Talk:Dhaka Residential Model College/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be doing the GA review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Review comments

This article is so improved since the last GAN that I hardly recognize it. Great work! I have a few minor comments, but I think it is looking very good:

• I do not think Banglapedia counts as WP:RS. As a tertiary source, it can only be used for summary or overview comments, not detailed discussion. Can you find secondary sources instead?
• Is it possible the transliterate the Bangladeshi titles in the references for English speakers?
• In several places you use multiple citations. That is overkill unless the material is highly controversial (nothing here is). Just pick the best one and use that. For the alumni, you can use two if you need one for notability and another for attendance.
• The DRMC football photo is not great. There is not much to see. Can you find a more compelling image for that section?
• The article is redundant in places. You discuss the administration, the schedule, and the exams in more than one place. Can you consolidate those discussions so each one is mainly covered in just one section?
• There is a sentence which reads: "The housemaster and prefects have opportunities to make announcements…" What does that mean?
• The lead images sandwich the text. You should remove one of them. I suggest keeping the Ayub Khan photo. You have lots of buildings already.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt Banglapedeia is a very well done encyclopedia. However, as tertiary sources, no encyclopedia is considered a reliable source for detailed discussion -- even Wikipedia itself. Please see WP:PRIMARY for more explanation. If the Banglapedia articles reference secondary sources, it should be fairly easy to research and cite those resources yourself in lieu of the encyclopedia article.

Regarding transliteration, ref 34 is the only one I see that lacks one.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing this before: I see that you using shortened footnotes for Shandipan and Srijon, but there is no reference for them. I don't even see a full citation for them. See WP:CITESHORT for the correct way to do this. Baltimore City College is a good example, too. Fix that, and I believe all of the issues will be addressed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Tanweer (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait. I'm confused. I thought these were books. Are these magazine articles? If so, what are the article names? And you should reference by author, not publication. For the full references use, for example: Hossain, M (2002). "Article Name," Srijon. For the short references, you would use: Hossain 2002, p.11. (Look at the Scientific American example at WP:CITESHORT). Do this only for articles you cite more than once. For things only cited once, use the full {{cite news}} template in the footnote as you do elsewhere. Make sense? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. I went ahead and fixed refs 57 and 58 so you can see what it should look like. You should fix refs 59-63 in the same fashion. Since these are all articles, you will not need the works cited section at all. Just use the ref name tag (like you did on 57) if you use the same source more than once. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Reasonably well written

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Generally well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See comments

   C. No original research:

   No OR

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Comprehensive school article

   B. Focused:

   Does not digress

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrally presented

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Very stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Image tags OK

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

   Images all OK now

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Meets the GA standard. Pass.