Talk:Michigan State University Libraries/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will make comments on the article as I progress through it.

Per WP:Lead the lead needs to summarize all parts of the article. I don't see anything in the lead about the various libraries outside the main library. The lead should be examined and expanded to cover all of the article.
There are quite a few grammatical and prose issues that I am running into as I read. I'm fixing some of them but as I continue I see more and more. For example this sentence, "Library materials from all African countries (less so for North Africa) are collected at a high level, also materials in all African and other languages and across all historical periods." doesn't make sense to me and should be reworded. Another example is here, "A significant portion of the collection is presently uncataloged and, therefore, does not appear in the Libraries' catalog." This is a repetitive sentence. A thorough prose edit should be undertaken, a GA shouldn't have the number of issues I'm coming across.
There are several external links in the body of the article that link out to the various library's main pages. These should be moved to the bottom in an external links section.
The references all seem to be from around 2007. There are quite a few stats given in the article with older references, can these stats be updated with more current information? As a reader when I am reading the stats and then see that the reference was last accessed in 2007 it makes me wonder if the stats are really accurate.
On that same vein there are several dead links in the reference section. You can see them here [1]. The red lines are dead links that need to be repaired. I count six in the references with another dead external link. These will need to be repaired.
Re: reference formatting, for websites it is important to have at least the site name, publisher, and accessdate, most of the references do not have the publisher. Other important information would include author, date, and work.

Overall I think the article has what it takes to be a GA but needs some work to keep it consistent with the GA Criteria. I will hold the article for a week pending work and notify interested projects and editors. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no work has been done on this review I will delist. H1nkles (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]