Talk:Wah Yan College, Hong Kong/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 14:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to review this entry. I will post some initial comments later today. Larry Hockett (Talk) 14:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

In reading through this article, I am concerned that it may be a long way from meeting some of the GA criteria. In particular, there are significant sections of unsourced material, and a maintenance tag for weasel words appears to have gone unaddressed for more than two months.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There may be some wording issues, but they are not worth addressing until the verifiability, neutrality and currency issues are resolved.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There is a great deal of original research in this entry, as entire sections are missing citations to reliable sources. Most of the campus information, history, and student association info is unsourced. There is even unsourced information about a student arrest (!) and one alumnus is described as "one of the most outstanding yet most controversial figures in sex education in Hong Kong" without a citation. This criterion is probably going to take the most time to address.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is little information about the founding of the school. For example, what was the motivation for opening the school? Were there no similar schools in the area? There is also a lack of up-to-date information in several sections. Class structure is described as of the 2014-15 school year. It is said that "the new school hall complex will be completed in early 2014" with no update on that.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A weasel word tag has been in place since June. The Campus section is where I notice particularly prominent neutrality issues. Most of the adjectives in that section (lavish, spacious (x2), beautiful - check for others) should be removed.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be stable.

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

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

   The image tags seem fine; one caption (for the first campus image) could be clarified because it was obviously not taken in the 1920s.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Right now, this entry is very far from meeting the GA criteria, so a detailed review is not indicated.

While these are the most serious issues, here are a few others to consider before nominating the entry again.

• Consider Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements.
• The infobox is too detailed; in particular, there are relatively trivial staff positions mentioned.
• There is inconsistent application of WP:SECTIONCAPS.
• At times, the entry reads more like a school catalog than an encyclopedia entry. An encyclopedia article should focus more on things that have been covered by independent reliable sources, while devoting less focus on things like specific course offerings or a list of student organizations.
• External links should not be used in the body of an article. If the link goes to a reliable source, it can sometimes be used as a reference instead.

I appreciate the work that has gone into this entry. The article fails to meet the GA criteria right now, but I think GA is attainable with some sustained attention to the issues listed above. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)