Talk:University of South Florida/GA1

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

Reviewer: ReedyTurnip (talk · contribs) 23:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Starting this review. The article looks pretty good, with some little things to clean up. Should be able to complete the review over the next few days.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "The first five buildings on campus when the student opened" does not make sense, it should say something like "The first five buildings on campus when the university was opened to students"
 * "which later became part of the USF system as well before becoming an independent university again" is somewhat confusing, it would be clearer if it was something like "which later joined the USF system, until eventually returning to its original status as an independent university"
 * "Under Genshaft, USF has continuously been ranked among the top veteran-friendly universities in the country." should say either "Since Genshaft,..." or "Under Genshaft, USF was continuously..." since Genshaft is no longer in office.
 * "In 2009, USF became the first university in the nation to partner with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to offer specialized services for veterans taking advantage of the new G.I. Bill." they partnered with them in order to offer specialized services, rather then just they partnered with them to offer specialized services.
 * "The Intellectual Property Owners Association ranked USF among the top ten universities in the world granted U.S. utility patents in 2011." would make more sense as "In 2011, ... ranked USF among the top ten universities in the world in terms of U.S. utility patents granted."
 * "new, more efficient busses for the fare-free campus" buses is the widely used spelling.
 * "having hosted musicians like Elton John, Florence and the Machine, Frank Sinatra, Heart, Sting, and more" makes more sense as "having hosted musicians including ... " and removing "and more"
 * Spelling and grammar are mostly good, will pass if these changes are made.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Lead section gives undue weight to the number of patents held by people associated with USF, it is only mentioned briefly in the body.
 * "considered by many to be the "Father of USF"." sounds like weasel words, is he the indisputable father of USF? If so, say it, and if not attribute it to someone or remove it.
 * "USF continues to improve academically, being ranked among the best colleges in the nation by U.S. News & World Report." if it is ranked among the best, give the specific ranking, also for this it would be a lot better to cite US News directly rather than through a USF source.
 * The phrase "one of" is used a lot, some of the uses are fine but in some of them it would be preferable to provide a specific statistic.
 * "break onto the scene in their field of study and assist them in creating a brand for themselves and gain the tools necessary to be a real competitor in the workforce." this is not a neutral tone
 * There are three separate paragraphs on the number of trees on the Tampa campus, this is highly redundant.
 * There are a number of paragraphs that are only a few sentences and are very short. This inhibits the flow of the text and is discourages by the Manual of Style.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * A large number of reasonably challenged claims are cited only by USF sources, especially some which could be considered puffery.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Most of the instances of puffery were mentioned prior in the review, a lot of these claims just feel like information advertising USF, which makes sense considering most of the sources cited for them were from the university's website.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Seems stable, no disputes in the talk page and most edits seem to be improvements rather than disputes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The nominator and other editors have done good work on this article, and it has solid foundations. A lot of the problems with the article can be fixed, but the over reliance on primary sources, and the use of language in the article that feels a bit too promotional mean that the article needs more work before it is ready to be promoted to GA status.
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The nominator and other editors have done good work on this article, and it has solid foundations. A lot of the problems with the article can be fixed, but the over reliance on primary sources, and the use of language in the article that feels a bit too promotional mean that the article needs more work before it is ready to be promoted to GA status.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The nominator and other editors have done good work on this article, and it has solid foundations. A lot of the problems with the article can be fixed, but the over reliance on primary sources, and the use of language in the article that feels a bit too promotional mean that the article needs more work before it is ready to be promoted to GA status.