteria one, two and especially three. While issues with criteria one and two are easily repairable, I believe that issues dealing with the third criteria would require quite a large amount of work. This however is not the fault of the original nominators of the article as the article was promoted months before the UNIGUIDE was first published. I believe that following issues need to be addressed belong before this article can be reconsidered for GA-status.


 * 1) Well-written:
 * This article contains a number of grammatical and spelling errors (ex. the usage of the word 'cojoined' several times in the article). These grammatical errors however may be easily be addressed either by putting it through a word processor or a thorough reading of the article.
 * 1) Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * While the article is well cited for most of the article, references are missing for certain parts of the article (ex. the endowment numbers, student population, programs, notable alumni, partner universities, notable companies). It also is a bit troubling that a good majority of the sources found in this article are directly from the University of Saskatchewan website. I'll assume however that the editors of the article have spent time to find alternative sources to the article before using the UofS links. Except for a few lines added since the article's graduation to GA-class, most of the information in the article appears to be from 2007 or earlier. Some of the information in the article may need to be updated
 * 1) Broad in its coverage:
 * While the article showcases a lot of hard work and collaboration in it, it unfortunately not broad enough in its coverage as it no longer complies with the College and university article guidelines. The article seemingly misses a lot of the guideline's suggested subtopics (campus information, athletics and academic profile). The subtopic 'Student and alumni' is currently set up in a list format, which goes against the university guidelines. The 'Noted people' list is not a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Much of the information from University of Saskatchewan academics may possibly be merged in with the main article, as it seems to cover some of the information needed in academic profile. More information on the administrative workings of the university may also be needed.
 * 1) Neutral:
 * This article seems to have a neutral viewpoint. Diversifying the sources however would help maintain the neutrality of the article.
 * 1) Stable:
 * This article is stable.
 * 1) Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * Images are relevant and are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
 * 1) Stable:
 * This article is stable.
 * 1) Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * Images are relevant and are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
 * Images are relevant and are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

I will leave this reassessment open to response from other editors for 7 days before I make the decision to list the article as a good article or not.

Leventio (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * With the raised issue not addressed in neither the article, nor in the article's talk page, I have no choice but to proceed with the demotion of the article to a B-class, removing its Good Article status. I encourage any interested editors to bring the article back up to GA Criteria and renominate at WP:GAC

Leventio (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Error in cutline
I believe the image of the Royal University Hospital doesn't show the 1955 wing, but rather the wing built during its major expansion in the 1970s. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)