Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Green (Dartmouth College)

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 03:02, 26 November 2007.

---

The Green (Dartmouth College)

A self-nomination -- I wrote virtually this entire article a while ago. I think it's well-organized, beautifully illustrated with entirely free images, rigorously cited, and as far as I can tell, in conformity with MoS guidelines.

Allow me to preempt what I anticipate as the main objection: I realize that this article is considerably shorter than most FA candidates. However, there's only so much you can say about an open expanse of grass, and I believe that while short, it easily covers all possible aspects of the subject in appropriate detail; that is, it is comprehensive enough to satisfy criteria 1b and 4.

Of course, one's own work is often regarded with a disproportionately favorable eye, so please let me know what I may have missed with regards to meeting the FA criteria. I intend to address all concerns in hopes of seeing this promoted. Thanks! Kane5187 06:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: I commendable article. I never knew so much could be said about a stretch of grass. Perhaps some Dutch guy should turn nl:Malieveld into a featured article...
  • "See also" should come before the references according to the Annotated article (I'm sure several featured articles will back it up too).
    • Addressed: [1]. Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "and is the only creation of the eighteenth century remaining at the center of the campus." What other structures used to be at the center of the campus?
    • Well, dozens of buildings now bulldozed, I imagine. I mean, do you want them listed out, or the sentence clarified? Hanover was a frontier town, inhabited since about 1750, so there were lots of original structures that no longer exist. I guess I don't really know what you're asking me to do with this sentence. Kane5187 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "five-acre (2-hectare)" Should probably be rewritten to accomodate {{convert}}. At the very least you need consistency, either spell out or use the number. The same goes for feet/meters (first instances of a unit should be linked).
    • Addressed: [2][3]. I tried to use {{convert}} (that's a cool tool -- I didn't know about it), but I couldn't get the syntax right, so I just did it manually. Per WP:MOS#Numbers, the standard is that <10, you spell it out, >10, you write the digits, and that's what I've done (meaning "30 feet (nine meters)" -- an inconsistency). Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "It is crossed by seven gravel walking paths, bisected by three running southwest to northeast, northwest to southeast, and east to west, respectively." As it is written now, it says that the 7 gravel paths are disected by more paths. Probably not what you intended.
    • Addressed: [4]. Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the green perfectly north-south aligned? You talk about it like it is, but it could be the result of the orientation of the picture/map.
    • Yes -- if not perfectly, almost so; the map was drawn with north being directly up. I've uploaded a version of the map with a small legend indicating north [5]. Since the legend had to kind of be squeezed in, I've also made explicit reference to the orientation in the caption [6]. Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "in favor of divestment from South Africa" Not sure how the word divestment fitst here, even after reading its meaning.
    • Addressed: [7]. Perhaps it wasn't clear, the idea was to force the College to divest its holdings from any South African companies, thereby ending any implicit support for Apartheid. At any rate, the details don't really need spelling out so much (the idea is where the protest took place, not its nuances), so I've just simplified it to "protest of Apartheid". Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • In rereading it, I feel like leaving out the precise point of the protest is somewhat misleading, so I've restored the mention of divestment. I made a point to make it clearer, though, what the divestment was from and why. Let me know if it needs more clarity. Kane5187 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Green Key chariot races? I'd love to see an article about those.
    • Haha, maybe next year...in the meantime, I've just wikilinked Chariot racing for you [8]. Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

- Mgm|^(talk) 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! Kane5187 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support Well-written article and the images are beautiful. Karanacs 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

*Comment I think that the article is very well-written and comprehensive. My only concern is that there might be too many images (but they have been reduced by half since my first comment). I can't make up my mind on whether or not there are too many and so can't support or oppose right now. Karanacs 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC) This is very, very close. Three issues that I saw

