Wikipedia:Peer review/Trinity College, Dublin/archive1

Trinity College, Dublin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is mostly complete with no obvious sections omitted, but the article attracts few editors, so it would be good to get the opinion of outsiders regarding further changes towards GA and eventually FA status.

Thanks, Kwekubo (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Let me take a general stab at this. I think that the article is quite thorough, but a considerable amount of work would be needed to get it to GA status. The first and most obvious problem is clear from just looking at the Contents: There are too many sections and sub-sections. Some of these are mere lists, and should be removed altogether or re-worked into readable paragraphs. All in all, the way the article is organized makes it is pretty difficult for an ordinary reader to make it all the way through the end.

The lead shows some evident problems. In the second sentence, I initially interpreted the phrase "from Queen Elizabeth I as the mother of the university" to mean that Elizabeth was the mother of the University of Dublin / Trinity College, though much later in the article it appears that Trinity was founded as the "mother" of the University of Dublin. In the same sentence, the phrase "unlike these only one college was established" is ungrammatical.

In the subsection on the "18th and 19th centuries", there is a citation-needed tag that needs attention (there are a few others later in the article). The picture of Bram Stoker should probably carry a caption informing us of his connection to Trinity College. A substantive issue is that the last paragraph says that the case of Denis Caulfield Heron was adjudicated by the "Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of Ireland", where the latter title links to the article on the Archbishop of Armagh. There is some confusion here. The Anglican Archbishop of Dublin is ex officio the "Primate of Ireland", whereas the Archbishop of Armagh is the "Primate of All Ireland".

In the subsection on the "20th centuries", the relation between the "remains of the Catholic University of Ireland", the "National University of Ireland", and the proposed reconstitution of the University of Dublin, is insufficiently clear. In the subsection on the "21st century", the "four research themes" identified as priorities are not even named.

Further line-by-line commentary is probably not useful at this stage, since a significant reorganization and rewriting is needed before taking this to GA status becomes a real possibility. My first suggestion would be to start by looking at articles on major universities that have achieved FA status, such as the one for Georgetown University, and to take away some general lessons on how to structure the material. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, if you thought my input on this was useful --or even if you didn't, but are feeling community-spirited-- may I suggest taking a look at the review of the article on Willard Gibbs that I opened on 31 July, which has so far failed to attract any comments? Thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)) My request for peer review has been answered, thanks. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)