Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Good for start article, but requires heavy editing for GA status. Epicadam (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There is no flow to the writing, especially lead section. There seems to be random bits of trivia in the lead such as "Several buildings at UPLB were designed by National Artist for Architecture Leandro Locsin." Parts of the article read as if they were translated directly from another language as some word choices seem peculiar. Facts are repeated needlessly throughout the article, such as the "land mass" of the university (I assume that means "total area").

   B. MoS compliance:

   Heavy editing is required to bring up to MoS standards. Besides grammatical and style issues, the article is littered with vague statements like "With more than 500 PhDs and over 300 Master of Science degree holders, UPLB has one of the highest concentrations of scientific expertise and experience in the world."

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Entire paragraphs and sections are left without citations, especially Notable Alumni.

   C. No original research:

   There seems to be heavy OR in sections, especially "Campus Life."

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article uses glorified language to describe the university. Many of the references come from the university's own promotional material.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article has undergone massive changes by one user very recently. Not stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   Images do not all have copyright clearance. Some images claim copyright release as original works by owner, yet the pictures are from the 1930s. I therefore doubt the authenticity of those copyright claims.

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

   There are numerous pictures of campus buildings, even in sections that do not relate to that subject. Other pictures are generic and do not add to the article's usefulness.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I recognize that this page has undergone massive changes to flesh out material, provide sources and contribute to the overall quality of Wikipedia; however, the article needs serious improvements in prose, clarity, neutrality, organization and valid references. See McGill University for example of GA article.

First, I apologize for the late review. I somehow didn't get the page added to my watch list. Unfortunately, however, this article still does not yet qualify for GA status. There are still issues with the prose, sourcing, and content that prohibit UPLB from being promoted. Hopefully the editors will be able to take a look at some of the GA articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Accomplishments, or enlist the help of the editors there to get UPLB up to GA status. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)