Talk:Tuition fees in the United Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. Lord Roem (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   to meet 1(b), the lead needs to be more simplified in summarizing the article; the the last two paragraphs of the lead appear a bit too much like a straight timeline

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In 'commentary on introduction of variable tuition rates', it seems to be a long list of proponents' statements and therefore not fairly represented

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captions need to be either shortened or add new information; most of them repeat something explcitely said in the article

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The lead, an entire section, captions all need to be fixed before this goes through again. Further, there needs to be more clarity in areas discussing lots of events because it becomes difficult to follow at times.

-- Lord Roem (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for reviewing the article. I have had a look at the points noted and have amended the lead so that it is hopefully more succinct, have amended the picture captions and have reworked the 'commentary' section by taking out some of the pro-fees comments and merging the Bill Rammell comment into the 'Higher Education Act 2004' section. In terms of the comment on clarity, could you give me some more guidance on any specific areas that there are concerns with also could you take a look at the amendments and let me know what you think. Thanks Notjamesbond (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Your amendments certainly improve the article. When I mentioned clarity, I mean that at times (I remember specifically the sections discussing the most recent events), it sounds like alot of events are happening around the same time and becomes difficult to understand the 'story' that you're trying to convey. Its always good to put all the facts in, which you did very well here, just try and make sure you don't have places that's like "On January 5 (x) happened. On January 6, the Office of X then announced this but this was not the same as the X report...."
  • This certainly is on the path to being a GA article in the future but you need to make these changes and then re-submit it as a GA nominee. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay have gone through the article and tried to make it clearer but have puzzled over how best to address the dates issue. I think they are important so have summarised the key ones by use of a timeline which I've inserted. This should hopefully bring things together a bit more. Thanks for your feedback so far, I will resubmit shortly Notjamesbond (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)