Talk:Dalhousie University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of May 31, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

NOTE: Please respond below this entire GA Review to the points raised, and not interspersed among the GA Review itself, thank you!
Quite well written, I noticed it already had a copyedit review through the WP:GOCE process so that's good, only a few minor points here:
Lede/intro sect - This has sect uses ten (10) inline cites. Per WP:LEAD, this entire sect should be a standalone summary of the article, itself, and thus should not need any inline cites, as it should just be a summary of material cited later in the article, itself. Can these cites be moved down into main article body text space?
Lede/intro sect - size - I wonder if the lede/intro sect could perhaps be expanded upon a bit more in size, perhaps to four (4) total paragraphs of a bit more length, each, per WP:LEAD, therefore functioning as a standalone summary of the entire articles' contents for the reader?
History sect - last paragraph. Two-sentence-long-paragraph - could this be merged into another paragraph, or better yet, expanded upon?
Good job getting a review from the people at WP:GOCE. I'd like for you to post requests for additional copyeditors to any talkpages of relevant WikiProjects. They don't have to then come by before this GA Review is over, it just can't hurt for the future, going forwards. :)
References - References sect makes use of both harvard cites and regular cites. This is confusing for the reader. I'd suggest splitting this out and consider modeling it after quality articles such as: First Amendment to the United States Constitution, The General in His Labyrinth, or Mario Vargas Llosa.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, but see note above about formatting citation structure similar to First Amendment to the United States Constitution, The General in His Labyrinth, or Mario Vargas Llosa.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed quite thorough in scope and breadth.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone throughout and NPOV manner of style and structure.

5. Article stability? No stability issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history going back over one (1) month.

6. Images?:

File:Richard Bedford Bennett.jpg - please format this image properly at Wikimedia Commons using commons:Template:Information.
File:Dalhousie university seal.png - fair use, rationale checks out on image page okay.
File:Dalhousie University Logo.svg - fair use, rationale is alright on image page.
File:Dalhousie College Halifax Canada 1871.jpg - Wikimedia Commons image, licensing checks out okay.
File:Nsac cumming.png - questionable. Possible copyvio. Only contribution by user. Low image resolution size, appears to be image capture from some website page possibly?
File:Henry-hicks.jpg - please move this image to Wikimedia Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, and fill out more info using commons:Template:Information.

NOTE: Please respond below this entire GA Review to the points raised, and not interspersed among the GA Review itself, thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2013

Thank you for reviewing this article! As for the review itself:

I've expanded the lead to four paragraphs, taking in elements of the article which were previously not included in the lead (notably, the sections Campus, Academics, Student Life). Reading it over, it seems to provide a much more broad, and expansive summary of the article.
Many of the references found in the lead are duplicates of references found in the article itself so I had them removed as suggested. Some of the cited information in the lead was actually not incorporated in the article, so for these bits, I simply incorporated the information into the article, and moved the references to the relevant locations. As earlier stated, I expanded the lead to include several previously unmentioned sections of the article, which included the academic rankings of the universities. For this part, I included the citations as academic rankings always seem to be rather controversial (as per WP:LEADCITE).
I expanded the last paragraph of the History section to include information on how the same legislation renamed the university to its present name (this piece of information was in the lead, but until the last edit, not incorporated into the actual article - as mentioned earlier). Information on the first three years of the Technical University and Dalhousie (when it operated as a constituent college) was added.
I honestly don't entirely understand what you mean by splitting the Harvard citations with the regular ones. Are you suggesting me to split all of the Havard citations from the main body of references (I don't know how to do this), or to restructure all the citations to be in line with the the aforementioned citation style? If its the latter, I would believe that it would be much more simple change the references using Harvard style, to Citation Style 1, which is most predominant citation style found in the article. I'm not against using the Harvard style of citation throughout the article, although, to be honest, I believe using CS1 would make the job more easier on my part :/
I added the information template into the aforementioned images, and manually transferred the File:Henry-hicks.jpg into the Wikimedia Commons. The original Wikipedia file still exists, although I did flag it to be deleted by an administrator. I agree that File:Nsac cumming.png is suspect (I just took the file image from the NSAC article), and removed it from the article entirely.

Leventio (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great so far, it's weird that cites from References you click on them and they take you down to Further reading sect though. — Cirt (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, it does seem confusing that the shortened reference would bring you down to Further Reading. I merged the Further Reading section into the Reference section as Bibliography (which seems to be how the First Amendment article was formatted). In doing so though, I deleted the Further Reading section, as leaving it in the article seemed to be redundant (the two lists would be identical as all the books listed there were cited in the article). Also after reading through Citation Style 1, apparently the way they create shortened footnotes is through the Harvard citation style (this was probably what led to the confusion). Would it be better to recreate the long citations for these shortened citations or leave as is? Leventio (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

GA passed. Thanks for such responsiveness to my comments, — Cirt (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]