Jump to content

Talk:University of Surrey/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Preliminary

[edit]

Good looking article with a lot of potential. Please rectify the following general issues before I conduct a full-fledged review:

  • Each alumnus and academic needs to be supported by a citation
  • All citations should be in WP:Cite formatt (WP:Cite web in most cases; i.e., with URL, publisher, access date, as well as author and date of article if available)
  • Proposed Surrey Multifaith Centre should be merged into Campus
  • Media and Students' Union need to be expanded upon greatly or merged elsewhere
  • "University" by itself should not be capitalized throughout the article
  • Fix Universities in the United Kingdom template at bottom of article to include Surrey
  • Lead needs to be expanded significantly per WP:LEAD
--Eustress (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this article. All of these areas are being worked on currently. Funkejazz (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm patient when I see that progress is being made. Historically, however, GANs "on hold" are only so for seven days. If these issues can be addressed within that time frame, then I'd be happy to grant another week or so to work through my subsequent in-depth review. If you don't have time to respond adequately this GAN, the article can be failed an renominated again when ready, but it's really to your advantage for me to be thorough and not let an article "slide", as another editor would just request reassessment of the GA status and demote it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this process is new to me, but I think the issues above have now been addressed. Best Funkejazz (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work...here we go! (Please respond to each bullet point individually, so I can keep track where you're at and you can ask questions about specific points if needed (I'm not always right).

Review

[edit]

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
  • Issues marked elsewhere.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Do you really need to list the Vice-Chancellor and all the Pro-Chancellors in the infobox? I would consider this unnecessary detail.
  • Only list associations in infobox that pertain to university as a whole (e.g., AACSB is for business school only and would go on an article about the business school).
  • Major concern: The article doesn't have balance because it avoids any negative stuff about the university. Any criticism or controversies? How does the university fare in national and global rankings?
    • Good point. If there genuinely isn't any notable negativity or controversy can it still be balanced? I guess rankings might give it balance but I haven't seen a consensus reached on how rankings are introduced into wikipedia as they tend to be very controversial themselves!Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched for any controversies regarding USurrey and couldn't find anything, but just keep such information in mind for the future. However, rankings seems to be a standard inclusion in FA university articles. All rankings are have some POV (similar to all Wikipedia editors) but we seek balance through reliable, encyclopedic content. In this case (you might want to find a more updated source) I found a Financial Times overall ranking for British Universities putting USurrey at #29 (http://www.hust.edu.cn/english/link/oversea/abroad/rankBritish%20.html). Perhaps an Academics section, similar to other FAs, could include Rankings, Research, and Educational links. --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major concern: Article seems to be missing stuff covered in just about every other university article: Athletics? Student life and culture? Student profile?
    • Again notability is the issue here. Athletics and sports are not big in UK institutions in the same way it is in US colleges so there is little interest in student sports outside those taking part on the whole. Student life would be relevant but from what I know about Surrey it would add very little to the article, to the extent that we would then be discussing removing it. Please feel free to disagree with any or all of this. I think in the general interests of improving the article in the framework of what Wikipedia is about these are not sections I think that should be added. Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

Conclusion

[edit]

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one more week until the above issues are resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]