Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Endorse delist per comments below. Articles can be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was very recently delisted. I did not notice it was being reviewed and only noticed its delisting because another university being nominated for the same process prompted me to look up its status. There doesn't seem to have been much activity in reaction to the review so in combination with my not seeing it I'm wondering if there was proper notification. If I had known I might have helped to address the concerns. Looking at the actual review a significant amount of the negative seems to be about the formatting. I'd like to ask the opinion of those involved here how significant the problems listed by the reviewer are and if its not that bad whether the problems can be quickly remedied. Lambanog (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken a cursory look at the review and the concern that I have is that the reviewer mentions that this is a high level review. It's simply looking at the article as a whole and pointing out significant problems (too many embedded lists, 10 dead links, stub or single sentence paragraphs and section). Certainly these could be corrected but that would only open up the article for a more thorough review which would likely bring up more issues. What I'm trying to say is that from what I can tell, simply addressing the issues brought up initially would not (in the opinion of the reviewer) satisfied the GA Criteria, more review and possibly more work would still be required. Perhaps more importantly, another user Rmcsamson was aware of the review at least enough to ask for clarification, which was provided, and then nothing was done. Nine days between review and delist is plenty of time to at least indicate a desire to work on the article. My recommondation would be to do the work required by the review, ask the reviewer to do a more thorough review (or list it at Peer Review) and then renominate for GA consideration. H1nkles (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the one who delisted the article. When first reviewing it, I notified Rmcsamson, because from the edit history he seemed to be the main contributor. I did not notify Lambanog, who does not figure prominently in the edit history. H1nkles is correct that this is a high-level review; once these changes are implemented this would essentially be a completely different article, and a new review would be necessary. I believe I followed proper protocol when delisting the article, but if Lambanog, or anyone else, would like to revise it, I would suggest they simply list it on the Good Article nominations and then contact me directly. I will then try to get to it as soon as possible, which will circumvent the long queue at GAN. Lampman (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In my view this review was conducted excellently. Notifications are a courtesy but not a requirement at GA, since articles can be renominated at any time: editors interested in maintaining the GA quality of an article are assumed to be watching it so that it does not deteriorate (GAs can also be delisted at any time). In this case, there was a courteous notification anyway. In addition the review points to areas where considerable work is needed to meet the GA criteria; nevertheless the article was put on hold to allow for the possibility that improvements would be made. I have looked at the article and there are substantial outstanding issues:
  • There is a heavy reliance on primary (and self-published) source material (2a): GAs must meet WP:V and use reliable secondary sources. Just to pick a few examples at random:
    • "The following decades saw escalating turbulence engulf the university as an active movement for Filipinization and a growing awareness of the vast gulf between rich and poor grip the entire nation."
    • "Ateneans also played a vital role together with student organizations from other prominent colleges and universities as student activism rose in academe in the 1970s"
    • "The Ateneo de Manila is also home to the largest Jesuit community in the Philippines, most of whom reside at the Jesuit Residence in the Loyola Heights campus." The superlative cannot be sourced to the institution itself.
  • The article goes into unnecessary detail (3b). This is the origin of many of its problems with layout, list incorporation and an overly long lead (1b).
  • The prose is unencyclopedic in places (1a) and there are NPOV issues (4) which the reviewer did not raise but hinted at in the reliance on primary sources. In several places, the article, while informative, is promotional. In addition to the above examples, the Social Initiatives section has "The Ateneo has grounded its vision and mission in Jesuit educational tradition." This, and the entire final paragraph of the section, is marketing, not encyclopedic prose.
• In summary, I think this reassessment can be closed straightforwardly as Endorse delist, so that the article can be renominated when editors have time to work on it. Geometry guy 22:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Delisting. Although the article is quite nice, it has some issues which need to be addressed before it's ready for re-listing. My biggest concern is the reliance on university sources (2a); I lost count of the the number of times the article cites such references. There are also minor MoS concerns and unnecessary detail, as outlined in the GAR. With a modest amount of work the article can be brought back to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]