Talk:Helmut Schmidt University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Helmut Schmidt University was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 19, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Helmut Schmidt University article.
Article policies
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
A fact from Helmut Schmidt University appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 7, 2007.
Wikipedia

[edit] 4 faculty?

I think there was a misunderstanding of the meaning of "faculty." There are indeed four departments ("faculties"), but "faculty" in the infobox refers to the number of professors/teachers. I don't know how many profs are actually at Helmut Schmidt University (I haven't heard of it before), and I can't find the actual number of professors on the website (at least not in English, and I don't speak a lick of German). Could somebody find the actual number of professors and correct it? Meanwhile, I'm changing the number of faculty on the infobox. Lockesdonkey 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the German source was too verbose, but they very openly displayed that it had 4 faculties. Maybe in Germany, faculties are study courses? Look at the website if you want more proof. Under the faculties heading, they have the four courses of study. Anonymous Dissident Utter 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Hello there AD. Congrats on the RFA. Okay here is the DL. Great prose and it follows WP:MOS quite well. However, this article needs some work. First of all there is not enough information. Especially, in the entire history section. Second, There is a overall lack of sources, granted it does have some, but not really enough. Finally, and the real biggy, 8 out of the 10 notes are not exactly WP:RS. Need to get some 3rd party in there. Can't wait to see the final product. Any questions, feel free to ask. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will try and work on it. Thanks for the review. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is little in the way of references to be done I am afraid. I suppose that this does not therefore meet the criteria. Oh well - maybe I will resubmit if I can locate some better refs. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but in the condition it is in, I have to fail it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 21:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)