Jump to content

Talk:Goucher College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Goucher College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Taewangkorea (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will be starting this GA review. It is my first GA review so I will mostly follow the criteria. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the Quick-Fail Criteria

[edit]

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria

2. It contains copyright violations

Copyvio and spot check passed. The violations shown are quotes that are appropriately cited, or specialized terms such as (U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design).

3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {cleanup}, {POV}, {unreferenced} or large numbers of {citation needed}, {clarify}, or similar tags.

4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.

Overall, none of the quick-fail criteria are met. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of the Main GA Criteria

[edit]

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. :@Wikieditor19920: Please see comments below.
      3. layout - Maybe things in MOS:LEADORDER such as a short description might be added? Also, perhaps a "further reading" and/or "see also" section can be added?.
      Lead section - the lead should summarize what is discussed in the rest of the article, parts on notable people and the "campus" section should be added. Also, in the lead, "and was one of 40 institutions profiled in Colleges That Change Lives by Loren Pope" is not in the body. Finally, some refs that are in the lead are not talked about in the article, maybe you can try to incorporate some of that stuff into the article.
      Done. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wikieditor19920: The lead could use one sentence or so on notable alumni, and it would then be a good summary of the entire article. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Words to watch - The title of the "recent construction" section might be changed to prevent the usage of the term recent (it may be recent now but not in several years) but I think it is not that important.
      Done. Incorporate section on construction into rest of article.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Fiction -
      List Incorporation -
  2. Verifiable with no original research :
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; @Wikieditor19920: Please see comments below : What reference style is being used?
      2. OK. I guess MoS does not have a specific citation style guide. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; @Wikieditor19920:: Please see comments
      On the Design, Layout, and Sustainability section, the source (nrdc.org/experts/lara-ettenson/how-college-campuses-can-lead-fighting-climate-change) says "all new buildings or major renovations to existing buildings with a goal of achieving at least a Silver rating" but the article says " implemented a plan for all new and existing buildings to achieve at least a Silver rating according to the U.S. Green Building Council's" which is different from what the source says (mainly renovations to existing buildings vs all existing buildings.
      and
      4. Rewrote this segment to conform with your suggestion above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
      Copyvio detector and spot check passed. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Broad in its coverage :
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;@Wikieditor19920:: Please see comments
      Information regarding organization/administration of the university (maybe under Academics section) would be helpful. Also, the "rankings" and "Admissions" and "graduate level" sections under academics might be expanded more. Also, perhaps information regarding faculty research might be added under the "academics" section. Finally, in the student life section, parts regarding "athethics" and "clubs and extracurriculars" sound rather short. Maybe there can be more info added.
      I can only include what I find in reliable sources, and there is only limited information available to put into these sections. I'm hoping that this article can serve as a good example of how to make proper and efficient use of a subject (institution) with moderate reliable source coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wikieditor19920: OK. I see. I think it is OK then. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
      3. Uses summary style: Taewangkorea (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    No edit wars or content disputes. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio :
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content ; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Wikieditor19920 (talk). Nominated by CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) at 04:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: New enough Good Article. Hook is cited, appears in the article, and backed up by the source. Action items:
  • Two paragraphs in "20th century" need paragraph-ending citations.
  • QPQ needed.
Please ping when these issues are rectified. Raymie (t • c) 03:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Female College

[edit]

What was Baltimore Female College? I don't see it discussed in the history section here. Here are some documents related to it. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question! I don't have time at the moment to look into it, but I did fix the link you posted (the quote-characters were breaking things). DMacks (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one quick lead. In File:Fourth_Annual_Report_of_the_Baltimore_Female_College,_to_the_General_Assembly_of_Maryland._(IA_fourthannualrepo1865balt).pdf p4, Nathan C. Brooks is listed as present. His WP article says he was the first and only president of Baltimore Female College, from around 1849 until it closed 1890. That does not seem to correspond with being a predecessor or old name of Goucher, since Goucher was originally Women's College of Baltimore as founded in 1885. So the transiently-existing Baltimore Female College redirect that points to Goucher is indeed not correct. Brooks's refs might be useful leads. DMacks (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goucher_College&oldid=1212571355"