Talk:Wiregrass Georgia Technical College

Multiple Issues Tags

Ikh007 has added a large number of tags to this article, and not many of them make sense to me. I have removed all of the tags except one, for the following reasons:

1. Additional references - This tag is redundant with tag #2, and the second tag does a better job of explaining what type of additional sources are needed.
2. Third-party sources - This tag is valid issue, and I left it.
3. Wikified - This article has numerous internal links to other pages, and includes an infobox with logos and a Wikimaps link. The article is as wikified as it's going to get with the current content it has.
4. General cleanup - This is the most generic tag available, and since you've referenced other specific issues, you should omit this tag and identify the specific issues that need cleaning up.
5. Self-published sources - According to WP:USERG:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The first 4 caveats are clearly applicable in this case to all passages referenced by the WGTC self-link, and although the article is primarily a reflection of the basic information about the College that is available from the college's website, that is primarily a function of the fact that the article is very simple, covering only basic information about the college. At any rate, this need for additional third-party sources is already addressed by tag #2 above, so there is no need to use this tag to account for that issue.

This seems to me like a "drive-by tagging" from someone who didn't really read the article. I'm assuming good faith, however, so that's why I'm starting this discussion here instead of just reverting the tags unilaterally. Jhortman (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)