Talk:Indian Institute of Management Rohtak/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will be reviewing this article, and post my comments soon. 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment The "Programmes" section seems to be against WP:UNIGUIDE (which is not an official guideline but is widely accepted) but I'm sure you'll address this in your review. --Muhandes (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, I will consider your suggestion. RRD (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well written

The designation of Kapil Sibal must be mentioned in brackets. Done --Vishal14K | Talk 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence must be added that the forest ministry objected to setting up of a campus (it is given in source only) Done
2017-18 - the dash here needs to be replaced by the larger one. Done
Also the claim that the batches will start is vague. It needs to be reworded as "in 20xx , abc source said that the batch will start..." Done Removed this sentence as it was supposed to happen in 2017–18 but I checked on the website and it hasn't. --Vishal14K | Talk 18:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RRD (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It was set up..." - this entire sentence is full of weasel words. RRD (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Comment: Which sentence are we talking about?[reply]
The first sentence of administration is gramatically wrong and needs rewriting. Done
of chairmain should be of a chairman. Done
There seems to be some original research about the board of directors. The source used does not mention about the quota system which has been inserted in the article. Done Citation added --Vishal14K | Talk 19:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of faculty and research is vague. They have published 160 papers.. as of what date? Done
By just writing in "international conferences", without any elaboration, a bias has been introduced in the article. Done
The information about top 5% is also a biased as it is not an achievement. Comment: If you go to Appendix A (page 16) of the citation provided, the authors themselves have categorised the researchers as top 5%. I just took it from there. Let me know if this still not suffices. I'll remove the content. --Vishal14K | Talk 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not wrong, there are many other organisations who rank universities. RRD (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Comment: There are multiple issues with this template. It has only 4 fields for business school rankings - NIRF, Business Today, Business Standard and Outlook India. Out of these 4, only NIRF includes new IIMs (established after 2009) in its rankings. --Vishal14K | Talk 20:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The programme section is unnecessarily detailed and it looks that Wikipedia has become a website of the instititute. You can look into other GAs/FAs to understand. Done

RRD (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This initiative has the backing of some of the faculty - some is a weasel word. Done Removed the sentence
various awareness activities. Remove various. Done

RRD (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in Coverage

In the history section, a few details about the history of IIMs as a whole must be added.RRD (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Done[reply]

Referencing

In the collaboration section, the second source used clearly mentions what are the collaborations between the IIM and a particular university. But in the article, it has been presented in a generic form. RRD (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Done[reply]
The information about internship in the PG programme is clearly twisted from what is given in the source. The source mentions the internship for the 2017 year, and not as a general one. Done Changed citation --Vishal14K | Talk 00:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of the same paragraph is original research, a better source is required. Done
The last sentence, pertaining to Harvard Business School is unsourced. Done Removed it

RRD (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ref 13 used at clubs and committees is also for the 2015-16 season and needs to be replaced. Done

RRD (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The first sentence of entrepreneurship is clearly a promotional one and must be removed. Done
The first sentence of the second paragraph also seems to be promotional. Done

RRD (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence of the Post Graduate Programme, due to the presence of "flagship programme", the sentence appears to be promotional. Done

RRD (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I have more or less given all the comments on this article for suggestion. The nominator needs to adress these issues within 26 January 2018. As of now article in hold.RRD (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the issues mentioned by you to the best of my abilities. Let me know if there is anything left. Will resolve it in the next two days. --Vishal14K | Talk 00:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vishal14k:. Hi, I could not respond because I was preparing for my CBSE board exams. I will surely now look into this review. RRD (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, passing it now. RRD (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. --Vishal14K | Talk 17:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]