Talk:Florida State University/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

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) 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

  • Lead appears to be comprehensive though I haven't read the entire article. Traditionally the lead is not significantly referenced assuming the information is referenced in the body of the article. References in the lead would be duplicative. Not a big deal though.
  • What is needed is Fair-Use rationale on the FSU logo in the lead. That is important as it pertains to the GA Criteria.  Done
  • Also converted the logo to SVG format. --Sirberus (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

History[edit]

*In the Student soldiers section I added a [citation needed] template at the end of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph is very-well referenced but the final assertion is not and should be.  Done
*In the Student activism sub-section there is a sentence about the governor sitting with students on Landis green and discussing politics. It is a bit superfluous and doesn't really add much to the article. On top of that there isn't a reference for it.  Done
*In fact the rest of this sub-section is poorly referenced, especially the final paragraph.
  • This statement should be referenced, "Today, Florida State University aspires to become a top American research university with at least one-third of its graduate programs ranked in the Top-15 nationally."
  • Shouldn't this statement go in the Athletics section rather than in the Student activism section? "The Jefferson-Eppes Trophy is exchanged between the University of Virginia and Florida State University after each football competition in recognition of the common roots shared between the two schools." H1nkles (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

National High Magnetic Field Laboratory[edit]

*I'm confused by this sentence, "FSU won the laboratory from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a consortium of other universities in 1990." How did FSU win the lab? Was there a competition? I'm intrigued by this idea of winning a lab. Can this be expanded?

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Campus[edit]

*In-line citations should go on the outside of the punctuation mark. I fixed one and left one in this section as an example.
  • "...the Starbucks coffee stand situated in the entrance to the library is now also open 24 hours during Fall and Spring as well..." Is this detail really necessary?
  • This is more of a general comment, I notice that at times the measurements are metric first and US measured units in parentheses, other times this is reversed. Per WP:UNIT in US-related articles the US measured unit (feet, acres, lbs) should be first followed by the metric conversion.

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Activities[edit]

  • The first half of this sub-section is unreferenced.

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Greek life[edit]

*Does the reference in this section cover the list of Fraternities and Sororities as well? The link doesn't seem to outline the various sororities and fraternities but I didn't explore very much. If not then the table in this section should be referenced.
  • Yes, I think the existing references adequately cover the topic. I added two general references to the tables just to be sure.

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Athletics[edit]

  • "In the 2007-08 season the FSU's Women's Cross Country team won the ACC championship, which took place at the University of Virginia" Why is this information here? It seems a little too detailed unless the article is going to list every ACC championship that FSU won, which I don't think it does, and which I would not recommend as the article is already long. I recommend removing this statement.
  • "Mike Long Track is the home of the three-time back-to-back-to-back national champion men's outdoor track and field team.[149]" Again, back-to-back-to-back national champions. Is that detail necessary? They aren't the current national champions correct? The link is a dated reference to the team's visit with then-President Bush. The detail within the sentence is a little puffed up in my opinion.
  • Reworked this a bit, deleted excess detail.

 Done --Sirberus (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall comments[edit]

I have a couple of concerns with this article:

*There are several areas where referencing could be improved. I've listed some of them above. For the most part the referencing is fairly comprehensive but there are holes that should be plugged.  Done --Sirberus (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There are many dead links in the reference section. Here is a list by reference number: 6, 15, 16, 25, 37, 38, 46, 53, 58, 59, 65, 77, 85, 100, 102, 109, 111, 113, 121, 123, 143, 155.  Done --Sirberus (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The formatting of the references is not consistent, some references are just a website, per WP:CITE the publisher and accessdate are minimally required.

 Done It now meets standard and is substantially more uniform in formatting. Updates have been performed as well. --Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I am concerned about the strong pro-FSU tenor of the article. After the History section the article reads like a promotional brochure. I'd like to see more balanced writing that also discusses some of the controversies, and difficulties the university has gone through. This is to comply with WP:POV guidelines. This is certainly an opinion and people are free to disagree, I'd be happy to discuss this with you here if you'd like.
  • I have eliminated many areas of promotional language that have crept into the article. It still needs work, which I am trying to address. --Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) overall the writing is solid, the content is fairly current, the images are solid save one Fair Use rationale needed in the Lead image, article is stable. Where it falls short currently is in referencing and MOS compliance specifically POV. I'll put the article on hold for a week and notify interested projects and editors. Please contact me on my talk page if you have questions or would like to discuss the contents of this review. H1nkles (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments on "dead" links:
With regard to ref #15, the article has since been archived and is still available - perhaps for a fee. There is sufficient identifying detail in the cite to secure the original article from the archive, so I don't consider this a dead link. Please advise if you have a better idea. --Sirberus (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Cite 25 is not dead.
  • Cite 37 is not dead.
  • Cite 38 is not dead.
  • Cite 46 is not dead.
  • Cite 53 - fixed.
  • Cite 58 is not dead.
  • Cite 59 - With regard to ref #59, the article has since been archived and is still available - perhaps for a fee. There is sufficient identifying detail in the cite to secure the original article from the archive, so I don't consider this a dead link. As before, if there is a better way to handle this please advise.
  • Cite 65 - fixed.
  • Cites 77 to 113 are not dead.
  • Cite 121 - fixed.
  • Cite 123 is not dead.
  • Cites 143 and 155 - fixed.
I'm not sure why you posted so many cites/links that work fine for me and properly reference the material. Maybe a browser issue? Regardless, I've checked them and they seem fine. --Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your work on this article. It has been on hold for a while, primarily due to my lack of editing time, for which I apologize. I'm not sure why I picked up so many dead links, could be a browser issue. I used the link check tool but then went back in when I saw so many dead links and checked many (admittedly not all) manually and confirmed that they were dead. At any rate thanks for your work. There are places where more references could be added and the writing is a little weak. But in an article of this size there will always be places to improve. I believe the review has served its purpose, thanks to your efforts the article is significantly improved and as such I'll keep it at GA. Thank you! H1nkles (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)