• • So it is only the gallery, or the images in the text of the article in general? Either way, I'd be willing to cut them down (either by just removing the gallery, or by also taking out one or two of the embedded images). There's a number more that aren't even in the gallery at the {{commons}} link, which should cover it. Kane5187 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One instance of a measurement (acres) that is not converted to metric
    • Addressed: [9]. Kane5187 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I would move the (see List of Dartmouth College Buildings) to a see also section rather than be in the body of the article
    • Addressed: [10]. Rather than putting it in the "See also," I footnoted it, because it's only relevant as a "See also" with regards to that statement. Kane5187 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Galleries are frowned on in articles. Per WP:IMAGE "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." -- Galleries, unfortunately, don't have relevant text.
    • Would you prefer I remove it? I've included it because the Green is an extremely hard thing to illustrate accurately -- you just can't get a single representative photo of it from any position, so I've tried to include a number of them so that looking at them all gives a sense of it. With regards to the historical images, I can certainly see how they're not particularly relevant, but some (e.g. the bonfire, modern Senior Fence picture) illustrate things mentioned earlier on. I'd be happy to cut it in half, and if you really feel strongly remove it entirely, but I feel like doing so would cause the article to lose a significant amount of its explanatory and illustrative value. Kane5187 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, WP:IMAGE is neither a guideline nor policy. WP:MOS#Images actually suggests galleries if there are too many images. Kane5187 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs 15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I had never heard of The Green before I read the article, and I thought the embedded pictures did a wonderful job of illustrating it. The only picture in the gallery that I feel is necessary to the article is the first one, with the view of the entire green from the tower. Other than that, I think the others do not add a lot of value, and 17 images in a relatively short article is overkill. Karanacs 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay. Per your edit summary, I'll wait to see how others feel about the gallery, and cut it down or out if necessary. (I've also added {{commons}} to the bottom.) Kane5187 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• You have put in the commons link, but you haven't created a gallery page on the commons with the relevant images. I think having a gallery is justified here. There's not enough room to post relevant images like the bonfire and the image from the tower all in the text. A gallery is indeed preferred over overkill inclusion. Would you consider swapping the current top image of the article with the one taken from the tower? The latter gives a much better overview of the place. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, you're right. Sorry, I only just stumbled across the {{commons}} tag. I've created the gallery at the Commons. I also swapped out the images - you're right, the tower image offers a better overall idea of the subject. Kane5187 17:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't checked the MOS, but I think where the 'write the full number' is concerned, non-whole numbers are excused as they are harder to read when they're written out. (I'm referring to 'seven and a half'. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right. Changed: [11]. Kane5187 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Huzzah! A great article from what I have had time to read.--Xtreambar 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think you've got all your bases covered. What is your next GA/FA project gonna be? Is it gonna be as interesting as this one? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support and suggestions for improvement. You don't have to find this article "interesting," but with all respect, I don't appreciate your repeated sarcastic comments about it. (Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted them; it's hard to tell online.) Kane5187 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment FA status is supposed to be independent of notability, so I won't oppose. But the subject doesn't seem notable. Nearly every one of the sources is from the university or one of its student publications. There appear to be two independent sources, a Washington Post blog and The New York Times, the latter of which only talks about Dartmouth traditions and doesn't mention the Green. Although a well-written article, I have doubts as to whether it would survive a deletion discussion. 17Drew 03:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply It's characterized as a fundamentally important and historic part of a major American university. I readily agree that most of the sources are Dartmouth-centric, but I think that's to be expected with any particularly focused aspect of a relatively insular part of culture. What's more important, I feel, is that such a variety of sources feel it necessary to cover the subject in such detail -- I submit that if this article weren't notable, no one would have bothered to publish all this information about the Green. Besides, being published by Dartmouth sources isn't really the spirit of the idea behind independent sources -- that's meant to exclude an individual or company's own website from backing up its article. The sources here are associated with Dartmouth but they aren't the Green itself. I can think of dozens of buildings on campus that aren't notable, and for which articles simply couldn't be written because of the dearth of sources.
  • Example: Dartmo.com, one of the major sources for this article. Dartmo is independent of Dartmouth College (i.e. it's not run by the school), although its focus is on Dartmouth. Is this any different than using a book about the history of Michigan State University to source History of Michigan State University?
  • All in all, I feel that its status as a verifiably important part of an important university is enough to satisfy WP:N. For similarly important-but-insular topics, see Harvard Yard, Yale University's twelve residential colleges, Texas A&M's dozen or so traditions, Campus of Michigan State University, etc., etc. Kane5187 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    WP:NOTE defines sources that aren't independent as "works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and as you pointed out, nearly all of the sources are associated with Dartmouth. Dartmo.com appears to be a site being self-published by Scott Meacham through WordPress. As such, it looks like an unreliable source. Since inadequate sourcing is an editorial concern and not just a matter for AfD, I weakly oppose featuring this article. 17Drew 06:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    If there are two independant sources with the calibre of the Washington Post blog and The New York Times, that is enough to establish notability. Not all sources need to be independant to be reliable if the info they back up is not controversial. Also, self-published information isn't de-facto unreliable - historians and well-known authors selfpublish too. Did you check Scott Meacham's credentials? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    Except there don't appear to be. The New York Times articles mention it in passing, not asserting its notability, and one of the NYT articles doesn't even mention the Green. 17Drew 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    I feel like you're supporting an uncharitably narrow definition of "affiliated with." WP:N seeks to prohibit "advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases," which is obviously not the sort of material we're dealing with here. The inclusion of this breadth of information on a single topic is not an advertising ploy, it's the broad coverage of what is apparently a notable topic. Dartmouth has nothing to gain by repeatedly mentioning the role and history of its central architectural feature, other than accuracy and appropriate focus. Further, to get slightly nitpicky, the sources are affiliated with Dartmouth, not affiliated with the Green itself, which makes it still close but at a certain periphery. I feel like there's a big difference, and that applying this standard other articles would lead to asking the article on Fuzzballs to cite someone outside the scientific community. It would be OR/non-notable if only the discovering scientists wrote about it, but just because it's a subject contained within a certain realm does not make it not notable.

