Talk:Jesus College, Oxford/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 5, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
Reasonably well written
b (MoS):
Sufficiently compliant
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
~~A large number of paragraphs are not referenced, possibly some citations will need to be repeated in different paragraphs~~ The section on Location and buildings still needs referencing in the first ~~two~~ three paras. Ref #94 [1] is dead, I can't find it at the internet archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
~~Sources appear to be reliable withe the exception of #26 which is to a Wikipedia article which is not allowed.~~
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
The article does not contain much recent history (late 20th century).
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
tagged with licenses.
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Possibly too many images, all are captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'm going to put this on hold. Some referencing issues to be addressed. I query the number of illustrations. It would be good to have some recent history. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced the alumni section (previous laziness on my part when I added it) and also trimmed back some of the less-than-neutral language. I've started work on the history section, but it's going to need a little bit of time to flesh out in more detail. The location and buildings section can all be referenced (when I get a chance) from the very recent GA main article on the college buildings. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I'll look back in a week's time. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off on holiday for a week, alas, so can't get much more done at the moment... Would you be so kind as to extend the hold period, assuming that nobody else fixes the article in the meantime? Bencherlite ^Talk 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, extended til July 28. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed a few referencing problems, but still a little more remains to be done. On hold until 3 August. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it has been over a month now. I am delisting the article. It can be renominated at WP:GAN when these issues are addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems very close to excellence to me. The quality seems in some indefinable way linked to the decision to accord less priority to the second half of the last century (the challenge would be how to avoid platitude or partisanship?). (The article on Oxford University proceeds from too recent a perspective (to which living strata deriving from earlier centuries are subordinated or more often sacrificed)----Clive Sweeting 6 August 2009