Talk:College and university dating/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. As I have a rather busy schedule, I'll get to it in the coming days, at the most by Saturday. Buggie111 (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Thanks for reviewing it! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I've posted further comments at the #Preeeliminary review section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	relationships--even, what's with the double hyphen, "Scandalous", way too sharp, minor spelling errors (drunkeness)	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	Way too many quotes in the article. I know that ordinary essay formats focus on quotations, but Wikipedia doesn't. In the Date rape, sexual violence, and harassment section, don't start each paragraph with a link.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Don't make so many mentions to other people's studies. I might just be alien to this realm of the 'pedia, but it would be better if, well, they were trimmed down.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	Good progress so far! Just a bit to fix, see above. Buggie111 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Indeed, there is no need to attribute people by name unless it is a controversial claim. Few fixes, including my comments from the preeliminary review above, and this should be good to go! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, yeah sorry. I got paranoid after the debacle when we first put up the page and got slammed for not citing things properly, so I wanted to be clear that it wasn't my opinion that I was writing. AndrewMozdy (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: attribution is not the same as citing with footnotes. By attribution we often mean saying directly in the text who is the author ("John Smith, professor at X, states that..."). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this! I'll get to it as soon as I can. I saw in the additional notes section that you said a picture is not required, but if one is available, it should be used. How do we find a reliable enough picture to add to our article? BonnieNoel (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I.....wouldn't know. Also, that was the template's default writing. Don't worry about it. Maybe at FAC, if you take it that far, will images be a concern. Buggie111 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can try the Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. The easiest solution, I think, would be to find a picture of a large number of students and just illustrate the article with that, without any mention on whether they are all dating and such. A picture of "target population" should be acceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I added an image and I fixed the blue tags in the date rape section. BonnieNoel (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I fixed "scandalous" and double-hyphen, and fixed the spelling errors BonnieNoel (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job find a free image. I expanded the caption to justify relevance to this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. That leaves the quotes and the over-mentioning of other people's studies. Then you're done. Congrats with the image. Buggie111 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My partner should be doing that soon! Thanks for reviewing :) BonnieNoel (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if my partner wasn't receiving my emails, or what was happening, but you didn't deserve to wait so long. I'm sorry it was over a week. I removed all but three quotes, and I left only two studies (each in a separate sections). If you want anything else changed, just let me know! BonnieNoel (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing, I've got plenty of time on my hands. One of my article took about 2 months to go through this process, a week is a drop in the bucket compared to that. I can only find one that stands out and looks sort of ugly, that one being the Rutgers quote in the Hooking Up section. After that, you're done. Buggie111 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thank you :) BonnieNoel (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Good luck with your later classes, I hope you stay on Wikipedia. Until next time, Buggie111 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Have a fantastic day!! :) BonnieNoel (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)