Wikipedia:Peer review/Earle Mack School of Law/archive2

Earle Mack School of Law

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I'd like to get the article up to WP:GA status and would like peer review feedback on the article before I take that step. I'd like to know if the prose could be improved (prose is not my strong point), if any of the sections could be/should be expanded on, whether the references are all right (reliable? citation format?), etc. Any critique on the article at all would be appreciated. Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 02:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: A nice and generally well-done article. Since the school is quite new, it makes sense that the article is a bit short. I think it is fairly close to GA status already, here are some suggestions for improvement: Keep up the good work and hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A model article is often useful as a source of ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of college and university FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles and two are on schools within a university: Tuck School of Business and Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and may be useful models
 * The lead needs to be expanded and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - for exmple the 5 other law schools in the area are only in the lead.
 * To be a complete summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Facilities and co-ops do not seem to be in the lead now
 * Avoid needless repetition - the history section and the facilities section both talk about the current building and that it opened on January 8, 2007
 * I owuld also make it clearer in the History section that the new building is only temporary - will it still be used by the law school after the new building opens in 2012?
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * I think the references look good otherwise and everything that needs a cite seems to have one.
 * As for expansion of the article, perhaps more on the new building - will the college also expand then? Also any more background on why they started the law school in the first place? What was the reaction in the area and from the other local law schools? Was there any criticism of the new school? Any scandals?
 * Article could use a copyedit - ask at WP:PRV or one of the editors listed at WP:LOCE
 * Avoid jargon - photo caption uses "CoL" and an External link is just "Drexel" - spell things out for those unfamiliar with the college and university. See WP:JARGON
 * Please use my examples as just that - these are not an exhaustive list and if one example is given, please check to make sure there are not other occurrences of the same problem.


 * Wow thanks! I've taken care of some of the smaller items like citations and I will get to the larger intro, expanding, clarifying/moving around info and getting a copyedit during the weekend. Once again Thanks! --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded a few of the section. To note: I'm not finding any criticisms or initial reactions on the law school besides 'it opened and it's here' right now and I cannot find anything on the expansion of the school in 2012 besides the one article. I've expanded the intro to a paragraph though I am wondering if it could be expanded more (I just feel like I'm repeating stuff in the article when I try to add another paragraph) and I'm about to make a request for a copy edit. --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SOmetimes there is not anything to find, just worth looking for it though. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit
I've done some very minor copyediting, this is a refreshingly well written article! Kudos to the main writers! I understand that being a new school has its challenges as far as finding "criticisms and history". At the risk of showing my own ignorance, are there any references that show how the "first class" of 2006 did on the bar, or have they not graduated yet? How long is the program (as far as # of years) before taking the bar? If they had, say a 10% pass rate vs. a 90% pass rate, that would in my mind fit well in the "academics" section. Other than that, I was actually struggling to find things to fix! I switched out all the hyphens to ndash's per MOS, added a couple of commas...wow, not much to do as far as CE. Let me know if you want me to take another look through, the article can always be tweaked and tweaked. Again, kudos to the writers – well done! Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Honestly I'm surprised you think the article's so well written, but then again I'm my own worse critic. The first class should graduate sometime in 2009 so there's no statistics yet for that.. I did find a snippet of an article that had projected rankings based on certain criteria but the rest of the article was one of the very few things I don't have free access to with my school and I'm not willing to shell out $15 for it. Ndash's and other grammar edits kill me.. so thanks so much for going over that. If you do find anything majorly wrong in the text I wouldn't mind another go through but so far everybody I consult say it looks "fine." --ImmortalGoddezz ( t/c ) 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I've seen some doozies, right down to "if you want this to be a GA, you should probably have more than one 50K paragraph with no punctuation." By that standard, this article is terrific. It has subheaders!  :-) Thanks for the answer to my question, it was my hunch all along, but I had to ask.  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was completely wrong with my endashing, I misinterpretted WP:DASH. I've reverted my changes of hyphens to endashes, my apologies.  I did another read-through, and I'm not seeing anything else (from a copyediting standpoint) that needs attention.  Excellent article.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)