Talk:Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Location of page
Is "Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education" a term in regular use nowadays? I've seen past documents that use the "QAAHE" acronym, but I only ever hear of the body as "Quality Assurance Agency" or "QAA" - would moving the page to Quality Assurance Agency be a good move? Timrollpickering 03:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Madmedea 11:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC) 'Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education' is the correct title of the organisation so I think its best to stick with it for the article name and keep the redirects from 'Quality Assurance Agency' and 'QAA' - although I agree that these are both used in common parlance they would be misleading as an entry in an encyclopaedia.
Ginevradabenci (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Madmedea is correct. It's slightly inconsistent, but the correct title is 'Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education' and the correct abbreviation is 'QAA'. These are the norms currently adopted by the organisation itself.
With reference to the note above indicating that I have a connection with the organization, this is true - I mentioned this because Wikipedia guidelines request editors to do this. However, it doesn't follow that my edits are biased. I have made an effort to keep the article strictly factual. Wikipedia was requesting inline citations, so I have provided links to pages on QAA's website that confirm much of the information provided. I should point out that QAA is a registered charity operating in the public interest, and is not a commercial organisation. It does have a commercial arm, QAA Enterprises, which contributes to its charitable aims, but you will notice that I have not 'plugged' any QAA Enterprises products or events in editing this article. (I think it's a bit Quixotic of Wikipedia to have such a strong objection to editing by people connected with an organisation, since they are best placed to provide accurate information.)
Anyway, I have done what I can. If anybody reading this is able and willing to verify that the article is balanced and accurate, that would be great. Thanks. If you can find external citations for the information, so much the better, but this is quite a specialist area; the QAA website is, I think, the most detailed source. You could try https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-innovation-skills. Finally, having checked the article it would be great if you could remove the negative warning. Over to you - thanks.
adding full citations
For this citation (below), archived article cannot be viewed without a subscription to the online journal. Archived article was not accessed, however a Google search for the article title led me to identify the date the article was originally published. The link to the archive page is provided here.
Garner, Richard (June 17, 2008). = not av%5b%5bUser:Datdyat|Datdyat%5d%5d (%5b%5bUser talk:Datdyat|talk%5d%5d) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)ailable "Lecturers Pressed to Boost Degree Results". The Independent. independent.co.uk. Retrieved June 3, 2013. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help); Check |archiveurl= value (help)
Request edit on 12 March 2014
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Ginevradabenci (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Please could you reconsider the classification of this article. It is not a stub. I would think, according to your criteria, and taking into account the issues flagged up, that it should merit a B rating. I have done my best to make it accurate and well referenced, but because I was honest and declared a connection to the organisation, warnings about bias have been appended to the article. As someone with a potential 'conflict of interest' I can't resolve this, so it's over to the Wikipedia community. Thanks
- Ginevradabenci: I gave this article a "C" rating. A very cursory review shows that several portions are still unreferenced, including "Higher education review work", "The Dearing Report and its legacy", and "The Browne Report and its legacy". You are right, though, that this article is certainly not a stub. - tucoxn\talk 22:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)