Talk:Ateneo de Manila University/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is obvious that the article fails 1b, particularly as it relates to layout. There are several single-sentence paragraphs, single-paragraph sections, even a single-sentence section. There is excessive use of embedded lists, and far too many redlinks where is it not at all clear that the subjects are notable. The "Recent history" section is too long, and poorly structured. There is also a tendency towards excessive sourcing; 4-6 inline citations is not necessary when dealing with entirely uncontroversial facts. This makes the text hard to read, hard to edit, and bloats the size of the page.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
There are at least ten dead links. In addition to this, there are far too much reliance on self-published sources by the university, which can lead to problems with neutrality.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
t's hard to see that the seal should need to be described in such detail. Also see comments above on layout.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
As far as I can see at first glance, yes.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The "Campuses" section is a bit cramped with pictures, this is what Commons is for.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This is just a preliminary review; if anyone decides to start revising the article within the next week, I will make a more thorough one. It will be quite a demanding task though, and can probably not be done in a hurry. Lampman (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request from User:Rmcsamson, I will elaborate a little on the issues raised above. This will be just an initial comment; the article will in any case need to be radically altered, so that a full review at the present point will be impossible:

List incorporation: The good Good Article criteria are quite clear that this is one of the MOS guidelines that need to be followed. It is impossible to give an exact answer to how many embedded lists is appropriate, but it is clear that this article (where the "Institution" section alone has seven) contains too many. A look at certain similar Featured articles, like University of California, Riverside or Georgetown University can give an idea of what is considered good practice on Wikipedia. Ask the questions: 1. Is this information really necessary to give the reader an understanding of the subject? 2. If yes: can it be re-written in prose form?
The layout guidelines must also be followed. These guidelines say, among other things: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose", and "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read." Sections containing two to three paragraphs of c. 5–10 sentences each are to be preferred (the "Library system and Museums" is not too far off, though it contains a single-sentence paragraph.)

These comments are meant to explain further the objections raised above. Once these issues have been addressed, please contact me and I will give a more thorough review. Feel free to ask is there are any problems or issues of concern. Lampman (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]