I have begun to review the article and will post a full review over the next few days. I encourage other editors to participate throughout this GA review.
General issues exist with this article's wording. Clarity remains to be the major issue with the use of colloquial language present within the article.
Several grammatical errors are present. A general copyedit is recommended.
Lead section needs some work. Note that the lead section should be a general overview of all the information to be covered in the article. This is clearly not the case with the lead in this article and must be expanded. Also note that a issue of neutrality is present in claims of the university being "considered to be one of the foremost centres of research and learning in India" without further citation (refer to WP:LEAD).
Large sections of this article continues to use long sequences of lists, with no further conceptualization to reinforce the information in the article (especially in the section regarding centres of excellence and alumni). This needs to be rectified by developing them into proper proses (refer to WP:PROSE).
Lists of "notable people" in an article, such as the "Notable alumni" section in an article on a university, tend to accrue red links, or non-links, listing people of unverifiable notability. Such list entries should be removed; the lists should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference (refer to WP:REDDEAL).
Several sections of the article needs to be reworked due to the presence of wording which seems to be placed for the sole reason of puffery (refer to WP:PEACOCK) (e.g. It is surrounded by many renowned educational institutes; was designed by Nandalal Bose, a key member of the Bengal School of Art, who was one of the great masters; etc.) This needs to be rectified as it contends with the neutrality of the article.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Majority of the article has no references or inline citations. Only eleven inline citations throughout the entire article. This results in much of the article to be questionable in content. (refer to WP:NOCITE).
All of the external links, as well as the majority of inline citations originate from the university itself. This is troubling and raises questions of the article's neutrality. It would be beneficial for this article to find third party sources for this article (refer to WP:SELFSOURCE).
2b. 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).
As stated earlier, the majority of the article lacks citations to reinforce contentious claims. This and other areas which may be contended (i.e. academics, student life, alumni) and must be rectified if this article is to be considered for GA-nomination.
Several contentious issues use dead links which to reinforce their claims. This must be rectified (i.e. academic rankings).
"Admission to Jadavpur University is highly competitive, as it consistently ranks amongst the best colleges in India." A statement such as this, which lacks any third party backing is highly contentious and may constitute as original research as no citation, of any party, is provided to reinforce such a statement.
The coverage does seem to comply with the policies of the Wikiproject Universities' WP:UNIGUIDE. However, it can be more comprehensive, with further information on the financial operation of the university.
It must be noted however that with the claim in the article of the university being a "top research university", a research section (barring the list of research centres at the university) appear to be absent. There should exist a general explanation of the university's research operations, endeavours and financing.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
The article is largely focused on the university, as outlined by the Wikiproject Universities' University Guide.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
The lack of verifiability and citations within the article make several statements in the article appear as opinions rather then actual fact. This can be rectified by either reinforcing contentious claims with proper references, or with its removal.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
The following article does not appear to be experiencing any editing wars or content dispute. Only 15 revisions have been made to the article in the past 90 days.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Wikipedia is not a image repository (refer to WP:NOTGALLERY). Keep in mind, GA articles are articles which meet encyclopedic standards, and Wikipedia's Manual of Style calls for images to be interspersed individually throughout the article near the relevant text which its caption is relating to (refer to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE). Many of the images in the article do not meet this standard. Furthermore, all image captions used in the article do not relate to the immediate subject matter at all (refer to WP:CAPTION).
Two images are not captioned (refer to WP:MOSIMAGES).
It is suggested that a serious reduction of images be made in the article (and moved to the Wikimedia Commons if not already done so). Pick and choose the images which you believe would best illustrate the relevant text.
7. Overall assessment.
The article is definitely coming out nicely, and significant efforts to make the article fall in line with the standards set out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities can definitely be seen. However, it must be noted that the fact that the article lacks any degree of citation alone already makes this article unqualified to be nominated as a Good Article. Further work is also needed to bring this article in line with the Manual of Style (especially the sections which is entirely composed of lists). The image section also needs significant fixes, as many of them seem to be placed in the article for the sole reason to create a gallery and/or aesthetics. There is definite potential in this article to become a Good Article, however, until these issues are addressed, it cannot be expected for this article to pass GA-nominations. The issues raised above is the reason as to why a quick-fail was issued.
