Talk:University of Valle/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

From a quick couple of scan-readings, the article in general appears to be at or about GA-level, so I'm not going to quick fail it. I apppears to be comprehensive and generally well-referenced.

However, several sub-sections are totally devoid of references and are non-compliant with WP:Verify; they are:

• Social projection, research and technological development;
• Institutional accreditation and current standing.

There are also several unreferenced paragraphs.

I will continue the review in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• History -
  • Establishment and early years -  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph, two statements are made about the "department", but what department (this does not appeared to be explained anywhere - unless it is shorthand for Department Assembly of Valle del Cauca, if so this should be stated)?
• Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant.

• • Academic consolidation and the student movement -

• This appears to be compliant.

• • Social projection, research and technological development -  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.

• • Institutional accreditation and current standing -  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.

....Continuing. Pyrotec (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Campus -
  • Melendez campus -  Done Pyrotec (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• The two middle paragraphs need references.

• • San Fernando campus & La Carbonera campus -

• These appear to be compliant.

• • Satellite campuses -

• This subsection is unreferenced and non-compliant with WP:Verify.

• Organization -

• This appears to be compliant.

• Academics -

• This appears to be compliant generally compliant.

• • Libraries -

• The final sentence needs verification.

• Research -

• This appears to be compliant.

• Student life -
  • Activism -

• The first paragraph is partially referenced, but the second part is unreferenced.

• Noted people -

• This appears to be compliant.

• WP:Lead -

• This appears to be compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Greetings, I've revised your comments. I'll proceed to respond to some of them:

• The word department refers to an administrative division of the country. I don't know how can I make this clearer. Maybe I should add a wikilink of the word.
• I'll revise the citations for the two sections mentioned.

Thanks for your comments. Andremun (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome back. Pyrotec (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed your comments. I hope I have addressed all of them. Regards -Andremun (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Pyrotec (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Mostly in Spanish, but referenced and WP:verifiable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly in Spanish, but referenced and WP:verifiable

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)