Talk:University of Miami/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Well done.

B. MoS compliance:
No issues.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
~~All references need publishers. (done) There a few dead links.~~ (done)

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Comprehensive coverage of the University.

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrally presented.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Previous edit wars and copyvio issues seem to be resolved.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are ok.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are appropriate and informative.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Well written and researched. Much improved from the previous GA attempt. Nice work. ~~With attention to two very minor items, should~~ Easily meets the GA standard. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: These items should be fixed before GA can be passed. You should be able to do this quickly. If it will take more than a day or two, I can put the article on hold to give you more time.

"The University of Miami was ranked in the top tier..." That's not what the article says. It was ranked as a National University, but 50th is not really top tier. (good catch - done)
Many references are still missing publishers. These should be included. (done)
Please fix dead links at 43, 79, and 125. (done)

Follow Up Comments:

Please check the following references for publishers or broken templates: 26,39,42,49,85,88,94,131,139,165. (done)
Check spelling and abbreviations on 104 and 161. (done)
Also check that the date format is consistent throughout. You mostly use "1001-01-01, but I noticed that you occasionally use "January 1, 1001". They should all be the same.

All of the access dates are in 1001-01-01 format. The date of publication is in whatever format appeared in the source, including "Spring 2008" etc. I will look again. Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the dates used in the references should be consistent. See WP:DATE#Format consistency. Probably not strictly a GA criteria, but people do get gigged for it. It would be a good thing to fix. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (done)[reply]

125 still shows as broken on checklinks.

This is very strange. When I click on fn 125, it displays correctly. Could you please double-check it? Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me too. Checklinks shows it as broken. Strange, but not an article problem. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: These are suggestions for improvement, but not required.

The image at the bottom of the infobox is usually a photo of the building. Why include two logos there? Why use the seal up top when the logo is so recognizable?
- WP:UNI guidelines
Link LEED higher up, were first used?
- Fixed
Link Genomics, Toxicology, Interferometry?
Fall Freshman Statistics Table -- too much detail? Does it belong in the Academics section?
Organization -- Is this of interest to the general reader? Sounds just like every other university in the country.
- WP:UNI guidelines
There are a number of places where you use multiple references for the same fact. While not incorrect, it makes harder reading. Unless the fact is extraordinary and highly disputed, why not just pick the best one and roll with it?
- In some cases, it offers both a UM and non-UM source. In other cases, it is a compromise among the editing team.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]