Talk:University of Notre Dame/GA1

GA Review

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

• Rewrite: "The school's Catholic identity is evident around campus with the ornate Basilica of the Sacred Heart together with numerous chapels and religious iconography." I understand that you're trying to allude to the church influence on architecture here, but it sounds like you're implying that the "Catholic identity" is not evident in the students, faculty, and classes (which I imagine it is).
• Just specify which one: "...the oldest of which awarded..."
• What was the exact year? "...as early as 1849."
• Remove this booster cruft: "Many of the colleges' academic programs have been ranked highly in national publications..."
• Give an exact ranking and the year of the ranking: "...the university as a whole ranked in the top 20 nationally by U.S. News and World Report."
• Why is "CSC" needed after Father John I. Jenkins' name on this article in Wikipedia?
• Not needed in lead: "Additionally, the university's library system is one of the top-100 largest in the United States."
• Don't capitalize university: "More than 80% of the University's..." and throughout rest of article
• "each of which fields teams"
• "number near 120,000" sounds weird--perhaps "include approximately 120,000 alumni"
• If you say the numbers for the two preceding facts, you need it here too--i.e., how many?: "many members in the College Football Hall of Fame"
• "other sport teams, most members of the Big East Conference, have won accumulated 18 national championships throughout the years."
• "the spot of Sorin's original church, which"
• The London Centre section seems a bit anemic. If it gets its own section, it needs a bit more description of its history and usage.
• Needs to be dated (e.g., As of November 2008...) "Notre Dame has a student body population of"
• Italicize Newsweek Magazine
• May be true but seems kind of a childish and cheap ranking remark: "This program has been recognized previously, by U.S. News & World Report, as outstanding."
• Rankings section needs consistent italicizing and linking of magazine names.
• Citations should directly following punctuation--in Research section this is not always the case.
• No terminating punctuation in first sentence of Students section
• Italicize The Princeton Review
• Run-on sentence that's confusing: "However, it has also been commended by publications such as Hispanic Magazine, ranking the university ninth on its list of the top–25 colleges for Latinos,[99] and the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education for raising enrollment of African-American students."
• No terminating punctuation in second sentence of Residence halls section
• Remove POV: "...but many students live in the same residence hall for all four years fostering a strong sense of community."
• Remove POV: "...its Catholic identity permeates into student life."
• Need to fix or math doesn't pan out: "More than 93% of students identify as Christian, while over 80% are Catholics" → "More than 93% of students identify as Christian—over 80% Catholic, specifically."
• Just say three: "a number of newspapers"
• Capitalize "Internet"
• Major concern: Alumni section needs rework: (1) remove sweeping, empty statements like "many alumni are in the media", "Notre Dame alumni work in various fields"; (2) POV and not necessarily true--I imagine some of the famous alumni played for ND when it wasn't "high profile": "With the university having high profile sports teams, a number of alumni became a part of sports teams"; (3) consult some FAs to pattern this section after: Dartmouth College#Alumni, Cornell University#Alumni, etc.
• ND homepage not needed in External links since already in infobox
• Need to take care of red-linked names--per WP:Red links--only supposed to be used short-term

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

• I added a few citation tags
• Need to link publishers in citations as well

  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

• Some of the Foundations section goes into unnecessary detail and either needs to be removed or moved to a separate article that could be linked here. I can give suggestions of text to be removed if needed.
• Major concern: the History section jumps from 1921 to 1972 in one sentence, and then again from 1972 to 2005.
• Major concern: Are there no criticisms, scandals, or significant protests that have occurred at ND? You mention one in the Students section, but it is quickly covered up by a ranking. This needs to have some part in the article.

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Some places are POV, as indicated above.

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, 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 constructive editing should be placed on hold.

• No prior issues

  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

• First phrase is not a complete sentence (no preceding subject + verb) and doesn't merit a period per WP:MOS#Captions: "The University's historic "God-quad" with the "Golden Dome" of the administration building visible. Many of the oldest buildings on campus are around this area."
• No pictures in alumni section?
• Image:NotreDameSeal.svg needs a source.
• Why two pictures of the golden dome on the article?

Conclusion

I'm not sure all these issues (especially the major concerns) can be addressed within seven days, but sometimes editors surprise me. I will put the article on hold for one week until each item above is addressed/resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. Article really needs to undergo a copy edit. Hope this helps! --Eustress (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Failing GAN, as no significant effort (or even talk-page response) has been provided since initial review. Please don't nominate for GAN unless willing to respond to review, as reviews take time. --Eustress (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)