Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Saskatchewan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

---

University of Saskatchewan

Have achieved good article status, and have had the article in peer review. On editing have tried to follow other feature University articles as per talk page, as well as WP University guidelines as well as Featured article criteria. Would like direction on what other edits are necessary to make these article awesome to celebrate the University of Saskatchewan centennial year 1907-2007.SriMesh | talk 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not every section is cited properly. Some sections are little more than a sentence. --GreenJoe 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC

Comment... I have revised the section labeled Museums and Galleries (Sites of Interest) which been written as sub-sections and now is written completely as prose. Hopefully this addresses the sentence long sections. Will address section and paragraph citations shortly as well. Thank you for your comments, will work on them to improve the quality of the article. It is awesome to receive direction to go off in for improvements!SriMesh | talk 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The sections have citations now, and sections have been revised. Hopefully this addresses above comments, if not please let me know, and we shall continue on. SriMesh | talk 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

This article is somewhat sourced, but an excessive number of WP:MoS violations, poor word choice, passive voice, vague terminology along with poor form and numerous lists and red links...I can't see this becoming an FA without some serious work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you would like a more thorough review, please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to go through the entire article (though it will probably take a few days to go through the whole thing line-by-line. Please address the above concerns and it will be a vast improvement. In particular, note WP:DATE, WP:MoS#Images, and WP:CITE, though this is NOT exhaustive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment...Started with revising lists into prose, and the above short section comment. Will also address red links shortly.

Would appreciate help and guidance initially to give an idea with starting out with the WP:MoS grammar type errors. When working with an article which has many contributions and initial writing styles, it is unique to bring the whole concept together into a smooth picture, whilst still keeping each of the sub concepts presented by the several original contributors to the wiki article.

Thank you very much also for taking the time to comment. I have begun to address some of the issues and will continue over the next few days. Will contact you on the talk page when I get the 1) lists changed to prose, 2) citations listed for sources, and 3) red links fixed. Had a request to change pictures from all being right aligned, so placed images left and right. And now the images are changed back as reading the WP:MoS did not accept the way the left and right alignment had been done. Will work on the image placement again after article development evolves. Thanks again for your ideas!SriMesh | talk 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alignment is not the issue...sizing by pixel sizes is the major problem with the images (make sure all are free or licensed appropriately too). I also highly suggest doing the semi-automated peer review javascript program. This will point you in the general direction of things to work on, though it certainly isn't exhaustive always 100% accurate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WOW! That robot - semi-automated peer review - is awesome, I will continue to use it on other articles I work on as well. Thank you! Keeping a list of how things are going on article talk page now. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image size is now 175 px all the way instead of 275 px. Have only one image of Sylvia Fedoruk that needs fair use tag - for feature status should this image be removed? Quite a few of the others are mine uploaded and no copy issues with those and the other is a wiki commons no copy issues image.SriMesh | talk 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

All the images should have no sizing and left at default IAW WP:MoS#Images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! I didn't realize there was a default image size in the preferences. The images are not sized, and I will continue this practice henceforward. Thanks again! SriMesh | talk 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, the red links have been addressed, the citations have been appropriately added, several section lists have been converted to prose (can continue on if needed), images and dates fixed. Used the robot. Please advise what to proceed on next. Thank you!!SriMesh | talk 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose—It's worthy in some ways, and should be ironed out to reach FA standard. Here are some examples of 1a problems. Let me know after you've got someone else at the U of S to sift through it carefully.
  • Bricklaying approach to constucting some of the sentences. Look at the commas and "ands" here at the top: "The University's beginnings were as an agricultural college in 1907 and, 300 acres (1.21405 km²) were set aside for university buildings and 1000 acres (4.04685 km²) for the U of S farm, and agricultural fields." In fact, the misplacement of commas is an issue in many places (e.g., lower down in the lead, "... (VIDO) facility, (2003) develops ..."
  • We have "In total 1,032 hectares ...", but "Currently," with the comma. Get the readers into a nice consistent rhythm, please.
  • What are "urban research lands"?
  • Piped link from "research" to "U of S academics" is a stretch. Try to find a more obvious item, lower down, from which to link to that article. And I see the same page linked to in the very next sentence from "200 academic programs". No. Do it once, and make the route more logical.
  • Read MOS on final periods in captions: see the flower one.
  • I hope the "University Act" was different from the "University of S. Act". Confusing.
  • Jumble of initial upper- and lower-case for fields (Beginnings). Probably lower-case is better, but check MOS.
  • "Brown and Vallance were the initial architects constructing the first university buildings in Collegiate Gothic style." Do you mean comma after "architects"? Otherwise, replace "constructing" with "of".
  • Might be an artifact of my OS, but I'm seeing [edit][edit] in two places next to the run of images, even when I widen and narrow the window.
  • "In the 1970s and again in the 1980s, the U of S considered opening up some of its land holdings south of College Drive and ..."—I start to want a reference. You know how those kinds of facts can become distorted by politics.
  • "Students"—nice to hear that women were part of the scene early on; that fact is not extended to modern times ... Small point, but that section is a little thin—demographic profile and historical growth in numbers?
  • "Over the years" adds what? Tony 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.