Talk:Willamette University College of Law/GA1

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead does not adequately summarise the artcile as per WP:LEAD

   Some clumsy phrasings, e.g. ...has approximately 30 law professors and a yearly entering class of 165 students. yearly entering?; ...The school’s first entering class had three students; is this a specific US grammar usage? - I have never encountered it before?; ...when the Marion County Courthouse was demolished to make way for a new courthouse. the proximate usage of 2 "courthouses" is somewhat clumsy; recommend a thorough proofread and copyedit to improve the prose.  Done

   Other than nothing on journals, something from every main section of the article is covered in the LEAD. What other items do you think need to be covered in the LEAD? And yeas, the entering class thing is US, but even more specifically it is mainly a law school thing. I tried re-phrasing it, let me know if that works. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   I re-worked some items, please let me know what you think. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #19 [1] gives the university a 4th tier ranking in 2008, rather than 3rd

   I repaired three and tagged eight dead links. Othere references look OK  Done

   I'll work on the dead links, but the ref #19 does not give it as 4th tier in 2008. The US News page clearly says "Ranked in 2009" at the top. The school has been bouncing back and fourth between 3rd and 4th for the last four years. I've updated the ranking in the infobox, and as I work through the refs I'll try and find an archived copy of the 3rd tier listing from 2008. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   OK, the URL you give above is the current listing for US News, which is the 2009 numbers, and that is 4th. Ref #19 is an archived copy from 2007 and shows tier 3 (though the ref title says 2008, but the web archive number indicates it was archived in 2006 and it was retrieved in 2007). So, I'll try to clean up that section so it better matches. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   All the ref items have been addressed. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)  Done

   Thanks, and I'll be working on this over the next few days. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for your hard work, I am happy for this article to keep its GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   Great, thanks for the review, it forced me to go back in and do some overdue updating. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.