![]() | University of Waterloo was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 7, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Imprint (newspaper) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 July 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of Waterloo. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Imprint (newspaper) was copied or moved into University of Waterloo with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
If you attend or have attended
University of Waterloo, you may place {{
User Waterloo}} on your userpage to display the following
userbox:
|
I just noticed that the edit that happened 18:08, 10 March 2013 was massive. How did this happen with no discussion? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EricEnfermero ( talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this nomination. On an initial read, I'm a little concerned that some passages in the article may closely paraphrase the source, but I need to read a little more to determine how extensive the issue is. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this so far. I'll begin with a section-by-section analysis soon. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
More to come. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that a copyedit request at WP:GOCE seems to have been helpful to you before a previous nomination. Since we're running into fairly frequent issues of wording and we aren't very far into the article, one option would be to close this review and submit a copyedit request there, then to evaluate the article again. I'm certainly willing to continue the review, but if you're finding this to be a cumbersome process already, that option might help. Just let me know. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We'll stop right here for now. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Since there are pretty extensive changes suggested here, we'll take another look once the above is addressed. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
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. | Nominator has improved the prose. Some minor prose issues remain unaddressed. Close paraphrasing concerns remain and the review has been open for three weeks. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Nominator worked to address concerns with WP:WTW. |
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. | Note: A couple of assertions in the Campus section seem misattributed to a section of the Campus Master Plan ref. |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A gap of multiple decades in History, because this section is largely sourced to a 1967 book. |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
With fairly significant issues remaining after the review has been open for this long, I think it is best to close this review. GA should be a lightweight process that doesn't require nominations to stay open for long periods of time. After addressing these issues - especially the issues with close paraphrasing and the history issue - this article can be renominated immediately. A lot of good work has gone into this article and I know that it can easily reach GA status with some more work. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
In the reputation section, the sentence "Waterloo has consistently been ranked as one of the top universities in Canada." is very vague.
Is this school one of the top 10, top 100, top 500 or top 5000? It should be clearly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uws1234 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this notable enough to include in the article, and if so is it notable enough to have its own section? LynxTufts ( talk) 15:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | University of Waterloo was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 7, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Imprint (newspaper) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 July 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of Waterloo. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Imprint (newspaper) was copied or moved into University of Waterloo with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
If you attend or have attended
University of Waterloo, you may place {{
User Waterloo}} on your userpage to display the following
userbox:
|
I just noticed that the edit that happened 18:08, 10 March 2013 was massive. How did this happen with no discussion? X Ottawahitech ( talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: EricEnfermero ( talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this nomination. On an initial read, I'm a little concerned that some passages in the article may closely paraphrase the source, but I need to read a little more to determine how extensive the issue is. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this so far. I'll begin with a section-by-section analysis soon. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
More to come. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that a copyedit request at WP:GOCE seems to have been helpful to you before a previous nomination. Since we're running into fairly frequent issues of wording and we aren't very far into the article, one option would be to close this review and submit a copyedit request there, then to evaluate the article again. I'm certainly willing to continue the review, but if you're finding this to be a cumbersome process already, that option might help. Just let me know. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
We'll stop right here for now. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Since there are pretty extensive changes suggested here, we'll take another look once the above is addressed. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
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. | Nominator has improved the prose. Some minor prose issues remain unaddressed. Close paraphrasing concerns remain and the review has been open for three weeks. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Nominator worked to address concerns with WP:WTW. |
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. | Note: A couple of assertions in the Campus section seem misattributed to a section of the Campus Master Plan ref. |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A gap of multiple decades in History, because this section is largely sourced to a 1967 book. |
![]() |
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. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
With fairly significant issues remaining after the review has been open for this long, I think it is best to close this review. GA should be a lightweight process that doesn't require nominations to stay open for long periods of time. After addressing these issues - especially the issues with close paraphrasing and the history issue - this article can be renominated immediately. A lot of good work has gone into this article and I know that it can easily reach GA status with some more work. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
In the reputation section, the sentence "Waterloo has consistently been ranked as one of the top universities in Canada." is very vague.
Is this school one of the top 10, top 100, top 500 or top 5000? It should be clearly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uws1234 ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this notable enough to include in the article, and if so is it notable enough to have its own section? LynxTufts ( talk) 15:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)