Talk:University of the Philippines Diliman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article meets the quick-fail criteria with several substantial issues that I don't believe can be addressed in a quick manner. I am very happy to work with interested parties to walk through some of these issues and would be happy to see the article again were it to be nominated for Good Article status. Let me provide some feedback on some of the things that need to take place first, though.


 * Copyvio issue: I strongly suspect that the current "History" section, as it is, has been wholly copied from the university's own history page with some rewording, though with some parts omitted entirely and other parts apparently mistranslated. This section of the article, as it is, needs to be removed and totally rewritten, using multiple third party sources. See WP:Sources for a better idea of some of the kinds of references that are essential here.
 * Note that Earwigs copy violation detector strongly corroborates this concern.


 * Substantial citations needed: The "Campus" section is only slightly better with citations pointing to a source. But that section, too, is severely lacking in sources. The information here needs to be attributed to multiple, reliable third party sources. It also lacks inline links. The same can be said of the academics section, which is severely lacking in citations as well. Each of these should have a run-through with a better eye on where links are appropriate and a thorough copy-edit is needed. See WP:MOSLINK for our style on how to link and WP:CITE for a better look at what we would consider good sources.


 * Sourcing issues: Substantial problems with the sourcing of the article: as it is now, much of the content is sourced to university manuals and literature, with a comparatively small portion of articles linked from independent newspapers. I could five dead links, as well. WP:RS will give a better handle of the kinds of sources we would look for.


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * The copy on History needs to be totally removed and started from the beginning. Best to construct from a series of other articles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Substantial citation additions needed. Several sections almost entirely unsourced or reliant on one source.
 * Existing sources also need a fix. I note five dead links, some bare URLs and some lacking information.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * 2) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Over-reliance on the university's own material, which in some cases is lifted wholesale.
 * Also some concern with links, as several have been dead for some time and there's a need for some updating of the links.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * 2) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Significant images can be found. Definitely thinking this is good.
 * 1) Other:
 * Significant images can be found. Definitely thinking this is good.
 * 1) Other:

To be sure, I think the article has potential and some parts of it have been formatted and sourced. But on the overall, substantial work is needed. Again, I would be happy to work with contributors looking to work with the article, but at this time it should be taken back and given a better look. —Ed!(talk) 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)