Talk:De La Salle University/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review will go in spurts as I get time to read it through.

Regarding the Lead: Per WP:Lead the lead needs to be a summary of all the topics raised in the article. I have yet to read the entire article but I can tell that the lead is not sufficient. I don't see much information on the history of the university and the various colleges that make up the university. There is no discussion of the former departments nor about student life. The lead also gives an entire paragraph to the various associations the university is in and accolades the university has acheived. This seems a bit out of balance given the large tracts of the article uncovered in the lead. In short the lead should be overhauled to better reflect the content of the article.
In the history section there are several minor grammatical errors. Also it is under-referenced. In the early history sub-section there are two in-line citations in the first paragraph and then none for the rest of the section. WWII sub-section: one citation, post war recovery: one citation (same citation as in WWII sub-section), recent history: two citations. More referencing is needed for a large section like this. H1nkles (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Academics section is also significantly under referenced. I see two ^{[citation needed]} templates in the College sub-section along with the fact that the College of Liberal Arts has no in-line citation. There's no need to continually link Philippines, country names do not usually need to be linked. Watch use of the term AY 2009 - 2010. This acronym (which I assume is Academic Year) is not used anywhere else in the article and yet there are many references to various academic years. Consider changing.
The IT department in the list of Centers of Excellence and Centers of Development has two in-line citations, the rest do not. Why?
The Former Departments section is also under referenced. The Grade School sub-section has no in-line citations and the high school only has two. This should be improved.
Two in-line citations in the Campus section more needed.
Two in-line citations in the Student Life section more needed. H1nkles (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like that in the athletics section there is a paragraph about the scandal involving the two students who falsified their admission records and how that caused the university to miss the entire sports season. More on that later.
There is a ^{[citation needed]} template that needs to be addressed in this section.
My experience with reviewing articles on schools is that the articles are usually entirely weighted toward promoting the school. There is usually almost no negative aspects about the school in the article. This violates the bias and POV rules in Wikipedia and in my opinion they are some of the most egregious violations in the project. If it were not for the paragraph in the athletics section regarding the two boys mentioned above I would lump this article in with all the rest I have reviewed. It is very pro university with nearly no negative aspects. Not that I'm advocating digging up dirt but I would like to see editors take a critical look at the history of the university and bring in even the negative parts or embarassing aspects of the unversity's history.
It is very obvious at a cursory reading that this university has financial resources. Where do they get their endowment? I can't believe they are able to fund 7 colleges and build these amazingly beautiful buildings solely on student tuition. Is there a foundation that is responsible for fund raising? I think this would be good to add to the article.
Regarding the references, there are several dead links that need to be fixed: the references include 2, 14, 24, 28, 41 and 42. Also each reference needs to have the name of the publisher, and accessdate as a bare minimum. I would encourage author's name and work and date of article if those are available. The formatting for the reference section is haphazard at best.
The images are good, well formatted and tagged.

In closing there is a lot to work on with this article if it is to meet the GA Criteria. I will put this article on hold for a week pending work. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no work has been done on this article due to the review I will delist. H1nkles (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]