Talk:University of Miami/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the review and believe the reliable source issues are still an obstacle to GA at this time. I am requesting a second opinion to get additional perspective. See my other detailed comments below:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is the fourth GA nomination for this article, and while a lot of progress has been made the article is currently unstable. Please see detailed comments below.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
There are a number of stylistic issues raised in the previous GAR that have not been addressed, including one/two sentence paragraphs and ~~inconsistent use of “%” and “percent”.~~
[addressed - ~~numbers and percent are spelled out only if they start a sentence~~ Reworded to avoid percent figure at a start of sentence.]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The images in the Athletics section sandwich the text. You may have to delete one of them. (See MOS:IMAGES). The "See also" section is superfluous, as the links either already appear in the article or could easily be incorporated. It should probably be deleted. (See WP:ALSO). And the student paper should not appear in External links. (See WP:UNIGUIDE).
(done)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
The third paragraph of the lead contains statistics that should be referenced (grant dollars, library volumes) and the championship claim should be referenced as well. (See WP:LEADCITE). There are a few other statistics here and there (campus acreage, for example) that should also be referenced.
(done)

B. 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):
As noted in the previous GA reviews, the majority of the references are to publications of the university. Of the 126 sources, 72 of them by my count are UM publications. Even granting that articles on universities might rely on self-published sources more than those on other topics, they should still not be a preponderance of the sources. (See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). Of the remainder of the references, 25 or more point to various rankings sites, many of which could also be challenged as WP:RS. The article really needs more third-party references to major publications, books, journal articles, and the like. A university of the statue of UM should have an abundance of coverage in major media over the years. There are also three references to the student paper, which is questionable as a WP:RS. While there is no definitive statement I am aware of on the reliability of student papers, there has been much debate on the topic. You should substitute a stronger source if you can. All references to university-linked publications should include the “publisher=” field in the citation template. It is important information. Please also make sure that all the PDFs reference page numbers. Finally, the links on refs ~~22,23,24,63,72,81,58,~~104 show as dead on the automated link check. That should be fixed.
more non-UM references added. All ref links checked.
Check 78, 87, and 104. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked what I think was 78 and 87 at the time 17:39 on 5 Feb, and they seem fine, but maybe I have been confused by the automatic renumbering. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article seems comprehensive and covers the topics of interest at an appropriate level of detail.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The Rankings section seems a bit much, as none of the rankings are in and of themselves notable (say, top ten or even 25 national rankings). It could be reduced dramatically or even omitted. (See WP:BOOSTER). for a good discussion of rankings. The table of undergraduate admissions is also too much detail, as it does not add anything interesting to the article or support a point made elsewhere.
(Moved business school rankings to a separate article and cut back on Hispanic Business magazine article. Some say that failure to report mediocre rankings violates WP:BOOSTER.) Other rankings trimmed
The final sentence of the revised paragraph ("In addition to . . .") is unsourced and contains external links. You could try to work some of the info into the previous paragraph or just delete it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
~~The rankings section is a bit boosterish, as discussed in 3b.~~
Rankings discussion cut back.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Numerous reversion issues and copyvio deletions since the GA review began render the article too unstable for GA at this time.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The image file:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg in the Athletics section has a fairly weak Fair Use Rationale for a logo. The logo in the infobox, file:Umiami prime logo.svg, has the correct logo rationale. You should either use the same logo and/or rationale or find an image that has not been used in the article already. The same can be said for file: University of Miami logo.png. The PD claim as a raster image is not very credible here. The logo rationale is more appropriate. (See WP:LOGO). (or just work from the rationale for the infobox logo). The source links on these files do not work. This was mentioned in the last GA review, also.
athleics logo removed. I am unsure what the protocol is if an accurately identified source no longer provides the image. I have changed the URL to the current location of the seal image.
Check the logos. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (done)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
In general, the images are good quality and appropriate. The tables (except as noted) are particularly well done and add interest to the article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A lot of work has been done adressing the issues identified in this and the previous GA review. The references are much improved, and aside from formatting issues, are in pretty good shape now. There are other minor issues still open as noted above. Unfortunately, numerous changes over the past few days due to reversions and copyvio deletions makes it impossible to evaluate the remainder of the criteria. The article fails criteria 5, and therefore the GA standard, at this time for that reason.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think Racepacket should just stop sending the article to GA repeatedly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is not the second opinion that was requested, but rather a comment from a recent UM graduate. I agree that it is important that Wikipedia articles should be objective and that college articles have more WP:BOOSTER problems than other articles. Both before and after GA2, we put a lot of work into removing that bias. I also agree that Wikipedia articles should not have excessive dependence on the website of the subject. However, this article cites to a wide variety of sources including Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the South Florida Business Journal, the Sun Sentinel, a non-fiction book, a graduate dessertation, and official reports that are merely hosted on the UM website. Hence, I would invite a second opinion regarding sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request of the reviewer, I would like to provide another opinion for the article. I'm inclined to agree that the article still uses too many sources from the university itself. This is usually okay for demographics or details about individual schools within the university. Yes, it is going to be difficult to find additional sourcing, but articles can be found through Google news archives or perhaps a university database. I'd recommend looking to other GA/FA university articles to see how they get their sources to determine if they can be applied to this page as well. About the above comment about continuing to nominate the article, I disagree. Some articles can have difficulty getting through GAN the first time, and there is no need to be discouraged if it fails again (I've had several GANs fail and although it wasn't the greatest feeling, helpful comments can assist in improving the article further). Address the other issues raised by Nasty Housecat, and continue to search for additional sources. Consider asking for assistance of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page, including WikiProject Universities, as there are probably experienced members who can help with gathering sources (especially if it means another GA for the project). If you have any questions or need assistance please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will place the review on hold to let the nominator continue work on revisions. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. We will continue to work on the noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well (I was asked to comment here). Also, many of the footnotes are not properly formatted, and need to be filled out with publication details. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UM website is now less than half of the citations:

Citation sources^*
Source	Count
miami.edu	62
newspapers	16
books & dissertations	5
other	51
Total	134

^* does not reflect references moved out of the article after 2/4/10

I am sorry to have to say the article is not eligible for GA at this time due to the stability issues noted above. I respect and acknowledge the amount of work that went into improving the article for this review, and do think it is much improved from where it started out. When the article stabilizes again and the copyvio issues are resolved, I hope you will not be too discouraged to try again. Best of luck. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]