Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of California, Riverside

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:47, 26 March 2008.

University of California, Riverside edit

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)
Check external links

Nominator: Extensively revised and copy-edited by multiple parties since the last FAC. Since I haven't the patience to go through the whole MOS, I would appreciate any concrete suggestions regarding any stylistic or grammatical oversights on my part. Bring it. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments I believe they are all fixed, as there is no longer a mixing of citation types
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the extremely picky department, some of the accessed dates in the references are linked, some aren't. I'm putting it up for your notice, not that I know whether you should or not. Random sampling of some of the other college/university FAs shows they are linked on those.
    • These refs need publisher information:
      • Current footnote 24 (University of California, News and Communications "UC Enrollment Growth"
      • current number 27 (UC Riverside Athletics (1 Oct 1999) UCR Invited to Join Big West Con...)
      • 28 (U of C, Riverside Office of Strategic Communications (19 May 2006 "UC Riverside updates plan for future law school...)
      • UCR Athletic Department (11 Nov 2005) "UC Riverside Women's Soccer" (current ref # 107)
      • "Southern California Rugby Football Union (current ref #115)
      • University of California Riverside (18 Mar 2004) UC Riverside to Dedicate Amy S. Harrison Field.." (current ref #112)
      • "UCR Karateen News (current ref #116)
    • No volume or issue information for the Lovgren Stephn "Gene for Key Spider-Silk Protein Found" in National Geographic, so that if the link goes dead folks can still find the source.(current ref # 56)
    • Same for the Kahn, et. al. "The UC Riverside Citrus Variety Collection" (current ref #66)
Web links all checked out as good. Ealdgyth
  • Support - it's complete, with subpages ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I couldn't take part in improving the article as I hoped earlier, but I'm glad the article has been thoroughly reviewed and looked after. The article looks awesome. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates; this article mixes {{citation}} with cite templates, resulting in inconsistent citation style. All of the citations templates need to be converted to citet templates. I have never encountered before on any Wiki article the strange and unnecessary date linking used on accessdates here, see my sample edits. The third chart (see my inline comment) completely runs off my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. I think the problem with the date linking was, I would copy and paste the date format used in the source article, and where the links didn't turn blue immediately I would mark them up manually rather than tweak the format. I was wondering what was causing this issue, as I have done this hundreds of times and the dates would never go blue consistently. Oh well, good to know now, I guess.Ameriquedialectics 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the last FAC, I attempted to change all the "cite" templates to {{citation}} in these two edits, but somehow that caused the navboxes to display improperly. The problem isn't apparent when I view the older version of the article, which uses only the {{citation}} template. So either there was some kind of syntax error with the template at the time, or I was doing it wrong. szyslak 11:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that. Very mysterious. Must have been a template issue, I would think. Anyway, I changed all the citation templates to citet tags, and fixed all the problems with the dates, I believe. Please double check. The third chart I forked off to Diversity at the University of California, Riverside. Please let me know if there are any further issues. Thanks,Ameriquedialectics 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment - A few things:

