Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get suggestions on areas of imporvement for the article in terms of tone, style and content. Ultimately, I want to make this a featured article.
Thanks, Vastrapur (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: This is well-written in terms of prose quality, and it is nicely illustrated. However, it has several problems, some of them serious, that will have to be addressed for the article to be considered minimally acceptable, much less good or featured.
- Most of the article lacks sources and is therefore in violation of one of Wikipedia's prime directives, that the claims made in any article be verifiable. Please see WP:V for details. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for each paragraph and to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that might reasonably be questioned, and every direct quotation.
- The lack of sourcing is connected to another big problem. Much of the article reads like boilerplate material from publications promoting the institute. This kind of material is often produced by very good writers who work for an institute or university and whose job it is to present the university in the best possible light. Alas, that makes it not directly suitable for Wikipedia because it is not neutral. Please see WP:NPOV, which says in part, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Sentences in the article such as "This has contributed significantly to IIMA's distinctive identity as a premier teaching institution in India" may well be true but since they are not attributed to any source, they cannot be verified. Sentences with similar honorific language appear throughout the article; repairing this is therefore not just a matter of changing a few words but of re-writing the entire article in as neutral a fashion as possible. To do a good job with this, you'll probably need to find additional reliable sources outside the institute that discuss the institute or analyze it or criticise it or produce statistics about it. It's fine to cite institute sources for basic facts about the institute (enrollment figures, class sizes, building descriptions, names of programmes, and the like), but the institute is not a reliable source for judgments about itself or its programmes. Please see WP:RS for more information about reliable sources.
- Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Thus citation 1 should include the publication date, October 14, 2009, and the access date (the last date the url was clicked and the page viewed by someone altering the citation). The site does not list an author, so we can't add one, and that is OK. For more information about citations, please see WP:CITE.
- MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should 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." - The existing lead in this article reads more like an essay introduction that a true summary or abstract. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not developed in the main text. However, I would suggest putting off a re-write of the lead until you're satisfied that the main text sections are complete or nearly so. It's easier to write the complete lead last even though it comes first in the article.
- It's often helpful to look at good or featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. See Florida Atlantic University, a featured article, for example.
I hope these few suggestions prove helpful, and I wish you luck with the project. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Vastrapur comments:Thank you for your comments. I'm working on them. Vastrapur (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)