Talk:San Beda University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Leventio (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

• The article contains a lot of words which can be considered puffery. The neutrality of this article because of the puffery is in dispute, so the issue of academic boosterism needs to be addressed if this article is to pass GA-review. Read more at Avoid academic boosterism
• Within the article, there are words which are boldfaced. See WP:MOSBOLD for the list of texts which should and should not be boldfaced.
• The titling of the article's section titles are somewhat long and redundant. Notable San Beda Alumni can be shortened to just notable people, History of San Beda can also be just shortened to History. The subject of what these are about is already obvious as it is within the article and just is redundant to add. See MOS:HEAD for more details.
• The majority of the article's notable alumni list are made up of people which don't have existing English Wikipedia articles or are not even linked at all. Notable peoples lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference. See WP:REDLINK for more detail.
• For the amount of information covered in the article itself, the lead of the article is rather long. Consider shortening it. The lead should only be a summary of the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD for more detail

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

• Some of the article's external links include Yahoo Groups and galleries. Galleries and Yahoo Groups (being created by a non-recognized authority) should not be included in external links. See WP:EXT for more details.

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

• There are eight references that are dead links. Furthermore, the article's five most reused references are also dead links. The link for Bedan Hym isn't also not from an academic source (self created, and from YouTube). An external link, other than the school site, shouldn't contain an external link.
• This fact that the majority of the article is unreferenced and has only 16 references which are not dead links. This will prove to be a major issue and will need to addressed before this article can pass a GA-review. The fact that other editors brought up the issue that certain claims in the article needs to be sourced further exemplifies the issues.

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

• The article is missing a lot of content necessary for it to be considered 'broad in its covereage'. There is no information on the campus itself, research performed and the administration of the school. Information on these things is needed for this article to be truly broad. The academic profile section of the school needs a large re-hauled as it just seems to list out the programs and schools of the university, which is not the purpose of that section, and goes against Wikipedia's policy that it is in fact not a directory (WP:NOTDIR). As explained earlier, the Noted people section needs a severe reduction. Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included. Please read the WP:UNIGUIDE to see what is suggested to be included and not included in the article.

1. B. Focused:

• The history section needs to be reorganized, its cluttered with many subtopics which do not necessarily belong in the history section to begin with.

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

• As stated earlier, this article contains a lot of puffery words which may unintentionally make this article appear biased.

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

The coat of arms of the university is not registered as a coat of arms in the Wikicommons.

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

One of the images on this page is missing a caption.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

After considering the following issues brought up within this review, I cannot pass this article. While the article is rather long in length, there is too many issues (especially in regard to references and the broadness of the content). The article does have some useful content within it however and can be utilized to form this into a good article. However, due to the amount of issues, as well as the weight in which these issues hold and the resources needed to redress them, I will not also extend the opportunity to place this review on hold for one week. I do believe that these issues will take up more time than the review may remain open for it to be corrected. Once again, I suggest that the nominator, as well as any other editors of the article to glance over Wikipedia's manual of style and read over WP:UNIGUIDE. Once you believe that all the problems have been addressed, please feel free to renominate this article (however renominate it under education, not culture and culture and society. I wish the nominator as well as other editors the best of luck in eventually shaping this into a good article.