  • In the last paragraph of the lead the final two sentences start with "In 2006/2007".
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you have the Regents shortened to UC Regents, in the history you have their full title. Shouldn't it be reversed?
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be explained further, it seems to have been just dropped into the paragraph. "However, after Riverside's Mayor Lewis asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the south coast air basin a disaster area in 1973, Riverside became famous for its smog and subsequent student enrollment declined significantly." Why was it a disaster area, are you saying pollution caused this?
This is explained in greater detail in the History article, but basically Hinderaker, the campus chancellor during the period, in an 1998 interview blamed sensationalized news reports of air pollution in Riverside for the decline in student enrollment during the 1970s. I attributed the info to Hinderaker's interview. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same with this "Poor gate receipts forced Hinderaker to terminate UCR's two-time California Collegiate Athletic Association (CCAA) championship football team in 1975, but the development of innovative programs in business administration and biomedical sciences created incentive for students to enroll at Riverside and kept the campus open." I think you are trying to say as a result of the declaration enrollment/money dropped. But it is very choppy, you go from disaster area to poor gate receipts.
I removed this from history, as there is a mention of it in the athletics section. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1995, underrepresented minorities constituted 25.2 percent of the UCR student body, the highest proportion of any UC campus at the time." This could be written better. Maybe made up, accounted for? Also, who were these minorities, blacks, whites, Hispanics?
Fact checked and fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this needs a citation. "With UCR scheduled for dramatic population growth, efforts have been made to increase its popular and academic recognition". Who says it is in for population growth?
The Regents, but I can provide a ref for that. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the 90s references like this. I think 1990's should be used instead.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first phase of a new Commons was recently completed in 2007. Remove recent.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regents are overlinked. A number of sections have the regents mentioned and linked.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UCR was the first college in California to open a staffed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) resource center in 1993, the first UC campus to offer a LGBT minor studies program in 1996, and the first campus in the nation to offer a gender-neutral housing option in 2005." Needs supporting citation for each claim.
The single reference used lists all the claims. Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I missed the citation for these in the next sentence. You might want to consider adding the cite to this sentence as well. These are huge claims that shout for a citation. KnightLago (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The university recently bought a nearby apartment complex for student housing." When?
2007. Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The soccer field was recently resurfaced with artificial turf, but the track field remains run-down." When? I see you say the track is run-down, but the citation for this is in the next sentence. I would add the cite to this sentence as well.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Famous alumni" would be better as notable alumni.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More recently graduated alumni include" could be phrased better.
Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why is this semi-pro until April 18? Does it really need that long? I saw a little vandalism on one day and then protection for more than a month. Is this really necessary?
Explained below. Ameriquedialectics 22:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the article I read very little negative information. Has there never been any controversy, criticism, etc.? Also, there are a lot of references back to the school. I would try and add more outside sources in place of some of the in-house sources you have. KnightLago (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding negative information, information regarded as negative has been presented, to the extent possible, impartially. Information generally regarded as negative includes the effect of smog on enrollment and campus development in the 1970s, (covered in history) UCR's student admissions selectivity and status as a referral school for applicants denied access to other campuses in the UC system, (covered in history and admissions) the PR survey designating UCR 11th in terms of "least happy students," (covered in "student life") as well as the poor condition of the track field, all of which are given appropriate weight, in my opinion. A controversy not on this page, which is discussed in the history article, is the faculty diversity ratio, which I was thinking of including in this article but I am not sure where to put it. Beyond that, the men's basketball team sucks, and before they got a new coach there was controversy over how that program has been administered, but I don't think it's relevant.
I will work on those other issues. The article is under long-term semi-protection because of this guy: User:SummerThunder. He generally comes back within a few hours of unprotecting it. Thanks for your comments, Ameriquedialectics 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I normally ask the negative question to see if the writers have thought about it and included everything they should have. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help or if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: outside sources, I've gone outside of the school to the extent possible on a lot of this... there are precious few third-party publications about UCR. More references link back to the school because the university hosts copies of articles mentioning it in the media, so whenever a link to an outside source goes dead i can usually find a copy located here:[1] Ameriquedialectics 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you took care of all my concerns. Good job. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. KnightLago (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many Comments Nice article. Am looking for nitpicks.
  • This jumps out: Info in the WP:LEAD about diversity and economic disparity is less notable than corresponding info presented in the body text. Suggest ditching the bit in the lead comparing Riverside to other UC schools, and use instead USNWR info about "third most ethnically diverse" and "15th most economically diverse student body in the nation" Ling.Nut (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if you mean the body of text in that paragraph in the lead or the body of text re: admissions, enrollment and retention in "the body," but both sections cover that info. (Nevermind, I figured out what what you meant, added to the lead.) UCR's diversity is largely a function its admission standards vis a vis the other UC schools and the fact that UCR graduates an equal proportion of students without regards to economic disparity is about the most notable thing about the university from some perspectives: [2] Ameriquedialectics 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article text states "...The Highlander's reporting has brought it into conflict with certain representatives of student government" The cited source spells this out more clearly: "Students, organizations, coalitions, and ASUCR senators, for the past three years, have described the Highlander student paper, specifically its staff, and its content, racist, sexist, homophobic, and perpetrators of criminalized notions of communities of color as well as being responsible for endangering the lives of womyn of color." Whoa, that level of detail kinda got passed over in the article. Leaving it out raises some flags about boosterism etc. in my mind. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's overblown rhetoric put forth by a student government faction in retaliation for critical reporting. The Highlander paper went off-line sometime in 2006, but from what I remember reading of the incident leading to these charges, representatives of a militant group wanted ASUCR to pay for a private "safe-house" and a non-UCPD affiliated security detail for women of color, and openly called people who opposed this idea racial slurs at an ASUCR meeting. The Highlander published photographs of the activists along with a extremely critical account of ASUCR's handling of the meeting the next day; the newspapers were stolen, and this move to redistribute the Highlander's referendum funds was proposed on the part of ASUCR senators sympathetic to the militants. The only reference i can find to this episode today is this [3]; racial turmoil on the campus seems to have died down since the individuals involved graduated or otherwise moved on, or at least I don't recall the Highlander having published any stories on further incidents from 2004-2006. During 2003, they also published a racially-offensive editorial cartoon about the English-speaking capacities of Asian GSAs and used to publish UCPD sketches of suspected criminals on campus, but I haven't seen or heard anything in print outside the Highlander regarding this, so I hardly think the charges are notable. (Found a solid ref for this. Seems 2003 was a bad year for the Highlander.) Saying there was conflict between a faction of ASUCR and the Highlander that resulted in a certain action is hardly boosterism, and is about the most NPOV way of approaching the matter without appearing to take a side. Ameriquedialectics 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've made what I would consider further improvements to the passage. Previously, it read:

