Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Oklahoma/archive1

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

---

University of Oklahoma

Self-nomination I started a major overhaul of this article in late May of last year and have worked hard to improve the quality of the article (it is currently a GA). I've had the help of other editors as well including three peer reviews (1, 2, and 3). The last peer review was by far the most helpful. I do not feel myself capable of "brilliant prose" so I look forward to criticism on this article so that it can be further improved and eventually an FA. I am a graduate of this school so please forgive me of any POV (I've been accused of this before). I have tried very hard to alleviate any of that and it was not much of an issue in the latest PR. The school itself is no Michigan or Duke or Cornell, but the article is very thorough and well-cited. I hope it is of FA quality, or at least close.↔NMajdan•talk 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments haven't yet read it, but referencing work is high quality, size is good. I cleaned up default info out of the refs, and removed two external jumps, but I see there are more that need to go - if you feel the external jumps are significant (they didn't appear so), they should be in External links or converted to references. Also, notables will need to be referenced. Section headings need WP:MSH attention. I hate small TOCs almost as much as I hate gynormous infoboxes - but I guess those aren't grounds for object.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you very much for your quick response Sandy. I removed a couple additional external jumps. I understand your complaint about the small TOC but I felt it was pretty lengthy and noticed this resize trick on the University of Michigan article and felt it was a good solution. If there is enough dissent about this method, I'd be more than happy to remove it. Also, could you be more specific with your issues on section headings? I read through WP:MSH and am not seeing any violations sticking out. As far at the notables section, are you wanting a ref for every person? Again, thanks for your comments.↔NMajdan•talk 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I also forgot to mention I saw some attention needed to Wikilinking - common terms like garden need not be linked. One more runthrough to make sure first occurrence of important words are linked, and common terms aren't linked may help. On the TOC - I dunno - will defer to others. Perhaps my eyes are worse than most readers here, but I blame Michigan for the proliferation of a darn thing I can't even see. Yes, notables should be ref'd - we can't ask our readers to just take our word for it. On MSH, if Health Sciences Center is it's name, then that's a proper noun - correct heading (I hadn't read article). Should Presidency be capped in Boren's Presidency ? I haven't checked WP:MOS, but I'm not sure on the italicizing of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and their Innovations in American Government program - maybe you can check. The structure of the article looks quite sound, but again, I haven't yet read it to evaluate the prose and your concern about your own POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • FYI: The P in "Boren's Presidency" shouldn't be capitalized in that context. —ExplorerCDT 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll start looking for sources for the notable section but that may take some time. I'll take a look at the other issues as well. Thank you.↔NMajdan•talk 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I was one of those who chime in with comments during the most recent Peer Review, and found Nmajdan to be very accomodating with the suggestions proffered in PR. One thing that impresses me with this article is that the photographs (almost all by Nmajdan) are quite lovely and colorful, very attractive, and several of them are indeed professional quality. The writing is pretty good, the referencing is top-notch and I think the article provides a pretty comprehensive summary of OU. Now if I can only get Nmajdan to take pictures of my alma mater, Rutgers I'd be set...hint hint. —ExplorerCDT 11:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comments/Question - Is the university officially known as "The" University of Oklahoma? I assume not, but didn't want to make the change in case it is like Ohio State University where "the" is actually part of the name. If it's not, the "The" should be deleted in the first sentence. On a quick glance, the article generally looks good. I think the image placement is kinda sloppy and the thumbnails are a bit small for my taste. I'd like to see them alternate sides and be larger. See Michigan State University for nice photos/image placement (although, admittedly, the MSU pictures do squish the text on large monitors). Also, I'd try to copyedit it a bit more. Sentences like "The university was founded in 1890" don't really follow 1a (the professional standard of writing). Also, don't link stand-alone years (e.g. 1890 in history) and also see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context (things like airfield, pharmacist, wrestling, volley shouldn't be wikilinked). That's it for now. I will try to make a more detailed look later. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your comments. I'll remove the "The" before the title as it is not known as "The University of Oklahoma." Regarding the images, I'll work on moving some to the left side. As far as size goes, it was suggested to me in a PR that I remove all the image sizes from the image and let the user's preferences decide the size.↔NMajdan•talk 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. A few things.

• First off, I personally don't like the use of "in the U.S. state of Oklahoma", and prefer complete disambig to "in Oklahoma, int he United States". minor point, admittedly.

• I really mirrored a lot of stuff from the University of Michigan article in this article as it was featured and thus a good baseline. This was on those things I took from Michigan. I can reword it if necessary.↔NMajdan•talk

• I don't think there are enough cites here for a featured article, there are quite a few uncited statements in there, and almost all of the cites are websites, whereas it would be nice to have more print cites. Also, why do athletics teams get a section where eg chess teams, debating teams etc do not?

