Talk:Saint Anselm College/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to do the review again. If you would like a different reviewer instead, please say so. You will not hurt my feelings. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have you review again... you know this article so well from your initial review a few weeks ago... Thanks for the dedicated attention you've given this piece. I look forward to uploading more images of campus and making the changes below as my final exams wind down--Ericci8996 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial review comments

I've made an initial review, and on the whole I think it looks very good. You have made a lot of very good improvements and addressed the issues from the last review very nicely. Good work.

My few remaining concerns are mostly about referencing. There are a few uncited quotes, some claims that need to be better substantiated, and some paragraphs that lack citations altogether. By way of shorthand, I have placed "citation needed" and "says who" templates in the places where better referencing is needed.

You should also check your references to make sure the formatting is consistent. I see some without publishers. That field is required. Some of your references are bare URLs. You should fix that.

I also made some copyedits along the way, all minor. If you feel I have made a change in error, you should feel free to revert it.

I will have a few more comments and suggestions later, which I also expect to be minor. I am watching this page and will respond to any comments here promptly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other observations:

• You talk about the Abbey Players in the Dana Center section and then give them their own section right below. Can you combine them?

Done --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You talk about Portraits in Human Greatness in several places, mostly repeating the same information. Again, can you combine them?

Done --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do you need the shield image? It is part of the logo. A before/after layout of the Alumni hall images might be more impactful.

I really do think I need the logo, as I go on for a paragraph describing the logo and interperting the history of it --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• In places you refer to events as "recent," "current", or "upcoming." In general, you want to write as if the readers were from some time in the future. Try to date these things as much as you can. "In 2010". "As of 2009". Etc. I made a couple of those changes where I saw them. Check for others.

Mostly done, if you see anymore please change them! Thanks!--Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• You mention the Princeton Review and USN&WR rankings in two places. Can you make it one?

Rearranged, ALL rankings moved to the ranking section--Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Central to a liberal arts college is a liberal arts education" I don't find this in that source. If it is a quote, cite it. If not, you should delete it. It is an opinion. If it is yours, it is original research.

Language removed --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... what makes Saint Anselm a uniquely Catholic college." Says who?

Language revised --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, how is this review going --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.211.12 (talk)

Images

I see you are making progress on the references. When you feel you have addressed all the tags, let me know and I will look at it again. In the meantime, the new images are nice but you may have gone a bit overboard. One can have too much of a good thing. In general:

• The images should have some relation to the section in which they appear, or, at minimum, have relevance to something specifically discussed in the body of the article.
• They should not sandwich the text between two images.
• You should not have any images in the Notes or External links sections at all. Only notes and links go there.

I see you have created a gallery on Commons. Good idea. Any images that are not relevant and usable here can go there.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the gallery, it may be helpful to review WP:IG. The wealth of images is already starting to overwhelm the article. The gallery belongs on Commons, and you might want to review the images in the article and select only those that add encyclopedic value. Also look at this guideline. Perhaps the dorm room, the trash bins, the classroom, the cafe, the darkened stage, and the nondescript box are sufficiently generic that the article could stand on its own without them. Resist the temptation to make the article an image repository. That's not what Wikipedia is for; that's what Commons is for. The article is otherwise approaching the GA standard. Illustrated appropriately, I believe it would pass. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And the Commons link goes in External links. You already have one there. That is the only one you should have. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, I know it's supposed to go there, but I really think it is more convenient for the average user, who may not actually scroll all the way down to the end of the page, to have the link under campus, as the images are primarily of campus.

Will leaving it up where it is prevent GA status?

Also, how far am I right now from GA status?

Thanks! --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

See the checklist below. You have not addressed all the citation issues yet and the references need cleaning up. If those things get done, I think this will be a Good Article.

And yes, the layout guidelines say you have to move the Commons link.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After refs are fixed and everything below on checklist is fixed, will not moving the commons thing hold up GA status?

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well-written

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some of the images sandwich the text or drop into the following section. Should be fixed. There is information in the lead not found in the article (e.g., "third oldest..."). This should be fixed as well.

   1. Hi! I've added the third oldest into the rest of the article... which images are not fitting for you? On my computer screen there are no impages that sandwich the text or drop into the following section.

1. Is it factually accurate and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiab--Ericci8996 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)le]]?

   A. References to sources:

#:: Some references are bare URLs or lack publishers and accessdates, particularly in the Notable people section.

1. 1. ALL Fixed :)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   All of "citation needed" and other tags must be addressed. There are several totally unreferenced paragraphs, especially in the History section. These need appropriate citations.

   2. History section fully cited (as I found a thesis about the history of the college in the library)...

   C. No original research:

   No original research.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   A comprehensive article.

   B. Focused:

   Stays on topic.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral presentation.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Lots of edits, but all in response to review comments.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Image permissions okay.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very nicely illustrated.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The remaining referencing and other issues need to be resolved but otherwise it is close to standard. A well-researched and very nicely illustrated article that meets the GA standard.

Please check again that all references are correctly formatted with publishers, accessdates, and all other required information. There are more than a few that are still incomplete.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a little unsure on which references are not correct. I need some help in this. Can you help me? Please point out the ones which need to be edited and what needs to be added.

I really hope this is GA soon! :) Ericci8996 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see 107, 114, 115, 118, 120, 122, 125, 128, 129, 132 and 141 all missing publishers, accessdates, or something else. 188 has been challenged as not notable on the talk page. I tend to agree. You might want to delete that one.

The McKeon thesis is a great find but is not cited correctly. Use the {{cite thesis}} template. You don't need to link it if there is no link to the actual document.

For 31 and 32, you have to give the name of the newspaper. (It is a student publication, correct?)

I hope I've been clear on what you need to do to meet the GA standard. Once those things are done, it will be my pleasure to pass it.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, You have been a great help... I need some help though

On citations 114, 120 and several others, I have "access date" in the citation itself, after I save it, it will not show Ericci8996 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is accessdate, no spaces. It's easy to misspell too. Check that and it should work. I fixed 120, for example --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, All seems to be in order!

Please tell me if there is ANYTHING else I need to do to get this to GA :) Ericci8996 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The references look okay now. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Nice work! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

THANKS! Couldn't have done it without you guys Ericci8996 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)