Talk:University of Santo Tomas/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This initial review will be a high level review looking at the big picture aspects of the article. Once work on this has been completed I will dig into the content of the article and hold its quality up to the GA Criteria.

Per WP:Lead the lead should encompass a summary of all aspects of the article. I don't see anything in the lead about the current research going on at the school, also student life and publications are not addressed in the lead. The lead also contains a one sentence paragraph (stub), which shouldn't be in a GA, please expand or combine.
Here [1] is a list of all the web site references. The red links are dead links, and there are many of them. They will need to be repaired.
There is no reference in the info box.
There is a ^{[citation needed]} template at the end of the History section dating back to October 2008, this needs to be addressed.
Any main article tag that is a red link should be removed, see The University Seal section.
There are citation needed tags in both the Foreign Corporations and Consortia, and Membership in Organizations sections. These will need to be addressed.
Many of the references have the website title and accessdate but no publisher, there should be the website publisher as a bare minimum along with the title and accessdate. Work, author, and date are other good items to have in the references. Some refs like 44, 50, and 52 don't even have a title and two don't have accessdates. The formatting of the reference section needs a thorough edit.
The Postgraduate studies sub-section is a one sentence paragraph. This needs to be expanded or eliminated.

There are quite a few issues here just in a high level review that need to be addressed before I can really dig into a thorough review of the article. I will hold the article for a week in order to allow work to be done. I will notify interested projects and editors and please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. H1nkles (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some work has been done on the article since the review but I do not feel that the work addresses the issues laid out here. The most important omission are the 25 dead links in the references section. I will have to delist at this time. Please renominate when the article is ready. H1nkles (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]