    Regarding the reliability of Dartmo.com, the site cites its own sources, it's been sourced and recommended by the College [12] [13] [14] [15] and has been cited by The New York Times [16]; Meacham worked as a professional architecture consultant [17] [18] (called an "architectural historian" by the Times [19]), wrote a master's thesis on Dartmouth's campus [20], and is the author of a forthcoming campus guide published by Princeton Architectural Press [21]. I submit that his professional background in the field makes him and his site a reliable source of expert information, that Dartmo's endorsement and usage by the U.S. paper of record and Dartmouth College constitutes as much of a peer review process as is conceivably possible (that is, they wouldn't cite him so authoritatively if his work was questionable or irelevant). Kane5187 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    See also: "Hanover's Snowy Playground" in The New York Times. Kane5187 14:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    The definition of affiliated is pretty clear. The list at WP:NOTE lists those as examples of poor sources; it's not exclusive by any means. Were this topic not marginally notable, then there would be multiple publications unaffiliated with Dartmouth that had written about it. Your Fuzzballs analogy is inaccurate. It would not be notable if there weren't coverage independent of the person/people who developed the theory. Because there is coverage of it, it isn't a non-notable fringe theory. Similarly, this article needs sources other than Dartmouth to establish why this is a notable topic. You're right that Dartmo is reliable, but this article still does not seem to have significant coverage from multiple independent sources. My recommendation would probably be to create a Campus of Dartmouth College article, possibly by expanding the scope of List of Dartmouth College buildings. But discussion like this goes past whether or not this article meets the featured article criteria, which is why I'm only weakly opposing the article and strongly recommending that there be a deletion discussion to determine if it should be deleted, merged, or what have you. 17Drew 23:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

    My point is that all the items in that list (exclusive or not) all reflect the same element: self-promotion, which is not at play here. I guess our disagreement comes down to what "association" means, and my point is that the Dean of the College's Student Handbook, Dartmouth's Walking tour, and a Q&A site run by the Office of Public Affairs are not "associated" with the Green in the way intended by WP:N; something like a society to protect the Green, or an informational site about Dartmouth College property run by the College would be. I realize that this is a grey area, but it seems clear to me that to suggest that these sources are "affiliated" with the Green in the way WP:N speaks about it -- affiliated in such a way to have an interest in the subject's promotion -- is definitely not what we're dealing with here.

