Wikipedia:Peer review/National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli/archive1

National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently been working a lot on this article and I've cleaned up and rewritten much of its content. I'd appreciate any suggestions that would help the article move towards a GA and hopefully an FA sometime in the future.

Thanks, Casablanca2000in (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: A worthy effort, but if the article is to get near to GA or FA standard, much work is required.

There are many sections and subsections, but most of these are very short, and some are in obvious need of expansion. For example, the "History" section gives no information on anything between the foundation year, 1964, and 2003 when the institution was granted Deemed University status.
The prose looks reasonable, if somewhat unengaging – a recital of facts rather than an interesting account. I noticed the redundant words "in 1964" in the History section, and there may be other similar infelicities. A copyedit is desirable.
"Academics" is an odd section title; I'm not sure what it means. The section includes the follwing information: "In 2006-07, 99% of undergraduate students and 95% of graduate students who had registered for interviews were offered jobs. In 2008-09, these figures were 90% and 75% respectively." I would expect there to be information explaining the reasons for the considerable discrepancy. This is another instance of the article being short on detail.
Rankings: the table needs more extensive explanatory text. For instance, I have no way of interpreting the figures if I don't know how many institutions were ranked in each year; a ranking of 12 could be good, moderate or bad.
There are MOS violations, such as the numeric form for numbers under 10 (these should be written), use of hyphen rather than dash in date ranges, metric distances not converted to imperial, etc.
I am a little concerned to read, in the text, "As of 2008..." We are now in mid-2010, so the implication is that you are using out-of-date sources. Is it not possible to update this information?
Referencing is uneven. There is an outstanding "citation required" tag, and I saw other sentences that ought to be cited to a source.
The lead is inadequate for an article that aspire to GA or FA status, and needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD.

I hope these comments will help you to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will work towards fixing the problems that you pointed out. Casablanca2000in (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]