Talk:Museum of Zoology of the University of São Paulo/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC) The article is neutral, stable, and has one image; I'd like to see more but one is acceptable. It also meets the verifiability criterion, though I haven't really been able to check the sources in detail since I don't read Portuguese. It is adequately written. However, I am concerned about GA criterion 3: the article doesn't give broad coverage. There is only one source, which is essentially published by the organization itself. There must be further sources on the museum. GA doesn't require comprehensive coverage, but I don't think this suffices. In addition, there are topics that should be covered that are not. For example, the article says this is an educational institution, but there's no information about any educational mission -- either programmes or exhibits, or the educational aims the museum has. There's nothing about how the organization is funded -- is it a charity, or is it funded solely by the university, or does it accept gifts? For topics that are covered, the coverage is somewhat thin -- the statistics given are mostly for recent years. The director's name is given in the infobox but there's nothing about his appointment, or any predecessors. If it's a museum, presumably there is public access, and some details of that could be given.[reply]

I'll place the article on hold and wait for your response, but at the moment I don't believe this article meets the GA criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I'm sorry for the long delay. Nice meeting you! I was very busy dealing with personal issues as of late, but I'm finally back. If there is still some time left, I'd like to address all the issues you've raised within this week. Is it possible to carry on with the review process? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine; if you are available to work on it I'd be glad to leave it on hold for a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I begin, I'd like to clarify a few points:

" There is only one source, which is essentially published by the organization itself. There must be further sources on the museum. GA doesn't require comprehensive coverage, but I don't think this suffices." - Actually there are three different sources in the article. It is a complicated situation indeed. I work at MZUSP, and I do have access to the institutional library. However, sources about MZUSP are scarce. Despite its relevant scientific role, it is a small institution. There is more information to extract from the sources that are already there (including the website), and I may add one or two more. I'll see what I can do.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" In addition, there are topics that should be covered that are not. For example, the article says this is an educational institution, but there's no information about any educational mission -- either programmes or exhibits, or the educational aims the museum has. There's nothing about how the organization is funded -- is it a charity, or is it funded solely by the university, or does it accept gifts? " --The website has a great deal of info about that. I'll add it ASAP.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still planning to work on this? I think it might be best for me to fail the article and let you work on it at your leisure; the work needed to get it to GA is quite substantial, I think, and it's been over a week since you left a note saying you would be working on it within a week. I'll drop a note on your talk page to ask again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am! I had plans to work more on this during the weekend, but things didn't turn out as I expected. Still, before you fail it, I'd like to give it a try. If you still think it's better to fail it now and wait for a new submission, I won't object. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this for another day, and I've decided to go ahead and fail it. I think there's too much to do to make it sensible to place it on hold. Good luck with fixing it up at your leisure, and I hope you make another run at GA and succeed next time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]