Since then, The Highlander's racially-insensitive reporting has brought it into conflict with the larger communty as well as certain representatives of student government, leading to a stolen run of papers and an unsuccessful proposal to redistribute the referendum funds to other student publications in 2003.

In this edit, I edited the passage to be more concrete about what is meant by "racial [insensitivity]":

Since then, several representatives of student government, along with the larger UCR community, have criticized The Highlander for publishing racially-insensitive content, including a cartoon that depicted a stereotypical Asian American graduate teaching assistant with poor English skills.[citation re: cartoon moved here] This led to a stolen run of papers and an unsuccessful proposal to redistribute the referendum funds to other student publications in 2003.

This doesn't presuppose the truth about allegations of racial insensitivity, and at the same time doesn't sidestep the issue, which led to significant controversy on campus. szyslak (t) 07:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a lot of student papers have racial sensitivity issues, and the Asian cartoon was only one of several incidents leading to the stolen run of papers and the referendum proposal in 2003. (Which I assume was killed in the student senate, as it was never put to a popular student vote.) I would say the second clause in that first line "...including a cartoon that depicted a stereotypical Asian American graduate teaching assistant with poor English skills," is probably unnecessary. There were a host of issues with the Highlander at that time, and as that event wasn't specifically mentioned in the referendum proposal text, it probably wasn't the reason the newspapers were stolen the day after that senate meeting. I won't contest keeping it in, however. (Addendum: Not that the two necessarily have anything to do with each other; I think the proposal and the stolen papers were outcomes of the disrupted senate meeting primarily, rather than the Asian cartoon specifically.) Ameriquedialectics 00:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 74 links to the front page of the UCR/California Museum of Photography website. Not sure how this relates to article text, and the website is not searchable. Can link to a subpage, or delete note? Ling.Nut (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a way to link back to the pages I found the specific information at. Will delete the website footnote and edit to reflect the less-specific information in the newspaper reference. Ameriquedialectics 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Carillon Tower..is its name officially the Carillon Tower, Carillon Bell Tower or the Bell Tower? Note that a Carillon is a musical instrument and should be wikilinked. Moreover, if the word carillon is not in the Tower's name, the text should be reworded to clarify that. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of freshman admits...". I looked up "admit" online at Wiktionary, Encarta, Compact Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. I didn't find this noun form. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main campus sits on 1,200 acres (486 ha)...". WP:UNITS states that "Measurements should be accompanied by a proper citation of the source..." I dunno if you wanna make an argument based on WP:IAR that these cites would clutter up the page... Ling.Nut (talk)
  • "UCR's Karate Club is internationally known..." Source doesn't mention/support this assertion. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: "Some of the world's most important research collections on citrus diversity and entomology, as well as photography, are located at Riverside". OK I found verification for putting citrus diversity and photography as "world's most...", but not for entomology. I assume the assertion is true, so please make the statement and its verification more explicit in the body text. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Regional enrollment, 2007" table drags the whole page off to the right... requiring the use of horizontal scroll to read the table. I'm not sure how to address this. If you place the table below its mate to its left, you eat up vertical real estate instead of horizontal. If you delete the table... would that be a good idea?... you're deleting some info that may or may not be considered useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what browser you're using? I use Mozilla, and the tables format automatically depending on what the window size is. I was thinking of getting rid of the diversity tables altogether as more complete statistical tables are already provided at the "Diversity at UCR" article. Actually, I'll just do this. Ameriquedialectics 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A problem that is perhaps more important than its size would suggest: the second chancellor was Ivan Hinderaker not Irvin Hinderaker. Normally I would just {{sofixit}}, but this seems like something you should know for future reference. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the first campus in the nation to offer a gender-neutral housing" might go in the WP:LEAD, too. I mean, you don't want the lead too large, but "first in the nation" is pretty notable. