Talk:Lafayette College/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: H1nkles (talk · contribs) 15:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I will undertake this review. I will provide suggestions here for how to improve the article. My suggestions do not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria listed below. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work. I will watch this page and reply to questions regarding the review here. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Hinkles: I think it would help if the first 70 odd years of the school were expanded, in the history section. Especially helpful would be notes and explanations concerning the move up to the top of the Hill. As a Lehigh graduate, I did not know the College was originally on the south bank of the Lehigh River -- as is, and always was, Lehigh Univ. itself. The locale for Lafayette is one of the most stunning on the East Coast: it owns a large expansive flat topped hill (I presume now on the north bank of the Lehigh River?). If this history could be expanded, it would be wonderful and interesting. Further, notes and greater biographies of key Presidents might be emplaced. Such as for instance Pres. ____ Mather Lewis. I helped expanding Lehigh's Wiki article, but fortuitously I was aided by a brilliant history of the school by W. Ross Yates. (John G. Lewis (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC))
Criteria edit
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- (b) 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);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
References
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Review edit
Lead:
- You normally don't need to put in-line citations in the lead since the lead is supposed to be a synopsis of the article. It is assumed that any assertions made in the lead are repeated in the body of the article and referenced there.
- Make sure the lead is a complete synopsis of the article, covering the major topics of the article.
History:
- There seems to be a big jump from founding to WW1. Is there no more information about the college from 1857 until 1917?
- In the Degression sub-section you indicate a drastic change in enrollment...I assume this was a reduction in enrollment but it might be good to specify.
- In the Decade of Progress sub-section, "As the college moved out of the great depression, the college's new President, William Mather Lewis, began what it called..." Who called it the Decade of Progress? The sentence has two subjects.
- Again a big jump from 1970 (co-ed reform) to 2004 (recent history). Anything of note happen during that time? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Athletics:
- I assume Lafayette competes in NCAA Division 1? I added it to the article given the later reference to the college's ranking amongst other NCAA schools for graduation rates. If this is incorrect please fix.
- Usually you want to put in-line citations at the end of a sentence rather than right in the middle as is the case one time in this section. Not a big deal it just helps with readability.
Student life:
- I'm concerned with Engineers Without Borders sub-section. In my opinion it gives undue weight to one club at the exclusion of the rest of the campus clubs. Is there a reason this club is highlighted over the rest? Is there a reason this club should get an entry in the article while the others do not? I would suggest either eliminating this section or creating a "club" sub-section that would highlight several of the clubs (not all of course) and their philanthropic endeavors. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Notable alumni:
- A couple of the names have translations in parentheses and some do not, not sure why the discrepency and it certainly isn't enough to hold up GA but it might be good to take a look at it.
- The referencing in this section is a little odd to me, three entries are referenced but five are not, I think they should all have a reference.
- Refs 9, 23, and 24 are dead links and should be repaired.
Overall
- Overall I believe the article meets the GA criteria. The three issues that give me pause are:
- The gaps of information in the history section may violate section 3a.
- The emphasis on engineering aspects of the college vis a vis the "Engineers without Borders" club sub-section, which may violate criterion 1b for MOS compliance.
- The three dead links and the odd referencing in the "Notable alumni" section, which may fall short of criterion 2b in the referencing portion of the GA Criteria.
- That said in reading the GA Criteria I do not believe the gaps in information is sufficient enough to hold GA passage on comprehensive lines, I also do not believe that the article violates 1b since it does not specifically call out the undo-weight portion of the MOS. My reading of 2b is that in-article refs are required in specific circumstances and the "Notable alumni" section and the facts supported by the broken refs do not meet those circumstances.
- I will pass to GA with the hopes that the author will take the time to make the fixes recommended above. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)