• Not enough? 86? Also, many of my sources are available in print but also have web versions which I would think is better cause it can easily be verified. I used the OU student newspaper, The Oklahoma Daily a lot which, of course, is in print. I used a Sooner Magazine many times. It is published by the OU Foundation and has been in circulation since 1928 and luckily for me, every one of them is online as well. There are other sources I used which are available in print such as Time Magazine, The Princeton Review, and a forthcoming article from the Journal of Historical Geography.↔NMajdan•talk

• I'd be careful of statements like "153 baccalaureate programs, 152 master's programs, 75 doctorates, 20 majors at the first professional level, and 18 graduate certificates" without date qualification, because they are very quickly obsolete. For an example of those, you only have to look further down the page where Norman campus student figures are only accurate as of 2005.

• I added another ref to that statement that specifies it is as of 2006-11-15 as per the source. Also, unfortunately, 2005 data is the most up-to-date I have at this moment. You can go to this website: http://www.ou.edu/provost/ir/FB_by_yr.htm and click "2006 Factbook" and you'll notice the enrollment numbers are for Fall 2005. Hopefully, later on this year the 2006 data will be released and I'll update the article.↔NMajdan•talk

• "On October 1, 2005, OU engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III, committed suicide less than 1,500 feet (358 m) from Oklahoma Memorial Stadium where more than 84,000 spectators were attending an Oklahoma football game". Why mention the distance to the stadium or the stadium at all? If he was 358m away, there's no way he was visible from the stadium (especially since stadium seating is inward facing). I think this smells a little of melodrama (omg, he was only 358m from all those people). Also, the following statement about muslim extremism is questionable for inclusion - why suggest it only to say that it is without evidence? I wouldn't expect an article on George Bush to mention all the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories people throw at him. You are giving too much prominence to a conspiracy theory with no evidence just by mentioning it

• Well, it was quite a huge deal in the state after it happened. I didn't feel I was giving the conspiracy theory too much prominence as I only had one sentence about it. I can remove that whole paragraph if you feel it is necessary. (For the record, I was in the stadium when this happened and personally, I do believe the conspiracy theories as do most people I know. I do have first hand knowledge of some of the FBI inquiries but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.) I felt it was important to state the distance because he had a backpack bomb and it detonated very close to the stadium (I disagree with the 1,500 ft statement; I'm looking for other sources. Based on the location of the stadium and where the bomb detonated, it was closer to 300 ft according to this map (it detonated immediately south of the building labeled "G.L. Cross Hall").↔NMajdan•talk

• "The university is composed of fifteen colleges, and is well known for its meteorology" weasel words. What does "well known" mean. If it is fifth best in country, state that and cite it.

• OU is known for its meteorology department. I'll find some citations to back it up.↔NMajdan•talk

• "OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.[60]" Why is this singled out in particular?

• Hmm. Well, today I removed a sentence that I knew to be true but I did not have any sources to back it up. The student body at Oklahoma has a very sizable base of conservatives and Christians, therefore it generally leans toward right-wing politics. Needless to say, the sentence you mentioned had a lot more relevance before I removed this sentence.↔NMajdan•talk 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• If there are sections on student life "The student union provides a place for students to relax, sleep, study, watch television, or socialize", I would have sections on more important matters such as funding, etc.

• What do you mean by funding? That's a pretty broad and vague subject for a university.↔NMajdan•talk

Its a good article, I'm just being picky about things I think could do with improving - PocklingtonDan 14:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'll definitely work on some of the matters you mentioned. I appreciate any feedback that will make this a better article.↔NMajdan•talk 15:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments (For full disclosure purposes, I am a graduate of OU) The history section suffers from a "recentism" bias. A seperate section on the current president's 12 1/2 year to date tenure, but no mention within the history section of George Cross, who had a 25 year tenure and oversaw the period of the University's greatest growth. Seperate paragraphs are given for the death a alcohol related death of fratenity pledge and the suicide discussed above. Are we to believe that there were not similiar incidents in the past, that also made statewide headlines.

Thank you very much for your comments. Advice from somebody familiar with the University is especially useful. I do see your issue with "recentism" in the history section. To fix this issue, that section may need a thorough rewrite but I do want to be careful about getting too out of hand. I do intend on creating a History of the University of Oklahoma article but I'm waiting for the second edition of this book as it will be a valuable resource. In that same vein, I also intend to expand the George Lynn Cross article for the same reason you stated, he is probably the second most important president of the university after the founding president David Ross Boyd. I should probably just drop the fraternity death part.↔NMajdan•talk

This paragraph:

There are over 350 student organizations at Oklahoma. Focuses of these organizations range from ethnic to political, religious to special interest. The College Republicans club at OU has over 1,800 members, nearly 10% of the Norman campus undergraduate population. In addition, OU has around 20 organizations related to Christian ideals.

seems to be trying to imply something without actually saying it. Either the paragraph should say what it implies (with proper referencing) or it should be dropped. (How large is the College Democrats, and why give percentages of undergraduates, are graduate students not allowed to join?)

I need to rewrite this para as well, I guess. I dropped the meat of the paragrah because I didn't have a source so I guess I need to rephrase this entire para to shift the context somewhere else.↔NMajdan•talk

In a similiar vein, what is the purpose of this sentence: "In 2005, the average GPA for the Panhellenic Association was 3.30." Why is the GPA of only one of the four groups relevent?

Yeah, that should probably be dropped as well.↔NMajdan•talk

The sports section is amiss in not mentioning the 47 game winning streak of the football program (an NCAA record), or, for that matter, the careers of Bud Wilkinson or Barry Switzer. Some mention should made of the atheletic program's controversial aspects as well (recruiting scandles, crimminal players, etc.). There is no mention of OU's basketball program, which has made four final four appearances and played for (and lost) the championship twice. There is no mention whatsover of women's athletics

I'll expand the sports section a little. I did mention the softball (a womens sport) won a national title in 2000.↔NMajdan•talk

Although the article doesn't say so the implication is that only medical programs are offered at the Tulsa campus. This is not so.

I'll clarify this.↔NMajdan•talk

Should the Law School be lumped in with the other "smaller schools" like fine art, and architecture. It after all is a postgraduate only school, and the others are not. Dsmdgold 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't what I'll do to fix this issue yet, but I'll think about it. Once again, thank you for your advice. I hope in the future that you will also contribute to this article as you may have a vested interest. Seeing as to how the history section will take some time, I guess I'll assume this FAC to have failed. However, until it is removed from the FAC page, I would appreciate any continued feedback. And don't worry, this article will be back.↔NMajdan•talk 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the copyright on Image:HolmbergHall2.jpg needs to be cleared up, who took it, what license did they agree to release it under; the box the on commons is very vague.--Peta 00:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sorry, not quite FA material, although still a really good article. My other issues above have also not been addressed (see above). There are a number of other issues:

• 1.) Overall, the prose nowhere near brilliant, and not at the professional standard for FA's either. Needs a thorough copyedit throughout.

• This thing has had three peer reviews and has had a thorough copyedit performed by a couple of the reviewers on this page. I am at a loss at what else is needed.↔NMajdan•talk

• I guess that comment wasn't very helpful, I'm sorry. I'll try to give more specific examples in the future, and overall I think the prose isn't bad. I would revise my "thorough copyedit throughout" comment to "minor issues copyedit throughout." -Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 2.)History section is way too short for a university founded in 1890. More details should be in a History of University of Oklahoma subarticle. Boren's presidency section should not have a bulleted list in it. Convert to prose.

• Expanding the history section is on my to-do list as per the previous review. But as there is some research involved in that, it will take some time. Also, I don't feel like this article's FA status should be contingent on the creation of another article. The bulleted list you are referring to used to be prose, but was converted to a list by a copyeditor. I'll change it back.↔NMajdan•talk

• True about the subarticle; shouldn't be required for this article to be FA. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3.) The lead is full of academic boosterism (namely the second paragraph), and also contains information that cannot be found later in the article. A lead is supposed to summarize the article (i.e. information in it should be found later in the article).

• I don't see how it is any different that other university FAs. I'll try to expand on some of the points in the lead elsewhere in the article.↔NMajdan•talk

• The difference is that this article cites very specific statistics. Other universities may have one sentence saying "Noteworthy source (i.e. US News, THES, etc.) says the university is 20th best in the world in 2006." Also, research expenditures are 20th largest in the US. This article has things like "Best Value college according to the Princeton Review," "number of national merit scholars enrolled," and "The Carnegie Foundation classifies the university as a research university with 'high research activity.' " I don't think any of these things deserve to be in the lead - they can be found later in the article if you wish. I'd leave in the sentence about Neustadt International Prize for Literature, though. Also, if you state "OU is the sponsor of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature, considered to be second in prestige only to the Nobel Prize and often referred to as the "American Nobel" in the lead, a sentence similar to that is supposed to appear later in the article. Hence, what I meant by summarizing and not adding new information. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 4.) Said this before, but only makes links that are relevant to the context (things like airfield, pharmacist, wrestling, volley shouldn't be wikilinked).

• They aren't. None of the examples you mentioned are wikilinked. I feel I have rectified this issue. If you feel otherwise, let me know.↔NMajdan•talk

• Those particular examples have been fixed sorry for using those again (I just copied and pasted what I said before). However, there are several other examples in the text. For example, in the history section, 1890, 1907 , 2001. Other links include alcohol, suicide, etc. Not as big of an issue as I once thought. I could probably just change them myself....-Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• 5.) Colors in infobox need to be fixed.

• What do you mean?↔NMajdan•talk

• Crimson (Pantone 201; #990000) and Cream (Pantone 468; #FFFFCC); The boxes need to have colors instead of the numbers. I'm not quite sure how to fix it, otherwise, i would.-Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that I, personally, will not be able to get this article to FA on my own. As I said in my nomination, I am not capable of "brilliant prose" and just about all the reviews seem to reinforce that. I hope other editors will be able to assist me, as several already have. Otherwise, this may just be always be a Good article and no more.↔NMajdan•talk 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I chance my objection to minor oppose - fix those small issues, and I'll at least remove my objection. -Bluedog423^Talk 18:29, 14 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.