Talk:Banaras Hindu University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Quick-fail

This article is eligible for quick-failure. It is a long way from meeting criteria 1), 2), and 3b). The layout is extremely flawed and does not conform to MOS:LAYOUT - there are large numbers of one-sentence subsections, which could easily be condensed into concise, coherent paragraphs, but have not been. This is compounded both by the inclusion of unnecessary detail (the article does not need to explain the details of extremely common administrative positions, for example), and the extensive unsourced material/original research within the article (a significant percentage of the history and campus sections remain unsourced). By comparison, the organisation and administration and academics sections are far more well sourced, with the proviso that the sources are nearly all primary, and thus are only borderline WP:RS Finally, there appear to have been some content disputes on the page in recent days.

With all this in mind, I am compelled to quick-fail the article. The nominator will need to fix the problems outlined above before nominating it for GA again. If you have any questions, please ping me here or on my talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29

Hello, Thank you for taking the time out to review.

Here are my key takeaways:

Redunce one-sentence subsections as much as possible.
Reduce unnecessary detail

[] minute/common admin positions

[] What else?

Enchance WP:RS where possible
Note about the content dispute:

There has been only one dispute about adding yet another common administrative post, that too a copyright violation which has also been deleted from the logs.

I would be really grateful if you expand the above with clear ideas and directions.

Thanks, the nominator, User4edits (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not just one sentence subsections. One paragraph subsections too. Take the Research centres section - it could be combined into around two coherent, concise paragraphs. None of the different centres are really important enough to warrant their own subsection. In addition to administrative positions, remember that you don't have to define commmonly accepted university terms, such as departments, faculties, etc. Remember also that templates such as {{see also}} or {{further}} are not placed in the middle of the section, but rather at the start, just under the header.

Reliable sources are a big one - necessary for GA. There is currently substantial unsourced text/original research. A large proportion of the sources that are here are primary - the work of BHU itself. This means that the article is only borderline neutral (GA criterion 4), and the next reviewer would probably highlight that before approving the article. The prose is also unclear in some places, and would also need improvement. However, the referencing and the layout are the big problems right now.

I would also suggest removing citations from the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. Nothing here is controversial enough to need lead citations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]