Talk:University of the Philippines Los Baños/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Leventio (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a rather well written article. I managed to correct several link disambiguations and small grammar and spelling errors. There are several small contentious issues before this article can be promoted to GA-status. Many of these issues however can be easily rectified.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   While red links are not discouraged on Wikipedia as it helps to grow the encyclopedia, please note that red links of individuals are not encouraged and should either be removed, or an article should be created if they truly are notable. Links in a notable people section of a post-secondary article should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.WP:RED for more detail.

   In a country specific article such as this one, you do not need to use the dominant reserve currency (US dollar), only the national currency. Also is 2009 the most recent endowment figure. If possible can a 2010 or even a 2011 endowment figure be found?

   The article seems to be overlinked. Avoid linking plain English words, geographic locations, general occupations, etc. The article's lead section in particular is rather overlinked and makes it hard to read for the reader. The overlinking has also unintentionally led to repeating links throughout the article. WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK for more detail

   In relation to overlinking, many of the article's linked in the See also section may similarly be incorporated within the main article's content easily. It also appears that several of the links in the section (such as the DZLB article) have been linked already earlier in the article (going back to repeating links).

   There should be non-breaking spaces between numbers. Use   as opposed to dashes. MOS:NBSP for more information.

   Please fix disamb links: Citronella, DeSoto, Mall, National Economic Council.

   Overlinks and dab links has been removed. Repeat links that are far from earlier mention have been kept. Non-breaking spaces are no longer need since figures with units use {{convert}}. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Fn 14, 68, 88, 142 are dead links as I already noted in the article. If possible, please find an alternative reference to use or the Wayback appliaction.

   Many of the sources originate from the university's website itself. I assume that you have looked for alternatives. This is not a major impediment towards the article's assessment for GA-status, however keep that in mind on future edits for the article.

   Fixed. Moray An Par (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted in WP:UNIGUIDE, please note that the Noted People section should not be a list, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. You currently have it in a list-like fashion, please rectify this.

   With the other students section in the template, could you possibly elaborate on that? I'm assuming what these numbers refer to is the University of the Philippines Rural High School. Is this 'Rural High School' an actual secondary education institution or just a department of the university. If it is a department of the university, would their students not be considered apart of the overall undergraduate and/or graduate body? If is an actual high school operated by the university, it would appear that the UPRHS is a laboratory school. Like other laboratory schools, its student body numbers should be noted in its own article and not in the article in which its main focus is on the university institution itself.

   Please expand on the current administrative functions and roles of the university. The article does a sufficient job in explaining the role of the Chancellor, however it does not even mention the roles and purpose of the President nor the university's Board of Trustees.

   UPLB seems to be apart of the University of the Philippines however does not explain the exact relationship with the national university system. This should be expanded upon.

   • UPRHS is indeed a laboratory school. It is a unit of the College of Arts and Sciences. The infobox makes it clear that they are not considered as part of the undergrad-grad body. It notes them as high school students.
   • Administration section expanded as suggested. Moray An Par (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I have a small issue with the image for the Oblation Run. While Wikipedia is not a censored encyclopedia, I do believe that this image should be omitted from the university's page (it is already used in the Oblation Run page which I believe is a much more encyclopedic usage of this photo). The omission of this photo does not appear to cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate.

   Removed. Moray An Par (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold.

June 12 update

1. It is reasonably well written.
   • There still is a number of overlinking throughout the lead. Links should be relation with the article at hand. Municipalities of the Philippines, Provinces of the Philippines, American, botanist to name a few. Generally the lead should have as few links as possible (this doesn't mean you can't link anything, however keep it in mind). WP:MOSINTRO, WP:OVERLINK
   • This article uses a lot of one-sentence paragraphs. While they are allowed on Wikipedia, they should be minimal and used sparingly. WP:LAY
2. It is broad in its coverage.
   • The administration section (specifically the Board of Regents, President and UP system) need some more information. This does not have to be full blown subsection, but provide at least as much information about the Board as you did with the Chancellor. The UP system and its relation with UPLB should also be expanded upon, or at least provide a summary of the UP system from its main article. A one-sentence paragraph would not be sufficient (as earlier mentioned, should be used minimally).
   • The Notable people section still needs a bit more work, despite removing the bullets. The section rather jumps into the article as opposed to actually introducing the subsection and its content. See Georgetown University as an example of how to properly write a introduction for that subsection.
     • On that note, the Notable people section still contains red links. WP:RED specifically stipulates that for lists of notable people, the section should remain confined to names of people whose notability is attested by an existing article or other reference.Leventio (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to request for your consideration regarding the timeliness of my replies. I cannot address these until tomorrow since I still got school work. Moray An Par (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll leave this on hold and postpone the GA review. Leventio (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the necessary edits to reduce links, add more info on the admin and restructure the people section. You'll notice an increase in the red links. They are notable but do not have their articles. IMO, all National Scientists of the Philippines pass WP:PROF since its the highest distinction awarded for academics in the Philippines. Moray An Par (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

July 21

While the MoS stipulate that those in a list such as notable people should be composed of people in which an article is already created for them, I'll turn the other way given the context of its usage. So upon further review of the article with the changes made to it in the past week, I believe that this article meets the GA criteria to attain GA-status.

If you are going forward for FA-status in the near future, I would suggest that an article (at the very least, a stub for other editors to expand upon) be made for the redlinked people in the notable people sectio. Furthermore, I would suggest that you bring this article to the Guild of Copy Editors before bringing it up to FA-status review if you do so. While I did go through some basic spelling and grammar mistakes, my primary focus in this review was to analyze whether or not this passed Wikipedia's MoS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leventio (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Moray An Par (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)