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discrepancies: "Riverside State Assemblyman John Babbage drafted Senate Bill 512 allocating $6 million for the project.[15] Governor Earl Warren signed the bill in 1949 after reducing its initial allocation to $2 million." The sources provided don't support this version. The first source is a timeline which states that Governor Warren earmarked $2 million on April 21, 1948, and later (Aug. 1, 1949) signed a bill to appropriate nearly $6 million. [Note the sum went up, not down, and Babbage is not mentioned]. Eventually the project would cost $6.5 million (see July 30, 1952). Babbage is mentioned at this point, but only as the third of three people "instrumental in shepherding the legislation through Congress". The second source only mentions the 1948 signing of the $2 million bill. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I initially wrote this for the UCR history article, I was going by Judge Gabbert's interview [4] I later found those other sources but didn't collate them... I suppose they are more likely to be right, will edit the text to reflect them. Ameriquedialectics 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to be a sourpuss, but to me it seems that UCR's role as a referral school, and its last-place position among the UC schools in the USNWR rankings, is a bit underplayed—even though the former fact is at least mentioned. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some referral information I can make something out of here.[5] There's a ranking table on the main University of California#Campuses_and_rankings page detailing the standings of respective UC's; I don't see the need to point out UCR's standing as "last place" among UCs in US News, unless we also want to mention that this position ties them with the University of Vermont, University of Arizona, and UMass—Amherst, among other universities, but i frankly don't think the rankings are that important. Ameriquedialectics 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep getting tripped up by "then-dean". Maybe it's OK. I dunno. It just keeps distracting me. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discrepancies. Puzzled. Needs verifiable research: "According to a 1998 interview with Hinderaker, Riverside became famous for smog after Riverside's Mayor Lewis asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the south coast air basin a disaster area in 1973". The Hinderaker interview never actually mentions 1973 as the date of the mayor's request to declare the city a disaster area. Wikipedia articles—perhaps copying from each other—seem to be of one voice dating the event to '73. The interview does mention news articles dated prior to 1973 about Riverside's smog problem, but perhaps those articles predated the mayor's request (?). However, this 50th Anniversary Timeline dates the request by Riverside's mayor to Nov. 14, 1971— two years prior to Wikipedia's favored date...
  • While we're on this topic, "became famous for" seems to be unencyclopedic wording. Perhaps "UCR was the subject of negative press coverage across the US for its..." Ling.Nut (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UCR itself, to my knowledge, has never been the subject of negative press coverage for the smog issue, the city was, and enrollment declines at the university were blamed on the coverage the city got. Ameriquedialectics 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're still on the subject, "significantly" is kinduva weasel word in "...causing subsequent student enrollments to decline significantly". The Hinderaker interview gives some specific figures that could be (verified and?) cited. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discrepancy: "By 1995, African American, American Indian, and Latino student enrollments accounted for 30 percent of the UCR student body" The source cited states that "Proportional representation ... ranged from 25.2 percent of total applications at UC Riverside..." Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's 25.2 percent of applications, the student body enrollment was fully 30 percent minorities by 1995 per the same text (p21). Ameriquedialectics 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date for source requested: "With UCR scheduled for dramatic population growth..." First of all, I would use "projected" rather than "scheduled": "With dramatic population growth projected for UCR...". But... perhaps more importantly... the press release used as a source is undated, leaving me uncertain whether these are.. still projections.. or whether events have caught up with the source text. If that's true, these can no longer be referred to as projections in any ongoing sense. The text of the press release makes it seem to me that it could date from no later than 2004, and perhaps much earlier. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-sourced this statement to the 2005 LRDP. The intro to that covers it adequately. Thanks for your comments. Ameriquedialectics 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Much improved. In some ways, it's well written, but there's a problem in the integration of ideas into some of the sentences; and a few other glitches need fixing, too. Here are random examples from the top. The whole article needs treatment.

