Talk:Heriot-Watt University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be taking this one. Full disclosure, once I've done my review, I'm going to ask another user to look everything over, since this is only my third review, and the second one in a very long time. Also note that I have no real knowledge of the Scottish education system, and might IRC a friend from the UK to tell me what some of the terms mean. If you're detecting a faint lack of confidence, you're spot on. That being said, let's go!

Please do not respond to the review in the review, respond to it below the review.
Numbering based on the criteria.

GAN Quicksheet

1. Well written -( Work needed in this section )-

a.

c+c -( Okay )-

cl -( CorenSearchBot found no problems )-

sp+g -( work needed )-

- I'll be asking an expert on the subject to take a look at the dashes, and perhaps do a general copyedit, soon. I can tell just by looking that there are problems with the dashes, but I don't know enough to fix it myself (save removing all the dashes and using commas). I'll ask for the copyedit after the rest of the prose changes that I will eventually suggest are made, because it dosen't make sense to do it in the reverse.

b.

ls -( Work needed )-

- Please expand the lead a bit so that it makes brief mention of the transitions with subsections (Watt Institution and School of Arts and Heriot-Watt College).

- Consider mentioning in the lead that the staff and space was borrowed during the wars.

la -( Work needed )-

- I'll be rearranging the file layout, right now the images interrupt the flow of the prose, and they should compliment, not compete, with the prose.

w -( )-

f -( N/A )-

li -( Work needed )-

- The schools section shouldn't be a raw list, it should be a paragraph that describes the schools in additional detail, including the order and any interesting circumstances that led to their founding.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable -( Work needed in this section )-

a. -( Work needed )-

- There are no citations in the "Scottish Borders Campus" section.

b. -( Work needed )-

- I am uncomfortable that 8 sources, almost half of the items on that list, are from different parts of the university's website.

c. -( Okay )-

3. Broad in coverage -( Work needed in this section )-

a. -( Work needed )-

There's no mention of campus life (examples include athletics, community involvement, extent of fraternities/clubs, etc.)

b. -( Okay )-

4. Neutral -( )-

NPOV prose -( )-

Weight -( )-

5. Stable -( Section okay )-

6. Images -( Work needed in this section )-

a. -( Work needed )-

- The lead image needs additional information, and it all needs to be placed into a {{Information}} template.

b.

r -( Okay )-

sc -( Work needed )-

- The caption for the picture of the statue is slightly awkward.

7. Additional requests not a part of the requirements but requested by the reviewer

images have alt texts -( Not done )-

general aesthetics issues -( Not done )-

- Please put all citations at the end of the sentances they appear in. Citations in the middle of sentences are distracting, and moving them won't detract from the accuracy of the article.

If your IP is not stable, please make sure that you keep me in the loop as to what IP you're using, so that if I need to message you, I'm not sending it to an old address which you'll never see. You can keep me in the loop by signing this page whenever your IP changes.

I'm sorry, but this is very far from ready. I'm not going to do a check for the words to watch or neutrality, work on the image layout, or call a copyeditor, until after the rest of the text that needs to be in is in. I'll check back in a week to see what's been done and what hasn't been done. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I am tashir on IRC but I will be AFK for a few hours at least. Someone trimmed the lead before I noticed this section, but I tried to restore all the references and facts. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the #wikipedia-en channel a lot of the time as Sven_Manguard. That and #wikisignpost are generally the only channels I'm ever in. Right now it's 2:30 AM where I am, so I'm leaving for the night after I post this, but we could cross paths on the IRC eventually. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. I will try to change the appropriate hyphens to en dashes. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed theat "infobox" begins with a lower case "I".... Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I got the dashes, I think (and Rich's "I" in "Infobox"... I sure hope that wasn't something I was complaining about when I was a noob...) and the captions, and some of the minor things, and I will continue working through the list above. I'm on #wikipedia-en at the moment should you wish to chat. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The schools section shouldn't be a raw list, it should be a paragraph that describes the schools in additional detail, including the order and any interesting circumstances that led to their founding

Sven, could you consider that again please? I'm sure I can convert it to a paragraph, but I'm not sure that would look better. But I'm very concerned that I'm not enough of a subject matter expert to go into more detail, and I'm pretty sure I would need additional sources that might not even be on the web to figure out the order. Many of the schools were probably merged or split from other earlier ones, or established at the same time. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it's ready. I don't see the quality as being there, I see gaps in coverage, and I see far, far to much of an over-reliance on the University's website as a source. I'm sorry, but in this state there are only two things I feel comfortable doing; failing it under criteria 1a, 2b, and 3a, or asking for a second opinion. I'm going to choose the latter option, but if no-one comes along to provide a second opinion, I am going to have to fail this. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed someone trimmed at least one of the things you asked for from the version I hoped to have considered for your review. Please let me know the specific things you think are missing in coverage. I can try to look for third party sources, but in order to do so, please help me understand which parts you are concerned rely on the subject's site. Since I usually work on more controversial articles, I really have no idea which sections you are concerned about for over-reliance. Thanks again for your help! 67.6.163.68 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should mention that only three of the first twelve sources (from the intro through the end of the History section) are primary, from the university itself. If you have criteria 2b concerns about any other sections, please let me know which ones. I can't see how any of the other sections are "likely to be challenged". As for criteria 1a, I can't figure out which sections you could be referring to. Please let me know that and which sections you have criteria 3a coverage concerns about. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want you to take a look at University of Bristol, University of Nottingham, University of Oxford, and University of Surrey. They're the first four GA class articles I could find on universities in the UK. All of them have sections on the university's ranking and reputation, all have sections on student life (athletics, clubs, or both), they all go into detail about associated institutions, they all go into much more detail than this article about their campuses and facilities, and all of them have additional sections on the things that differentiate them from other universities. They also all have large numbers of sources, most of them not from the University. To put it bluntly, this article just isn't nearly complete enough. For an institution with over a century of history, there has to be more available. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what University of Bristol, a school more than twice the size, looked like when it passed GA in 2007. I will look at the others, too. I added the section on student life which includes athletics and clubs both, as you requested. I am not sure what you mean by "associated institutions." I agree there is probably a lot more information available. If you still have criteria 1a concerns, please let me know which specific sections. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't get involved with GA/FA/DYK much but I understand the requirements have become greater for GA/FA over time. Rich Farmbrough, 19:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC).)[reply]

As long as expansion in response to this sort of GA feedback is not considered instability, I will try to expand the article. I've found some sources which I think will be very encyclopedic, even if they don't dovetail perfectly with the details Sven suggests. It is not clear, for example, that Heriot-Watt is formally associated with other institutions as some of the other GAs he mentions are. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I really don't have time to chase after breadth requirements which were not specified in the initial review, and only specified after all but one of the issues in the initial review had been addressed. I think doing so would not set a good example for other GA nominators. If the second opinion requested on this doesn't think the article passes GA, then I ask that the nomination be closed as not listed. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was specified pretty early on at 3a, where I said "There's no mention of campus life (examples include athletics, community involvement, extent of fraternities/clubs, etc.)". Since the second opinion hasn't come, and this clearly isn't ready, I'm just going to close this now. I'm sorry that you don't agree with my decision on this, you're welcome to continue to improve this at your leisure and try again, I don't have any intention of doing GA assessments on the same article multiple times. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not promoted

[1] but no hard feelings. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]