Talk:Hamline University/GA2

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • External links should not be included in the body of the article, as they are in the Schools and Colleges section. Instead, they should be formatted as references, or included in the External links section at the end of the article.
   • There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article. Any paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
   • The lead section should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be no original information in it, and so no references, unless they are being used to back up a direct quote.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The references need some serious attention in order for this article to pass to GA status. Here are main problems I saw:

   • Web references should all be formatted the same way. Currently, you have some that use the cite web template and some that do not. Also, all web references need access dates and publishers. The publisher should be the company (or individual) that published the website, not the website home address. For example, current ref #1 should have the publisher listed as "U.S. News & World Report". In your web references, the title of the ref should be formatted as the web link - rather than having the title and then a bare link to the reference.
   • Book references should all be formatted the same way. You seem to be going mainly for a split reference format, which is a good choice for this article. However, for this to be done correctly, what should happen is that you split the current references section into two new sections - "Notes" and "References". In the Notes section, you have your reflist template to list all of your in-text citations. The in-text citations for books will be something like "author, page" or "author, title, page". In the References section, you will have the full information for each book you use.

   • There are several sections that need to be referenced:

   • Red Wing location section, the last sentence of the first paragraph and all of the third paragraph.
   • St. Paul Campus section, most of the second paragraph
   • The Great Depression section, the fifth paragraph
   • Post World War II section, the second paragraph
   • New Academic Publications section, the second paragraph
   • The last sentence of the lead, about the mascot of the Liberal Arts college, is mentioned no-where else in the article, and is not referenced in the lead.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • There are some aspects of the article that I think are missing that need to be included for this article to be complete. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure for the general structure that is suggested for articles of this sort. What I see missing include individual sections on the current campus, any research and endowments, the current academic profile of the school, and especially a student life section.
   • In the Schools and Colleges section, I would suggest expanding this into a short discussion about each of these schools. MOS discourages lists, and especially discourages short sections consistent entirely of a list. This section could be expanded into the current campus and/or current academic profile of the school sections discussed in my point above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article has quite a bit of work that needs to be done before it is of GA quality. Due to the issues I have raised above, I have not yet completed a full check of the prose. When I see the above issues being addressed, I will begin the prose check. I am putting this article on hold to allow time to work on the article. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due to the lack of work that has happened on the article. I truely think that this article needs a serious restructuring, and the addition of several sections, as recommended by the University Wikiproject. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)