From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleUniversity of Houston was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 11, 2006 Good article nomineeNot listed
October 21, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
November 29, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
January 10, 2023 Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

University of Houston

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted as failing criterion 2; lengthy reworking needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

2007 listing not up to standard, with many unsourced paragraphs, possibly verging on OR. On a related note, the university has many sub-articles which may fail WP:NFACULTY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delist - Yeaaaah, this article is really bad. Doubt anyone will go out of their way to save this. Even if they do, it would likely take a very long time, longer than what GAR should go for. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 22:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Delist. Fails criteria 2b, University_of_Houston#Campus's campus layout section appears to be basically unsourced, so is University of Houston#Student life which has statistics such as house 1,100 students that are unsourced, this section similar has problematic unsourced statistics, including which has won 16 NCAA National Championships; the women's soccer team, which was rated as the top first-year women's program in the country in 1998. The Notable people section is additionally deficiently sourced and clearly fails criteria 2b, additionally, the article also has three valid citation needed tags. IMO this is somewhat difficult to salvage but if anyone addresses these concerns please ping me. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.