Talk:Johns Hopkins University/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a read through this article and it piqued my interest about the history behind it. Since it's up for a GA review, I think I can cater for that.

The copyright checker reports an 86% possibility of being a copy of this source. Unless you can prove that this is a public domain or otherwise suitable free licence, the article is at risk of being deleted due to copyright problems. Even if it were a free source, it is unlikely that the material can be directly copied and still fit Wikipedia's manual of style or generally accepted prose format.

I think the lead is a little too long for the article, which is only 31K of prose. You probably want to be looking at no more than three paragraphs.
"is considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world" - I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of what the source actually says
The opening paragraph copies too much from the original source to the extent it should be considered a copyright violation.
The first sentence in the second paragraph is awkward. I would go with something like "The university was the first research-oriented one in the United States....." Also, the start of this sentence is not verified by the citation given (though since this the lead, this is less important than the body)
"Johns Hopkins is also ranked #12 in the U.S. News and World Report undergraduate program rankings for 2014" - this date has a citation error on it

Comments on the body will follow.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"bequeathed $7 million" - the source given says $8 million
"(between $140 million to $1.6 billion in 2011 dollars, by varying estimates)" - I'd personally recommend using one of the {{inflation}} templates to give an accurate figure that will not go out of date
"The first name of philanthropist Johns Hopkins is the surname of his great-grandmother, Margaret Johns, who married Gerard Hopkins. They named their son Johns Hopkins, who named his own son Samuel Hopkins. Samuel named one of his sons after his father and that son would be the university's benefactor." - this information is not in the source at the end of the paragraph, and hence is not verifiable
The last paragraph in this section is unsourced

"and James B. Angell of Michigan" - I can't find a mention of this name in the source at the end of the paragraph
The rest of this section is unsourced

I think you need a comma between "In the early 20th century" and "the university outgrew its buildings"
The vast majority of this section in unsourced

"Notably, a planned 88-acre expansion to the medical campus is well underway as of 2013". The "notably" is redundant. Also, this sentence is out of date, presumably the extension to the medical campus has now been completed
"the reconstruction of the main university entrance is currently underway and expected to be completed by the end of 2014" - same problem, it is the end of 2014 now, so presumably a source giving an update is available?
"From 1999 until 2007, these disciplines had been joined together within the School of Professional Studies in Business and Education (SPSBE), itself a reshuffling of several earlier ventures." - I can't see this claim in the source given

"The trustees denied her (Christine Ladd-Franklin) the degree for decades and refused to change the policy about admitting women" - this doesn't seem grammatically correct.
"The decision to admit women at undergraduate level was not considered until the late 1960s and was eventually adopted in October 1969" - this claim should have an inline cite to the Hopkins magazine source, as per the claims earlier in this section

The second half of this section is unsourced
"Carroll's Homewood House is considered one of the finest examples of Federal residential architecture." this is POV and should be toned down

I'm afraid I can't continue with the review further, as there are just too many problems with verifiability. The article looks reasonably complete, covering all areas of the university from its inception through to its faculties, student life and reputation, and seems to be a reasonable introduction to the place - but there are too many facts and figures in the article that can't be checked by a third party. And unfortunately, that's a showstopper for a GA. The copyright violations are also a cause for concern. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]