Talk:Mapúa University/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JonRidinger (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are some problems with tense agreement. In the first section of history, it goes from "was" to "is". "During World War II, the Institute was used as garrison by the Japanese forces during their occupation of Manila at the time and all classes and organizations were suspended, the only organization that was not suspended is the MITSCA (Mapua Institute of Technology Student Catholic Action)." The MITSCA shouldn't be bolded and the sentence should probably be broken up into two sentences, plus "was not suspended" should be followed with "was", not "is". "In 2002, the old RCBC Building in Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. in Makati City..." This sentence doesn't make sense. Avoid using abbreviations at all. Also, there are a lot of lists within the article. Entire sections are simply lists.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are only 14 citations for a fairly large article. Basically, every paragraph should have at least one reliable source. Large sections of the article are not sourced at all. Citations also need to be placed in the appropriate citation templates and within the "ref" tags. Several are bare links and many others are not even inline citations such as in the DanceCom section. There are outstanding "citation needed" tags in the article and many other places where they could be justified. Any outstanding claim needs a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While it seems to cover the main aspects well enough, it suffers from excessive detail and lists. See WP:NOT. We don't need a list of every college, department, and program at the school. What we need are the basic organization, notable programs and organizations, and relevant, sourced info about each.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There are logos for every college, which doesn't seem like a valid rationale for me and appears to be more for decoration than education. I would advise removing the logos for everything except the school itself and athletics. The other logos really don't serve much purpose. The copyright status of most (if not all) of the logos (including the athletics logo) is currently disputed anyway. The use of any logo needs a very specific purpose.

7. Overall: The basic foundation is here for a GA-quality article, however, it currently needs more reliable sources, some touching up on the writing style, removal of inappropriate images, and reduction of lists into either prose or removal altogether. In the 11 days since the initial review, very few changes were made at all and certainly none to bring it up to GA for now. I would ask for a Peer Review and go from there. This article needs some additional eyes on it.

   Pass/Fail: