Talk:Purdue University/GA1

GA Review

Images

• Image:Purduebanner.png - I'm not convinced that this fair use image is necessary. The article already has one fair use logo in the infobox.
• Image:Purdueseal.png - This image doesn't have a precise source.
• Image:JohnPurdue.jpg - This needs a reliable source, a date, and an author.
• Image:MorrillAct.jpg - This image is missing a source, an author, and a date.
• Image:Earhart electra.jpg - This needs a specific source, a description, an author, and a date. The tag needs to be fixed as well.
• Image:Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr..jpg - This image is not necessarily in the PD. Note that the NSF website says "with the exception of the NSF logos provided, photos and illustrations found on the NSF web site should not be reused without permission". We need to contact Sam Kittner if we want to use this photo.
• Image:Purdue Research Park Logo.gif - There is no fair use rationale for this logo. I don't think it is necessary, either, since it is entirely text.
• Image:Pu dining.jpg - This fair use rationale is too weak - it doesn't add significantly to the readers' understanding (see WP:NFCC #8) and it could easily be replaced by a free version (WP:NFCC #1).
• Image:Purdue Exponent Logo.gif - There is no fair use rationale for this logo. I don't think it is necessary, either, since it is almost entirely text.
• Image:W9yb.jpg - There is no fair use rationale for this logo. I don't think it is necessary, either.
• Image:Purdue pete.gif - Is it possible to get a more specific source for this image?
• Image:Neil Armstrong pose.jpg - The source link is broken.
• Before I check all of the images in the "Astronaut alumni" section, I would suggest that the image gallery be removed. I don't think it is necessary.
• I would suggest reading MOS:IMAGES - it can offer some suggestions for improving image placements. There is some text sandwiching early in the "History" section, for example, and many of the images are lined up on the right-hand side of the article.

Sections to add

There are several topics that this article doesn't cover yet but are crucial to any university article:

• Libraries
• Student groups/Student organization
• Rankings
• Curriculum and majors
• Budget and endowment

Small expansions

• The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD - all the major topics of the article need to be covered in the lead.

• The "20th century" section of the "History" focuses almost exclusively on aviation, but Purdue is known as an engineering school more broadly. This section does not explain the diversity of Purdue's accomplishments - it is too narrow.

• Entire paragraphs of the "Campus" section are unsourced.

• The "Campus" section would benefit from a map or a general description so that the reader understands where different sections are in relation to each other.

• Including a description of some of the ongoing research at Purdue would be helpful. I thought it was at Purdue that scientists discovered the plant without DNA - it had only RNA.

• The "Legends" section is a single sentence. This needs to be a summary of the daughter article.

Sources and notes

• The footnotes are not formatted properly - see WP:FOOT and WP:CITE. We do not use bald links.

• Most of your sources are from Purdue itself. It is a good idea not to rely too much on Purdue's site, but rather on secondary sources that are more objective. Purdue's website is essentially an advertisement, so we need to be very careful what we use it for.

• The "References" section is confusing - why are these sources separated out? Why are they numbered?

This is an excellent start on the article. I do not think that the issues I have raised can be addressed in a week, however, so I am failing the article. I have no doubt, however, that the editors will be able to improve the article and renominate the article in the near future. I hope these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)