Talk:R.V. College of Engineering/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:R. V. College of Engineering/GA1)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by MikeLynch in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) Will review it in some days. 14:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Hyphens (-) have been used many times in the article, however as per MOS:DASH, en dash (–) and em dash (—) should be used. Please refer to the policy to know how and when they have to be used.  Done. I have reworded, removed, or retained hyphens wherever applicable by MOSDASH. In some cases, I have replaced hyphens by endashes. Lynch7 13:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Hashes (#) have been used two times in the article (in the lead section), however as per MOS:HASH, word "number", or the abbreviation "No." should be used.   Done. I'm not sure why this comes here. This should go into MOS criticism (next row). Lynch7 13:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Since that doesn't have anything to do with the MoS guildlines mentioned blow.♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Just a minor problem, some references need to be attributed to their authors too, for example, ref.1 needs to be attributed to the author also, who is in this case "Sahana Charan". Another example is ref.14, which needs to be attributed to the author "K. Satyamurty".   Done. I have done it for these two cases, but I don't this comes under a GAN, I've seen these kinda issues come up at FACs. I'm happy to fix these omissions though. Lynch7 16:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2b. 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). Primary sources have been use many times in the article, for example, section 1.1 have one source, which is a primary source. Comment: Using primary sources is not a crime. WP:UNIGUIDE says that primary sources cannot be used to create new articles about clubs, papers, etc, but makes clear that they may be used within the main article to establish existence. Lynch7 13:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The fact that DEBSOC won the "All-Asians Intervarsity Tournament" has not been cited.   Done. Added more material, ref for this as well. Its in the next line. Lynch7 14:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Also the fact that Rotaract Club is affiliated to Rotary International District 3190 and conducts blood donation camps, National pulse polio drives, tree plantation drives and eye check-up camps is not referred. The reference just proves that they are in existence.   Done. Removed uncited, added primary source to show affiliation. Lynch7 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Sections 2.4 describes 20 companies, however the reference provided cites only 12.   Done. Added more and primary refs, without any promotional tone. Lynch7 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The club provides the students a platform to showcase their leadership skills, talents in music, art and craft and also literary interests by organizing college level events like Opinions, an open discussion forum. The club, along with the National Service Scheme (NSS), and the National Cadet Corps (NCC) units of the college, organizes visit to leprosariums and orphanages. It organizes an Eye Pledging Camp in association with the Lions Eye Bank, Bangalore, the following statement is not cited by the reference provided.   Done. Removed uncited and reworded. Lynch7 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • I will like to some information on the "history" of the college, It has to not be very much, but just some information about formation of "Rashtreeya Sikshana Samithi Trust" and setting up of the college.   Done. Lynch7 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • The official website depicts a lot about the library, but I can't even see the word being used in the article. It can have a stand alone level 3 section under section 2.   Done. Added the figures and facts without any promo tone (because it is a primary source, I have taken care). I have not created a separate section for 2 reasons: 1) the TOC is getting huge 2) Info about the library is short, and I don't want to expand it using primary sources as ref.Lynch7 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
If the TOC is getting huge, you may like to use Template:TOC limit. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I'm trying that out. Lynch7 17:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm done with that. It seems OK now. Lynch7 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The article is pretty near to GA status, however, a couple of issues are still to be fixed. First is that you need to have WP:ALT for images. Second that File:RVCE Cauvery hostel annexe.jpg seems to be more relevant with section 2.1.
  Done. Just now I have removed that image. 2.1 already has 2 images (I'm struggling to wrap it properly as it is), so I think this is better deleted. Lynch7 18:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Alt text   Done. Lynch7 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment. Congrats Mike! After considerable hard work, you have been successful in satisfying the GA criteria.
Thank you :) Lynch7 11:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply