Wikipedia:Peer review/History of University of Santo Tomas/archive1

History of University of Santo Tomas

 * 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 November 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 November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… Wait, I just don't know if I'm doing this correctly. But anyway.. Here it goes. I've listed this article for peer review because… it already attained much credibility through various sources in and out of the net - such as published books, publications, and first hand information. The History article takes account of a private University in the Philippines nearing its 400 years. A review/assessment, I believe, will help researchers and students alike in acquiring credible information. Thanks, Pampi1010 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice article, while it is clear a lot of work has been done, more work is needed - very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. 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; 05:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the lead is only about the founding. Please see WP:LEAD
 * The oldest European universities are from 1000 or earlier - see University. This is 600 or more years younger than those - you can not say "It is also one of the oldest in the Modern World.[1]"
 * In the peer review comment above you write "first hand information" is used as a source for the article, but that does not meet WP:RS and WP:V
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower. Also do not sandwich text between images.
 * The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.