Talk:University of Pittsburgh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some awkward passages ("Buildings not belonging to Pitt, but historic structures within, near, or adjacent to Pitt's campus..."), un-needed assertions of notability ("which is consistently ranked in U.S. News & World Report's "Honor Roll" of America's top hospitals"), unclear what the "Community" section contributes that shouldn't already exist in an Administration & Organization, Student Life, or other existing sections; 7 citations in a row is excessive.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Student life needs to be prosified, no discussion of organization or administration (board of trustees, relationship with state of PA, president & provost, endowment and fundraising, etc.); unclear why location of Panther statues warrants a whole section under campus; no US university rankings template under rankings; over-sectioning in history section + "History of University" is redundant section title, undue weight/context on Polio in history section

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Huge passages of Athletics are uncited, on-going problems with unverifiable peacock and booster terms,

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   History section neglects major topics like racial integration, campus protests and activism in the 1960s and 70s, declining gov't sponsorship, town-gown tensions; academics section neglects any mention of accreditation, academic calendar, honors, enrollment distributions throughout schools, core undergraduate curriculum, popular undergraduate majors & graduate programs, tuition & financial aid, etc.; Alumni sections makes no mention of any notable alumni; no discussion of makeup/diversity/background of student body; research section omits important data on expenditures, major research centers & grants, research space, staffing, budget, etc. in favor of (more) rankings

   B. Focused:

   Undue weight on student government and some non-notable student groups (telefact, blue & gold, probably every student theater and music group, several traditions, for example);

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Preponderance of weasel, peacock, booster, and other non-neutral words (highly regarded, current stature, strong reputation, well-rounded curriculum, commitment to liberal education, leading producers, one of the top universities in the world by multiple studies, a long history of success, etc.) needs to be scrubbed out. This is an encyclopedia article, not an admissions brochure.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Passes my random sampling

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

   Seem to be too many pictures (especially of nationality rooms and CoL), CoL image in lead creates a lot of white space

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is generally very high quality, but also clearly bears the fingerprints of editors who clearly hold the school in high esteem and wish to impart this POV on its readers. I cannot recommend promotion until something is done to replace the peacockery and boosterism with basic descriptive information like Carnegie classifications, accreditation information, etc.; I wouldn't go so far as to recommend checking every adverb, but there are a lot of either unnecessary or promotional opinioned ones embedded throughout that should be replaced with neutrally asserted facts. Basically, pretend you're reading the Penn State article and simply assert facts and substantiate claims instead of offering POV or unverifiable opinions cloaked in a stream of cites. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)