Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Washington & Jefferson College/archive1

< 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:16, 25 December 2010 [1].

Washington & Jefferson College

edit

Washington & Jefferson College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I believe that it satisfies all FAC requirements! (edit) I have spent the last 18 months giving this article a complete re-write, spinning off the content into 27 sub-articles while expanding the main article content from 26k to 113k. The entire article is sourced with 200+ references. In places where the only third party sources are unavailable and I had to source to official college sources, I have only used hard facts, not spin. This article has been the subject of a pre-GAN peer review, a very thorough GA nomination, a pre-FAC peer review. GrapedApe (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Small Town" link in the infobox needs to be checked. 75.60.38.110 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Fasach Nua (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not plausible Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does that even mean? What is not plausible?--GrapedApe (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unread: A fully involved editor of even a GA-worthy article would have expended a little more effort when nominating the article that resulted from all that effort, even if ignorant of FAC procedure. There is no rationale given here. I suspect I have already expended more effort in explaining why I don't need to read the article than the nominator spent presenting it here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is appropriate that you oppose an article because the nominator hasn't spoken about why he thinks it deserves promotion in the FAC. wackywace 10:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance states a nomination can be removed if "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.", and a reviewer is entitled to oppose on an unprepared basis. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silverfish--Your comment is incredibly dickish and I take extreme exception to them. I've spent 18 months totally re-writing this article. Read this HUGE and extremely thorough GA nomination page. It has been peer reviewed twice: the first before the GA and the second before this FAC. I've also created dozens of W&J-related pages, with 4 being WP:FEATURED LISTS, 4 WP:GOOD ARTICLES, 13 WP:DYKS. So, to answer your question, NO, I will not withdraw this nom simply because I didn't write a lot in my nomination statement.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator here. Lack of a detailed nomination statement is not legitimate grounds for opposing at FAC. It is generally a good idea, however, for nominators to write something a bit interesting in the nom statement, if only as a means of attracting reviewers. It's not too late to remedy that, by the way. I have not had the opportunity to read the article yet, but without expressing an opinion on its quality, to me it certainly doesn't look unprepared and may well be one of the better college articles. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we followed this logic then there would be no need for nomination statements at all - a simple list of articles to consider would be adequate. This page isn't simply somewhere to go to get a badge to slap on your article - it represents a process of scrutiny to ensure that articles that are featured are of sufficiently high quality. The nomination statement is a key part of that process - it highlights why an editor feels an article is FA worthy and at the same time indicates the nominator understands the FAC requirements. It also represents a starting point for the debate - if you state it meets A, B and C we can then respond "I disagree with you on B" or "What about X, Y and Z?" Your nomination does not do any of this.
Rather than rectify this problem you have chosen to respond with personal abuse and highlighting the trophies that "you" have already collected - that itself suggests a lack of familiarity with FA status which attaches to the article rather than an editor. There is still nothing in your nomination to consider so my oppose stands. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comments – Just a drive-by look at the sports-related section. Found only a couple of things worth pointing out...
    • A couple of abbreviations could do with having their full names/titles given: the NCAA and, to a lesser extent, MVP.
    • A couple list-like sentences would be better with the addition of an "and", namely before volleyball in the list of intercollegiate sports, and before Texas hold 'em in the intramural sports.
    • Just a general point, but it seems like the article heavily relies on primary sources. More secondary sources would be a good thing, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and I struggled with this issue during the writing. At every step, I tried to gather as many secondary sources as possible, but unfortunately, there aren't that many out there. If there are any concerns about this, I'd be glad to delve further issue.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on prose, referencing and MoS issues at the moment, although the below concerns should be easily addressable

  • WP:OVERLINK
  • Some repetition in the text, for example "undertake risky financial moves...then undertook another series of risky financial moves that crippled its finances"
  • Needs some copy-editing for clarity and flow
  • Per WP:LEAD, an article this size needs a lead of at least 3 paragraphs
  • I'm not sure the section heading "Washington & Jefferson College" is the most helpful - would you consider changing it and/or merging that section with the one on unification?
  • On my screen, the image of Blaine pushes the references to the right - could you add a clear template to the Alumni section to prevent this? This is not a requirement, but I do feel it would look better in terms of page layout
  • Identical references should consistently be combined - for example, current refs 22 and 84
  • All web references should have retrieval dates - ref 22, for example, does not
  • Either consistently have retrieval dates for web versions of print-based sources, or consistently do not - for example, compare refs 27 and 28
  • Be consistent in what elements of references are wikilinked and when
  • Provide page numbers for references to multi-page PDF files
  • Ref 82: page(s)?
  • Some other minor inconsistencies in referencing format
  • Refs 197-200: page(s)? Also, check date formatting on ref 198. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obligatory pro forma oppose since it is not an article about a highway, hurricane, video game, or battleship. However, I'm inclined to Support since it is an exhaustively cited article with deep descriptions of history and institution and devoid of the glossy marketing booster-cruft that too often passes muster as encyclopedic prose. I see this article as approximating a template for which all other university articles should aspire. As a Wikipedia editor, I also want to take this opportunity to note my strong disapproval of User:Quantumsilverfish's extremely disdainful and poor faith oppose which is in the highest traditions of soul-crushing bureaucratic proceduralism. That the user took the time to debate the dickishness of his/her "efforts" and call into the question the motivations of another editor but has not bothered to return to the debate to comment on the merits of the article reflects rather well on the editor, doesn't it? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • Overlinking in first paragraph of Curriculum, Admissions & Ranking, Student Body
  • Why no 2-column format for citations/references?


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/Washington_%26_Jefferson_College/archive1&oldid=1144459286"