Talk:University College London/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• There are at least 5 broken links.[1]

• I'm concerned that some sections of this article look like a personal essay. For instance, from Student accommodation: "Most students in college or university accommodation are first-year undergraduates. The majority of second and third-year students and postgraduates find their own accommodation in the private sector. This is partly due to the fact that accommodation in and around Central London is often cheaper than university accommodation when shared with friends or flat-mates." Thay may well be true, but personal reminiscences are not suitable material for an encyclopedia article. Whose opinion is this? It needs to be either cited or removed.

• I'm also concerned that almost the entire Alumni and academics section is uncited, and neither are sources provided in the main article to which this one links.

• The present order of sections makes no sense, starting as it does with Academic reputation. Take a look at other university GAs such as University College, Durham or University of Bristol to get some ideas for a more logical presentation sequence.

• The Notable buildings section needs to be converted to prose, and to focus on the notable buildings, not just list every building. It ought to be telling us something about these notable buildings, not just listing them.

• The Student accommodation section is similarly largely just a list. This article is not supposed to be a brochure for University College.

• The relevant pictures from the Gallery ought to be incorporated into the text at the appropriate places and the rest transferred to Commons with a link from this article.

• The last three sections—Ethical investment policy, Filming at UCL, and University crest—do not contain enough material to warrant standalone sections.

• Ref #85 is marked "Suspended Domain", which makes me suspicious of UCL Biomedica's current status.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.