    At any rate, it's moot, because I have a solution. I see above that you've conceded the reliability of Dartmo.com, which is on record as being independent of the College, so that's one major independent source. Fortunately, Dartmo cites its own sources, and indicates at least the following (just a cursory glance, I may have missed some) as independently-published sources: Fredrick Chase (A History of Dartmouth College and the Town of Hanover to 1815. Brattleboro: Vermont Printing Co., 1928.), Francis Childs (editor, "Personages and Eccentrics." Chapter in Hanover: a bicentennial book, Hanover: University Press of New England, 1961. 263-273.), Widmayer (same volume as Childs), and William Jewett Tucker (My Generation, an Autobioraphical Interpretation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1919.)[22][23]. If you really want me to, I'll go to Dartmouth's library tomorrow, find all these volumes, confirm their contents, and cite them directly, which would easily establish multiple, independent, reliable sources. I'd like not to have to spend my time doing so, but, you know, I'll do what it takes. Kane5187 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Note: Tucker's and Lord/Chase's book were both on Google Books, so I've already added them. I'll grab the other one tomorrow, but for now, 3 = multiple. Kane5187 04:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit conflict] Well, my oppose isn't based on WP:NOTE. As I've stated, WP:NOTE is unrelated to the FAC criteria, so most of that discussion should be at a deletion discussion, which I would recommend for the article. The reason I'm also opposing FAC for the article is because WP:V says that they should rely on independent sources, and most of the information comes from Dartmouth-affiliated publications. What does seem like a good idea would be to track down those sources in some form or another. It seems very likely that there is information in those sources that Dartmo does not include. If so, then that information can be added to the article. Alternatively, there may be information from the Dartmouth-affiliated sources that is also covered by these sources. If so, then the independent sources can be cited in the article so that the amount having to be referenced to Dartmouth itself is reduced and the article can primarily rely on independent sources. 17Drew 04:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Okay, so we're dealing with two things here. Let's break it down:

    Notability and possible deletion: Is this not resolved now? I've provided multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage of the subject. I thought that was your only objection to its notability. No good?

    Proper sourcing: Actually, most of this article comes from Dartmo (and, now, the sources that Dartmo cites), which I thought we had established as an independent source. (It is, according to the College: [24]. The only connection, therefore, is that Meacham is an alumnus.)

    Even if Dartmo was not an independent source, WP:V says principally that reliable sources are most important. Non-third-party sources (again, not that I accept your characterization of them as such) are not impermissible so long as the criteria for having the article in the first place are met (above); WP:V doesn't say a thing about "affiliation," that's only in WP:N. And even if all these sources were "self-published," they meet the criteria at WP:SELFPUB for inclusion. Kane5187 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Per WP:RS: "Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added). I should think that official Dartmouth sources as well as fact-checking student newspapers should be regarded as meeting the latter criteria, even if they aren't "third-party". And official Dartmouth sources/student newspapers make up pretty much the rest of the article not covered by Dartmo and other independent sources. Kane5187 05:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, notability has been well asserted for the article. WP:V states which kinds of sources may be used, but also specifies that although non-independent sources may be used, articles should rely on third-party sources. The article still appears to rely heavily on affiliated sources, which is why I weakly oppose promoting the article. The kind of improvement I'm saying should be made is ones like this. 17Drew 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

    First: you're importing the term "affiliated" from WP:N, which is a lot broader than "third party," which is the only term that WP:V and WP:RS use.

    Second: These ARE third-party articles. The Dartmouth isn't affiliated with the Green. The Dartmouth Free Press isn't affiliated with the Green. "Ask Dartmouth," the Q&A site run by the Office of Public Affairs, isn't affiliated with the Green. They're affiliated with Dartmouth, which in turn owns the Green. That's two degrees of separation, not one.

    Third: Even Dartmouth itself is a third party to the subject of the Green, because it isn't the Green itself. Regarding the vague definition of "third-party" at WP:V, I think it's worth noting that the only examples WP:V gives of "questionable" sources are those "with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight" and self-published sources. It doesn't address the definition specifically, but I think it's implicitly clear that "third-party" is meant to cover sources which are not "self-published." The sources used here are clearly not self-published, and they are easily considered reliable per WP:RS.

