This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
As per the longstanding cleanup tags (some in place since 2008), and content issues raised by myself[1] and others[2] over the years, editors interested in expanding this article would ideally review the core project tenets. In particular those relating to WP:VER and the WP:WWPIN policy (and perhaps also the COI/VANITY guidelines). In honesty a significant summarisation of the existing content is likely already warranted (given that there are near zero cites supporting the existing content already). Adding "(uncited) lists of people of might possibly be associated to the organisation" is not helping matters or improving the article quality. Guliolopez (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Actually, upon further review (and per WP:CLOP and tools to assess CLOP issues), it seems pretty clear that the {{primarysources}} tag added in 2008 needs more than a little attention. Flatly, the content here is significantly problematic under CLOP guidelines. It is not clear whether this article "borrowed" from the subject's official site (or indeed vice versa), but this highlights the NOTWEBHOST, CLOP, VER, PRIMARYSOURCES and related policy concerns that have been raised by more than a few editors over the years. Unless there are other thoughts, I will likely undertake a significant review and summarisation of this article to address these issues. Guliolopez (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK. I have made an attempt to address the issues raised by several (longstanding) cleanup tags in the article (reliance on primarysources, limited/no non-primarysources, close-paraphrasing/copy-vio, etc). A refimprove cleanup tag remains (as the honorary membership and associations sections in particular still have CITE/VER issues). In general would-be contributors would ireally review the relevant policies and remain conscious of potential issues with project guidelines on COI/VANITY and OWN/NOTHOSTING. In particular, exhaustive "lists of students who sat on a committee" (of this type) are better suited to the body's own website, and not in keeping with the guidelines which discourage using this project as an indiscriminate collection of lists or a directory of NN committee members. Guliolopez (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
