Talk:Dhaka Residential Model College/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Grammar and spellling are ok.

   B. MoS compliance:

   MOS compliance ok.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Needs additional work on references.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   References are reliable, but need work on formatting.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Needs better coverage of school history.

   B. Focused:

   Too much detail on courses, competitons, and other subjects not of general interest.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Reads a bit promotional. Could use more work on WP:NPOV

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable. No edit wars.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   OTRS pending tag should be replaced with OTRS approval before renominating.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate and good quality. Captions could be improved. See WP:CAPTION

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Comments: I have noticed the poor quality of the image of DRMC Debate team. So I've removed that. Furthermore I've just used the photos only taken by me in the article except the logo (which can't be gained without a copyrighted one). -- Tanweer ^{(talk|contributions)} 07:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Response: DRMC_football_team.JPG is copyright of the school and attribution is not enough. The school will have to confirm permission to use it with an email. See WP:PERMISSION. Once the email is sent, you can use the {{OTRS pending}} tag while permission is confirmed by OTRS volunteers. This is the required procedure for any image you take from the website (or any other copyrighted source).

The logo is fine, but you need to include a Fair Use Rationale for this article. See WP:LOGO. Use the {{Logo fur]}} template for best results. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary Comments:I am sorry to say that the article still has a ways to go to meet the GA criteria. The prose is much improved thanks to good copyediting, but there are issues with the remaining criteria that will prevent promotion at this time. Please see my comments below and please take them constructively. I recognize the hard work you have put into this piece and encourage you to continue to improve it.

My suggestion would be to address all of the concerns noted here , submit the article to another peer review, and address all of the suggestions you receive there before re-nominating this for GA again. I believe that will help you improve the article substantially.

General:

• You have not fully addressed Brianboulton’s excellent peer review suggestions. It still reads like a lot like promotional material. For example, the exhaustive list of departments and subjects is of no interest to the general reader and the information on debate and quiz is overly detailed. The history of the school is very thin, although that would probably be of most interest to an encyclopedia reader.

• There is a lot of overlinking going on. Terms that most English speakers will understand should not be linked. Examples include: DRMC (don’t link the article to itself), medical examination, library, book, newspaper, magazine, laundry. There are may others. Also avoid linking the same term more than once.

• The referencing is spotty. Better referencing is need throughout the article. Examples here include: who says it is the largest campus in Dhaka? Why is Zainul Abedin “intellectual or reknowned”? There are many other such claims that need references.

• Some paragraphs have no reference at all. The rule of thumb is to reference all quotes, major claims, statistics, and at least one per paragraphs.

Lead:

• “By the then government of Pakistan.” Why “then”? Many readers will not understand the history of Bangladesh.

• The lead should summarize the article. The rule of thumb is that every section heading should be mentioned in some way. See WP:LEAD.

History:

• This section needs to be expanded quite a bit. Why did the school change hands? Why add another session? Why change things after independence?\

• Delete the board information. It is not of general interest.

• What does “intermediate level mean”? What is III to XII grades? These are not familiar to people from different educational systems.

Admissions:

• “Admission tests at the primary and lower secondary levels are competitive as well.” What does this mean?

• “Students of at the end of primary level gets the opportunity to appear for the primary scholarship examination. And the students at the end of lower secondary level can appear for the junior scholarship examination as well.” What does that mean? Needs some explanation.

Curriculum:

• Avoid using the “&.” Use the word “and”.

• The list of subjects and departments is not encyclopedic. All schools do these things. Tell us what makes the school interesting, unusual, special.

• The academic performance section needs a lot of explanation. Foreigners (Americans for sure) will have no idea what any of these things are.

Extracurricular Activities:

• There is way too much detail here, and again, non-native readers will not understand what many of these events are. Why are they important and interesting? Are they top finishes in national events? If not, why are they notable?

References:

• All references should have a publisher and, where available, a date. This is missing from many of the references.

External links:

• You should delete most of these except the official school website. See WP:EL.

Thanks for all your work on this article and please do not allow this to discourage you from continuing to contribute and renominate your work when it is ready. Best regards.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)