Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. Sorry for the long wait! I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

On consideration, I would like to get a second opinion from another editor on the sourcing issue. I'm not sure what to do, so guidance from a third party will be helpful. I apologize if this leads to further delay for the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

For the second-opinion-giver, please see 2b below. My question is this; do you think this article, with its current sourcing, could meet the GA criteria with regards to sourcing and neutrality? Thank you for your help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Closing nomination, with no prejudice against renomination, per discussion on nominator talk page. This is a fine article and is not at all in bad shape. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Like our review on the previous article (history of UTA 1917-1965), I have concerns about source independence. The same thing applies to Saxon as before: having downloaded it and read the beginning, I can see Saxon's assurances that this was not prepared as a PR piece and that no one attempted to influence him while writing the book. However, I cannot extricate the source from the fact that it was prepared as part of the centennial celebrations of the University's existence by an employee of the University. It cannot be regarded as independent. The Barker & Worcester source, too, was clearly created with the close cooperation of the University. In their Acknowledgements, they give "special gratitude" to UTA libraries dean Rebecca Bichel, saying "without her, this project could not have begun." The University also made available their photo archive as a courtesy, and the authors thank the university's Communications staff (read: PR staff). Finally, The Shorthorn is UTA's student newspaper. Per its long history and WP:RSSM, it can probably be considered reliable, but it is not an independent source. Making a rough count, probably less than 10% of the sources in the article are from sources I would consider independent of UTA, mostly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Again, I don't really have significant doubts about the reliability of these sources, but I do worry that the overwhelming use of non-independent sources may result in coverage gaps, subtle bias, or overemphasis of local detail and positive news. I'm going to think about this a little and decide what to do about it. My understanding is also that the nominator is a (properly disclosed) employee of UTA, so I want to be careful in approaching this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments under 2b.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable following copyedit - pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.