Talk:University of California, San Diego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee University of California, San Diego was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject San Diego (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was a past Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject University of California (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to University of California, its history, accomplishments and other topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Endowment[edit]

NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's.Contributor321 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of California, San Diego/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: domesticenginerd (talk · contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. --domesticenginerd 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Completed review of article. Improvements made since last GA review. Still needs some work, though. Marked as "fail" but will give a week or so for improvements to be made before closing out officially. --domesticenginerd 03:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been over three weeks since the above: domesticenginerd hasn't edited since July 24, and the nominator, Horserice, hasn't edited since June 29. Under the circumstances, I'm closing the nomination, as no improvements of any significance have been made since the above, and the article has four "citation needed" templates, which is not what you want to see on an article wishing to attain GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Criteria[edit]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) See discussion points 1, 2, and 3. On hold On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See discussion point 1. On hold On hold
    (c) (original research) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Meets criteria. Addressed concerns in GA2. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) See discussion point 4. On hold On hold
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    See discussion point 5. Fail Fail
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    Meets criteria. No major disputes and has a lot of good faith contributions. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Meets criteria. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Fail Fail Many strides made since last GA review. Nonetheless, still at standards of a B-class university aricle. Need to work on references, expanding some of the topics, and neutralizing article.

Discussion[edit]

  1. Many references (over 50%) are from UCSD domain.
  2. Citation format is inconsistent.
  3. A few citations needed, particularly for viewbook-esque statements.
  4. Undue weight to diversity of student body. For instance, there is a table of the ethnic enrollment under "Student Life"; however, there is no reference to it in the text. Also, should elaborate further on background of student body (e.g. in-state, out-of-state, international percentage).
  5. Primarily seems like viewbook/advertisement for school. Outside of brief mention of chancellor's salary, does not address any controversies (e.g. 2010 diversity job, 2008 admissions mistake, racism issues [including 2010 fraternity party & 2011 noose], etc.)

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.