Talk:University of the Philippines/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

This one might have a ways to go to be up to speed, but it may be possible to make this happen with some work. Some thoughts on what needs to be done to start. —Ed!(talk) 04:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Some needs for work here.
 * History section should be broken up into subsections. As is it's overly long, and perhaps may be better served as a standalone article.
 * Campuses section is off to a good start but needs more references.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Substantial corrections needed here I think.
 * The history section needs more sources. The beginning of the section is off to a good start, but loses steam pretty quickly as far as references go. The section needs to be extensively cited using reliable third party sources. See WP:RS.
 * Significant format fixes needed in the footnotes, some are bare URLs and others are needing additional details like author names, publishers, publication dates and other things. Essential for good sources. See WP:CITE.
 * I count 28 dead links. These need to be replaced, or new sources need to be added in their place.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * History
 * Too much detail: "Centennial celebration" should be able to be condensed to at most a sentence. Not massively important given the school's long history.
 * "U.P.A.A. 2008 centennial yearbook" should be removed entirely.
 * Alumni
 * Worthwhile to expand that alumni section. How many living alumni? Any big notable names? Of course there is an article, but a summary rather than an empty section is worthwhile for top-level details on the school's alumni community.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * 2) It is stable:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * There appear to be several images, tagged correctly, so illustration isn't a problem immediately.
 * 1) Other:
 * 1) Other:

On Hold There are some significant fixes needed but I do believe this article is off to a good start. —Ed!(talk) 04:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing the GA as unfortunately I've seen no progress in two weeks. —Ed!(talk) 01:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)