  • "$730 million dollars have been invested"—each single one of them? And why $ and dollars?
  • Good catch; this was a recurrent problem in the first round of FAC, and I thought I'd caught them all. Fixed. szyslak (t) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify: "Plans are underway to open a medical school—California's first new one in 40 years—at UCR by 2012." --> "Plans are underway at UCR to open California's first new medical school in 40 years by 2012."
  • Comment for Tony' The text originally read as you request. I dislike that version, as it prefers simplicity over clarity. The sentence is amibiguous: does "in 40 years" refer back to "open" or to "first new"? Sure, the meaning can be worked out. By why place the additional cognitive load on readers (many of whom are non-native speakers, I must add)? The cost of a pair of emdashes is worth the benefit of zero ambiguity. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no preference on this. Ameriquedialectics 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the version with the em dashes, mostly because it reduces ambiguity. (In fact, the em-dash phrasing might've been my idea.) Maybe we can remove the phrase "at UCR"; why would an article about UCR discuss an in-progress medical school elsewhere? szyslak (t) 10:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • False contrast? "While it is among the least selective of UC campuses, it is also the most ethnically and economically diverse of all the UCs, and graduates nearly two-thirds of all students within six years, without regards to economic disparity." I'd have thought the association between a lack of selectivity and ethnic and economic diversity were not surprising. Why is this jammed in with the six-year graduation point? Hard to position it (is six years prompt, too?).
  • "UCR was the first campus in the nation to offer a gender-neutral housing option in 2005, and its extensive outreach and retention programs have led it to become known as a "campus of choice" for minority students."—I'm thinking hard: the gender-neutral housing does have something to do with the outreach and retention programs, I know it, but it's still unclear. And some women would take issue with their categorisation as a "minority": 51% seems like a majority to them. Please make it straight-sailing to read. Also: "... and have contributed to its reputation as a "campus ...".
  • Tried to make the reference to LGBT student programs more clearly a part of UCR's general outreach and retention programs. The reference to gender-neutral wasn't a reference to women specifically... there is not currently an article on gender neutrality in a social sense on en.wiki, however, and the concept probably isn't adequately defined in the real world either, so UCR really is pioneering in this regard. Ameriquedialectics 21:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their nickname was inspired by the elevation of the campus, which lies on the foothills of Box Springs Mountain."—My mind was assuming "elevation to the top-rank of sports ...."; then I had to re-run it when I realised you meant "altitude".
  • Fixed. I also changed another instance of "elevation" to "altitude". szyslak (t) 05:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The UCR women's basketball team represented the conference in the 2006 and 2007 Division I tournament, but lost both times in the first round. In 2007, the men's baseball team won its first conference championship and advanced to the regionals for the second time since the university moved to Division I in 2001." "But" is not logical, and I'd want to avoid the negativity in any case in the lead. Why not put the details in the main text below? Tony (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely enough, I was in the middle of copyediting this article when Raul654 failed the first FAC discussion, and I never got around to finishing. I'll give it another run-through. Hopefully, the same thing won't happen again. :) szyslak (t) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Ameriquedialectics 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've just finished a thorough copyedit, which should take care of any remaining prose issues. If not, please feel free to let us know. I also did a lot of prose-realted work in January, during this article's last FAC discussion, when it wasn't close to ready from a copyediting standpoint. Not that I take full credit for this article's writing quality; many, many other users have helped tremendously. That said, this is simply an excellent article: it's well-researched and extremely comprehensive, with a clear, logical article structure. Overall, this article is more than ready for featured status right now. (And I mean now, not "when this or that is fixed".) I'd say "support" rather than "comment", but I feel my prose work has made me a bit too close to this article. I have a fairly large number of edits, but aside from my copyedits most of them either stem from a long-resolved POV dispute stemming from the edits of two users who departed a while ago, or are reverts of banned user SummerThunder (as Amerique described above). I think everyone involved with this article deserves credit for all their excellent work on an article that isn't easy to write. szyslak (t) 02:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/University_of_California,_Riverside&oldid=1126595811"