Talk:De La Salle University/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary issues[edit]

Referencing issues[edit]

2 Dead links and other link issues found here

Lead issues[edit]

The lead section should not be more than four paragraphs per WP:Lead#Length

DAB links[edit]

2 DAB links and one here

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Many grammatical/writing quality errors "The college moved on September 1921 to..." would be better written as "On September 1921, the college moved to..." "To facilitate increase in enrollment" would be better written as "To facilitate an increase" or "To facilitate increases" "It started offering in 1920..." could be written as "In 1920 it started offering..." "Later discontinued in 1931" both later and 1931 indicate the same thing so "later" can be removed Note These are just the problems found in the first two paragraphs of the lead. The quantity of errors make it impossible to search for every one of them. US dollars should be written as either $8,000 (picked a random dollar amount) or 8,000 USD. Not as US$8,000 Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section does not comply as it is more than four paragraphs. There are some obvious flaws in the lead as well such as "People affiliated with DLSU include one National Artist of the Philippines, Archbishops of Manila and prominent politicians and business leaders." The lead section also directly copies much of the information from the body of the article "The university is also among the 40 institutions granted autonomous status by CHED as of 2010" "member of several international university associations" "a network of 17 La Sallian institutions established in 2006" Information on student publications is unnecessary for the lead section. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Contradictory sources, is De Salle Phillipines a network of 17 or 18 institutions? Much too high of an emphasis on primary sources published by De La Salle University, the Philippine Lasallian Family, and The LaSallian Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	"The campus, which is relatively small in size for its large student population, suffers limited space. The bolded section is original research; although, the sources later back it up to an extent. The sentence is also grammatically incorrect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It covers the major issues common to educational articles Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Use of summary style is good but some sections seem a little too detailed. The academics section becomes a data crunch which is slightly overwhelming to read. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Generally neutral, with some issues common to school articles and raised by H1nkles in the previous good article review. In addition there is a large emphasis on primary sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:LSHall Front.jpg seems to have a problem with the formatting of its licensing but appears to be released under a proper license otherwise everything checks out Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions and images all check out Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	It is impossible to maintain neutrality with the high percentage of primary sources found in this article. In addition, the contradictory research, writing quality errors, and problems with the lead do not meet the good article criteria. This isn't a bad article, and correction of the lead section and writing quality will help this article improve. I certainly didn't include every negative or every positive aspect of this article, but the problems I have found show me that this article is not a valid good article candidate and are extensive to the point that an entirely new review will be necessary when they are completed. With that I am closing this as a failed nomination. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]