Wikipedia:Peer review/National University of Sciences and Technology/archive1

National University of Sciences and Technology

 * 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 December 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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I am working on this article to make it FA class and I will appreciate all reviews and comments to improve the article. Thanks, Marsa Lahminal (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but a long way from FA. I have several suggestions for improvement.


 * The #1 problem is the relative lack of sourcing. The existing article has cited sources in a few places, but entire sections in the existing article cite no sources. A good rule of thumb is to source every paragraph, each direct quote, each set of statistics, and each statement that makes a claim that might reasonably be questioned. Some paragraphs might need only one source, but others might need several.


 * The 15 sources in the reference section give only an url. If possible, the citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date. The cite family of templates makes the footnoting task easier by providing forms that can be copied and pasted into the text in edit mode and then filled in with the appropriate data. See WP:CITE for a general explanation and WP:CIT to see the templates.


 * It's often a good idea to look at models to imitate. Since you are thinking about FA, you might look at the FA articles about universities to see what other editors have done. You'll find them at WP:FA.


 * Straight prose is generally preferable to long embedded lists in Wikipedia articles. The existing article has several lists. A short one like "Quality Networks/Associations" could easily be turned into a single prose paragraph. The long list of universities with which NUST has collaborations could probably be reduced to a sentence saying something like "... engineering schools such as the ones at Stanford University in the United States, Cranfield University in the United Kingdom... ", and a companion sentence giving examples of medical schools. The long list of courses offered might work better as a short companion article that could be linked to from the main article. If you look at Duke University, which is FA, you will see a link to Degree programs at Duke University, which gives what appears to be the complete list. This is another way to solve the list problem.


 * Image:CEME.jpg looks fine to me, but I see problems with most of the other images. The .jpg file type is the one preferred for photos, but Image:Military College of Engineering.gif is a wrong file type. If you have a .jpg of this image, it would be better to use it. Image:PNEC.jpg is licensed for release into the public domain by someone other than the original copyright holder, but the original license has restrictions on derivatives and commercial use (Noncommercial-No Derivative Works). That means it can't be placed by someone else into the public domain and can't be used on Wikipedia as a free image. The five non-free logos in the article may also cause problems; you can probably justify using one, but are the others really necessary to an understanding of the article? More images would be good, and if you lose the NC and four logos and fix the .gif, you'll be down to three images. If you can take more photos, license them yourself, upload and add them, that would be good.


 * Many small things in the article violate the recommendations in the Manual of Style. For example "1st April, 1957" should be "1 April 1957". A copyeditor familiar with Wikipedia style could no doubt find and fix most of these small problems.

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the WP:PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)