    Fourth: Please look at the article closely and follow up on which pieces of information are contained in which citations; you will find that you are incorrect with regards to how much is supported by Dartmouth-related sources. The bulk of this article is supported by Dartmo, the derivative sources cited by Dartmo, and then a handful of New York Times or Boston Globe articles. Dartmouth sources are used to cite: (1) facts that can intrinsically only be attributed to Dartmouth sources, like official policy on the current use of the Green or Dartmouth's perspective on its importance; (2) facts about specific events, like the recent May Day protest or where Commencement ceremonies are held (e.g. information that is relevant to the content of the article, but not important enough to be covered in detail in external sources). Further, for many of the Dartmouth citations, I have added non-Dartmouth sources to supplement the citations, leaving the original both for completeness and informative follow-up value for readers. Point is, this article does not rely principally on these sources. They fill in specific, detailed holes that cannot be or are not addressed in other sources. With one exception (herding the cattle into the basement), the entirety of the "Geography" and "History" sections are from non-Dartmouth sources. The overlying statements in "Uses" (that the Green is generally recreational, used for protests, and used for traditions) is dually cited between "independent" sources (like Dartmo) and clarifying/reinforcing/specifying Dartmouth-related sources; only specific examples are cited exclusively by Dartmouth sources. Overall, the general, factual information is contained in "independent" sources; Dartmouth sources are used for more specific details.

    Fifth: Your interpretation of policy (that sources related to the subject cannot be used, or at least only in small amounts) is simply not shared by the community at large. Take today's Featured Article, Girl Scouts of the USA, and check out the References section -- most of them come from the main GSUSA website, or GSUSA-related sources. No one else seems to think this is a problem; none of the supporters or opposers at its nomination discussion raised it as a concern. Why? Because the sources cited were still reliable, whether or not the GSUSA published them. Check out the FAs of any subject that is about or is closely related to a modern organization with an informational website (e.g. Duke University, Cornell University, Georgetown University, Stuyvesant High School, etc.) -- you'll find the same.

    I think it might be a good idea to open up an RfC or something similar with regards to this, because I feel that your position is very different from the demonstrated position of most other editors. MGM makes the same point below, that "affiliation" is only at play in WP:N. WP:V requires verifiable, reliable, non-self-published (I forgot, even self-published sources can be acceptable) sources, and that is what this article relies on -- exclusively. Kane5187 02:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Also, WP:NOTE only describes the notability requirements for the subject, it doesn't talk about additional sources for other information. We have the multiple independant sources WP:NOTE asks for. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  My comment was in reference to WP:SOURCES, which says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources". There are multiple independent sources, but several do not provide the significant coverage needed to assert notablity, and one doesn't even mention the Green. 17Drew 23:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• There are two different kid of sources needed. 1) Sources to assert the notability 2)sources to backup the article content. The sources in group 2 don't neccesarily belong to group 1. Discussion in WP:NOTE only refers to the 1st. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis that its acceptable.

Remark: I completely agree with the previous on evidencing notability. The point that I assume it is if the article reached this far to FAC, which really isn't far at all, as any common article may do this easily, and that is an issue. Leranedo 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support I am not a fan of this part of the lead: "...center of the Ivy League campus of Dartmouth College..." Specifically the Ivy League campus part. What does that mean? I definitely think Ivy League should be mentioned in reference to the school, but not in describing the campus itself unless talking about actual Ivy. When you go to the Ivy League article it mentions nothing about campuses, and more about sports and elitism. KnightLago 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Good point. I was just trying to communicate, as you said, that the school is an Ivy League school -- I just worded it confusingly. How's this? Kane5187 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed "the campus of" (I think this is evident) what do you think? KnightLago 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. It was rather redundant. Kane5187 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like it. I haven't been able to find anything wrong with it. Well written, exemplary pictures, nice TOC. I suspect some improvement is still possible, but it is great as it is.--Keerllston 22:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.