This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Briarcliff College article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) 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
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
I still think this could be better improved with the addition of more citations, if a book is used as the main source specific page numbers &c for each assertion would make for a better article all round IMHO. However, that said, I appreciate that this isn't a blocker to giving the article GA status as it stands. So I include this note as potential point of improvement.
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).
I think this is very nearly there, it is well written and offers a good level of detail. My only real concern is the lack of sources cited; the history section in particularly should include references for any assertions made such as dates and people involved. Once these are in place I'm happy that this article meets GA Status. Will put on hold for 1 week -- Cd5464 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for doing this! My replies below:
With regard to 1a, the sentence may be a bit confusing, but Pace University currently operates it, and therefore 'operated' would be incorrect.
With regard to 2a: there is no rule saying that there must be a certain number of sources to cover information. In fact, every sentence is reliably sourced, just that sometimes entire paragraphs come from a single source. In this case, the 300-page history book The Changing Landscape was used extensively, and entire paragraphs (like the second and third of the History section) only use information from that book. There is no original research in this article.
With regard to 2c, again, there is no original research, but even if there were, you should assume good faith if you really "can't be sure".--ɱ(talk · vbm) 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for responding so quickly. I have passed these points given the justification provided and have included a few notes in the table above. These are given to offer potential points of improvement. I may have read this with my academic hat on so probably came down a bit too harsh on the lack of citations for each assertion and in turn my assumption that where not explicitly given this could be perceived as 'original research'. Whilst I still think these point technically stand I am happy that they don't prevent me passing this as a GA. Other than this small pedantic niggle I think the article is well put together and well written. -- Cd5464 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I'll add page numbers, but as for more sources, alas, I have yet to find any. The college's history was poorly documented, although Cheever's The Changing Landscape goes into great detail to describe its history.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 17:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
