Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts/archive4

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

The list was archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts edit

Nominator(s): Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally added in all known colleges and universities that have operated in the state, with a recent focus on closed institutions. I don't know why I did not address those issues during the nomination process, but I would like to give this another run, as I feel that it meets the criteria laid on the relevant page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Comments Just had time to look at the first 2 paragraphs. Prose needs a bit tightening up. Here are 2 suggestions

Para 1: second mention of "listed under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education" can be removed as redundant.

Perhaps rephrase to merge those two sentences to be something like "are public excluding the private Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was originally a public school..."

Para 2. Oddly structured first sentence. Maybe something like: Harvard University is Massachusetts' oldest post-secondary institution and was founded in ...

More coming later. Mattximus (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better... review continuing:

~~Para 3. "multiple Judaic", can multiple be changed to the exact number?~~

Para 4. Needs some work. First, I'm not overly sold about the inclusion of college rankings, but I agree that it is important to highlight MIT and Harvard in the lead as they are internationally respected. Is it possible to link a few lists of top universities from several sources and say that they are both recognized as top 10 global universities? Either way, you must change "college" to "university", since you are comparing internationally. Mattximus (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm happy with the lead now, good work. Some more changes:~~

last para still needs rewording, for example: "the state is also known for its academic strength"... well it's not literally the state, but the institutions found within the state... So, something like "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized top 10 universities including MIT and Harvard" or something like that would be a better sentence. I would also remove the "As such" from the next line, as it's not really adding anything but filler.

Have another look at that first sentence, I think it's much worse now.
Still does not make sense, sorry. "This includes Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are ranked amongst"

Mattximus (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would still include Harvard in that last sentence of the lead along with MIT. Mattximus (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

*I like the first table, but the enrolment should have an obvious year attached since they change so much. I'm not sure how you can do this without messing with the formatting, but can you think of a way? I think that is good for the first section

Featured lists no longer begin with the sentence "Below is a list of..." as it was removed some time ago as tautological. So that needs to be reworded. You can just go right into the meat of things. This section would have to be be re-written to reflect this wikipedia custom. Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will conclude my review next edit. Mattximus (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review:

First paragraph is almost perfect, just a strange discrepancy. It says "Massachusetts Institute of Technology was originally founded by the state legislature in the spirit of a land-grant institution" but then later says "UMass Amherst is the state's sole public land-grant university".

I'm still confused as to what is meant by "to be akin to a land-grant institution" but not a land-grant institution. This needs to be made clear if it is to be included. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed the contradicting sources, as some say that it was founded as one, while others say it was not. Needless to say, the federal government said it was, so I'm going with the Library of Congress for that one. Let me know if it works, as that should clear up the confusion there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph needs a good copyedit. Just the first sentence: "Since the Worcester Medical Institute closed in 1859, multiple institutions have closed over the years" is needlessly passive. Maybe something like "Multiple colleges and universities have closed over the years beginning with the Wrocester Medical Institute which closed in 1859." Even better would be starting that paragraph with "At least x colleges and universities have closed...".

Second paragraph is better in terms of conforming to wikipedias "this is a list of..." policy, but there are still parts of the paragraph that refer to it, see "Also listed" and "However, this is not inclusive ", what is meant by "this". This paragraph needs quite a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my own copyedit, what do you think of the changes.

Final comment: Final two sentences are both unsourced and confusing.
- "Also excluded are the Bussey Institution, which functioned under Harvard University, and Crane Theological School, which functioned under Tufts University." - No explanation given as to why they are excluded.
- It also excludes institutions which operated as part of larger for-profit corporations, such as Empire Beauty Schools, as they were not operated as separate college campuses, but as larger corporate schools. Citation? Also what is "it". I'm fairly sure you are referring to the list, but I believe Featured lists try to avoid "this is a list of...", "this list contains.." etc, preferring to have a paragraph that describes the content, not the list of the content if you know what I mean. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and included them, as they are in the category, and I hope that clarifies things. In terms of the other part, I changed the wording, although I may be just missing the necessary word to replace "it" and am instead walking around it without changing the theme to something better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is still some sloppy writing. Use of multiple twice in 2 sentences. This phrase doesn't make sense: "The below also excludes"....Mattximus (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still outstanding issues with writing. " However, this excludes institutions which operated".... what is meant by "this"? Mattximus (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the list below, although maybe you know of a better way to write that, as I am stumped at the moment. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and fixed the wording issues, but if you think it needs another one-over, I'll have others do a copyedit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, its been 10 days and there has been no response. Mattximus (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and condensed the prose in the spirit of what you wrote above, so I hope that helps a bit. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That should work now, as I reworded the areas in both paragraphs, although I suspect there are only a few lists being used and people are parroting them online. Let me know what you think though, and thanks for the comments! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as I had a date in there at one point but took it out per a previous review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just took another stab at it, so how does the last paragraph work? The first sentence on the first paragraph is modeled after similar recent pages, so I'm not sure what else you might want done there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Mattximus:, just in case you didn't see the above comment. I added the Harvard bit as suggested, but I'm unsure about the intro, per what I wrote above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still have those two outstanding recommendations that were not struck out. Not sure about your harvard comment as "Massachusetts is home to a number of internationally recognized universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which are ranked amongst the top ten universities in the world" is where I thought you should include Harvard in addition to MIT. The second section still begins with an outdated "this is a list of..." which is no longer accepted in featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean there, as I missed the second section and somehow worded the last paragraph in the intro to include Harvard, but somehow forgot to add it. Either way, let me know what you think, and thanks for the help! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed that Mattximus (talk · contribs) when I was doing the below review, so let me know if that all works. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~The last paragraph of the lead is stubby, at only one sentence. Would it be possible to merge this with the previous paragraph, or expand upon it a bit?~~
~~"amongst" → "among".~~
~~Defunct institutions: The Stanley College founding date is missing. If you don't know what it is, put an em dash here like you do elsewhere in the table.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, as I merged the last paragraph up one, although I am not sure if it will make things a bit too long at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thematically it's more consistent in the second paragraph, which is about largest/oldest universities. The third is about accreditations which has little to do with rankings. Made the change myself. Mattximus (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – – SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.