Talk:Western Governors University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 04:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Copyright Concerns

Running it through the Copyvio detector I find several places that should really be paraphrased better, most notably many of the phrases listed here. I'm not worried about the quotes since they are properly sourced.

Reviewer Comments

Lead

• The Lead will need a substantial rework to pass GA. I suggest you examine MOS:LEAD especially from MOS:INTRO down. In particular I would suggest a rewrite to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Most elements of the article are not summarized in its current version.

History

• in June 1996 each signing state governor committed $100,000 Was this the 13 who signed on or the 19? Needs clarity
• What is the sourcing for the first paragraph? In general for GAs there be at least 1 citation for every paragraph, and more if the information came from several sources.
• Would suggest moving the context about what the state programs are to the first mention (WGU Indiana).
• Nearly all sentences in WGU History section start with "In" or "On" and list date and action. This prose should be more varied.
• The table of Presidents is great but some information should be present too (especially because there have only been two of them).

Affiliates

• I don't understand The online campuses WGU offshoots offer the same programs and curricula as the national WGU student body receives, and accreditation is through WGU. Was explained much better in the history section above.
• The Texas affiliate is written in future tense. Since that was 7 years ago can sourcing be found about how it's run today?
• Did Nixon sign the order following State of the Union? If so this should be made clear.
• The writing for the Missouri affiliate is also a bit choppy.
• Should we add an entry for WGU Idaho? There is a new WGU press release that mentions "In celebration of the WGU Idaho affiliate" (https://www.wgu.edu/newsroom/press-release/2021/06/idaho-partners-wgu-expand-options.html), but it doesn't appear they have established some of the other affiliate characteristics yet, such as the appointment of a chancellor etc.

Sources

• Too many of the sources are WGU related. It's important that articles are based on secondary sources (see WP:RSPRIMARY). For schools there is some information which can appropriately be sourced to the schools but the bulk of the sourcing for the article should be from secondary sources.
• Several of our your secondary sources are deadlinks. You should see if there's a way to rescue those links, such as by Help:Using_the_Wayback_Machine

Discussion

So I think everyone has done a good job of mitigating the neutrality concern and the GA Nomination should not get an immediate failure. The edit warring has stopped, and now we can move forward improving the Western Governors University page. Now for the main article we need to meet the following criteria going forward (1) Everything needs to be well written (2) Verification (3) Broad in coverage (4) Neutral (5) Stable (6) Illustrated. Hopefully the GA Review process can tell us what needs to be remediated to achieve this distinction (and this process can help us to flush out the gaps that need improvement). Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Paul. I will review this article. I have a few articles for GA review ahead of this in the queue but should get to it sometime in the middle of next week. For future reference, don't click through and start this page when you nominate an article. It messes up the bot and could lead to no one reviewing the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Smith111977: I've begun my review of the article. There are several larger problems with the article as it stands. I believe most articles, with a dedicated editor(s), can pass GA but you should know this one will be a heavier lift than some. I am placing the review on hold to let you respond to and act on the comments present so far. If you have questions or want to discuss let me know.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thank you for letting me know this will be a heavy lift. In the coming months I will work on incorporating all of your recommended edits so that the WGU Main Article can achieve the GA distinction. I had hoped that a number of people would join the WikiProject Western Governors University so that the work could be distributed to those who support the project (however, I am having difficulty getting new members to join (even thought I have sent invitations out to over three dozen editors who had previously made edits to the main WGU article)). I recommend failing the GA for now, but now we have a baseline for improving the article. In a few month after this is all completed - should we then request another GA Review? Paul Smith111977 (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Smith111977: I can certainly understand your disappointment that others haven't joined your efforts. But don't lose hope - 1 editor can make a significant difference on an article. I am glad to hear you plan to take the time to do so. I will go ahead and close this GA review. You are welcome at anytime once you think that the article is ready (which could be as soon as tomorrow) to once again nominate it for GA (but please don't start the review page). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)