Talk:University of Valle/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
From a quick couple of scan-readings, the article in general appears to be at or about GA-level, so I'm not going to quick fail it. I apppears to be comprehensive and generally well-referenced.

However, several sub-sections are totally devoid of references and are non-compliant with WP:Verify; they are:
 * Social projection, research and technological development;
 * Institutional accreditation and current standing.

There are also several unreferenced paragraphs.

I will continue the review in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Establishment and early years - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the first paragraph, two statements are made about the "department", but what department (this does not appeared to be explained anywhere - unless it is shorthand for Department Assembly of Valle del Cauca, if so this should be stated)?
 * Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant.


 * Academic consolidation and the student movement -
 * This appears to be compliant.


 * Social projection, research and technological development - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.


 * Institutional accreditation and current standing - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.

....Continuing. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Campus -
 * Melendez campus - ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The two middle paragraphs need references.


 * San Fernando campus & La Carbonera campus -
 * These appear to be compliant.


 * Satellite campuses -


 * This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.


 * Organization -
 * This appears to be compliant.


 * Academics -
 * This appears to be compliant generally compliant.


 * Libraries -
 * The final sentence needs verification.


 * Research -
 * This appears to be compliant.


 * Student life -
 * Activism -
 * The first paragraph is partially referenced, but the second part is unreferenced.


 * Noted people -
 * This appears to be compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This appears to be compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Greetings, I've revised your comments. I'll proceed to respond to some of them: Thanks for your comments. Andremun (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The word department refers to an administrative division of the country. I don't know how can I make this clearer.  Maybe I should add a wikilink of the word.
 * I'll revise the citations for the two sections mentioned.


 * Thanks and welcome back. Pyrotec (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed your comments. I hope I have addressed all of them.  Regards -Andremun (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Pyrotec (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)