GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kncny11 ( talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm going to be taking a look at this GAN. Any section marked with a Working tag means I haven't finished, but feel free to start making changes as soon as they appear!
Kncny11
(shoot)
20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Working
Working
I'm going to cut to the chase. Out of 84 citations, only about 18% (I counted 16, give or take) are from sources that are unaffiliated with Pomona or other related colleges. Of these, at least one doesn't say what the citation seems to suggest that it does. This lack of independent sources is concerning, as is the collection of uncited passages, such as when Claremont McKenna College is called Pomona's "main athletic and ideological rival".
Additionally, the tone and setup of the article just doesn't meet GA quality. While several traditions are mentioned, many are afforded only a sentence or two, with little acknowledgement to the tradition's notability. The section on 47 is good! It describes the relevance of the number to campus life, and to the greater world. That is not matched by the very next section, which is effectively uncited.
I'm going to have to ✗ Fail this article for the time being, and hope that it comes back later with a tighter look at the scope. Kncny11 (shoot) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Reviewers are allowed to fail an article if it is a long way from meeting one of the six good article criteria. Here are my main concerns:
It doesn't help that the only GA for a college tradition article was promoted over a decade ago (and should probably be reassessed), but in its current state, this article is nowhere near GA status. Rather than a few specific issues that can be ironed out, the main problems are intrinsic to the article. My recommendation would be to start with defining what a "tradition" is in the context of this article (how long it's been in effect, is it student-generated or passed on from admin, etc.), then looking for reliable sourcing on the matter. And, of course, making sure that if you tie a citation to something, that it actually says what you say that it does. Best of luck. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Kncny11 ( talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm going to be taking a look at this GAN. Any section marked with a Working tag means I haven't finished, but feel free to start making changes as soon as they appear!
Kncny11
(shoot)
20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Working
Working
I'm going to cut to the chase. Out of 84 citations, only about 18% (I counted 16, give or take) are from sources that are unaffiliated with Pomona or other related colleges. Of these, at least one doesn't say what the citation seems to suggest that it does. This lack of independent sources is concerning, as is the collection of uncited passages, such as when Claremont McKenna College is called Pomona's "main athletic and ideological rival".
Additionally, the tone and setup of the article just doesn't meet GA quality. While several traditions are mentioned, many are afforded only a sentence or two, with little acknowledgement to the tradition's notability. The section on 47 is good! It describes the relevance of the number to campus life, and to the greater world. That is not matched by the very next section, which is effectively uncited.
I'm going to have to ✗ Fail this article for the time being, and hope that it comes back later with a tighter look at the scope. Kncny11 (shoot) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Reviewers are allowed to fail an article if it is a long way from meeting one of the six good article criteria. Here are my main concerns:
It doesn't help that the only GA for a college tradition article was promoted over a decade ago (and should probably be reassessed), but in its current state, this article is nowhere near GA status. Rather than a few specific issues that can be ironed out, the main problems are intrinsic to the article. My recommendation would be to start with defining what a "tradition" is in the context of this article (how long it's been in effect, is it student-generated or passed on from admin, etc.), then looking for reliable sourcing on the matter. And, of course, making sure that if you tie a citation to something, that it actually says what you say that it does. Best of luck. Kncny11 (shoot) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)