Wikipedia:Peer review/Oxford College of Emory University/archive1

Oxford College of Emory University
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it pass the Featured Article candidacy process. It failed the last time around because the article needed another person to read through it and catch errors that I, as a contributor to the article, wouldn't notice. I appreciate any and all help that I can get!

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Haha169, it looks like this peer review was closed recently, but I noticed you narrowly missed FA and I think you deserve a peer review. If you wouldn't mind, I have Leo Frank nominated for GA and could use any feedback you may have. It's also about the state of Georgia, so you might be interested in it. I already received a peer review for the article, but any advice is appreciated.
 * Here are my comments:
 * First and foremost, check these links to ensure they work.
 * For Notable alumni, you have six images that repeat some of the names above. It seems redundant and out of place. Per WP:IG, galleries can be used if it's difficult to verbally describe something, but a one-sentence biography is fine. Perhaps these images can be more closely located to their namesakes above, and you might not use all six. The same thing could be done to the quote box for Woodruff.
 * In Civil War and Reconstruction, the second sentence starts with the word 'So', which doesn't sound encyclopedic. It might be better to replace it with something like 'Thus,'.
 * In Admissions, you note the 50th-percentile ranges for GPAs and SAT scores, you might include a brief note explaining that this is 25th to 75 percentile ranges. Perhaps after the word 'range' say in parentheses, "(25th to 75th percentiles, respectively)".
 * In Dooley, is there any chance you could add a freely-licensed image of this character in the section? It's a quirky mascot and would be a good addition.
 * In In popular culture, you might change "on March 1-3" to "between March 1-3" as these are multiple days. I'm not sure if it's wrong per se, but 'between' sounds better in my opinion.
 * Overall, the article looks good, which isn't surprising given its near-FA status. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about the above points. If you nominate it for FA again, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be promoted. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)