Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Chicago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] University of Chicago
I strongly believe this article should be featured. After two peer reviews and many edits, this page is certainly one of the best university articles on Wikipedia. I am nominating it again to be a featured article. -- Noetic Sage 22:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive of first nomination in April 2006
- Comments — The article mostly cites Web pages, magazine, and newspaper articles and fails to cite books and journal articles (for example, Harper's University by Richard J. Storr and various books and articles on the Chicago Schools of Economics, Sociology, etc.). Sometimes the article reads like a marketing piece; for example, the section on the Economics Department doesn't mention the various controversies that have been associated with the Chicago School of Economics. The history section skips over the important controversies during the 1950s and '60s related to urban renewal and student political activities. The sequence of 9 footnotes after "...one of the world's foremost universities" looks strange—wouldn't it be preferable to consolidate them as one long footnote? — BRMo 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The student protest activities of the 1960's seem kind of cliche. They occurred everywhere and Chicago was not really an exceptional center compared to say, the SDS' presence at Columbia or peace movement at Berkeley. Meanwhile, as for the urban renewal controversy, I am not saying they don't exist, but in the grand scheme of thing again they are rather mundane. Nearly every major urban university, big ticket or not, gets into fights with its neighboors over how to allocate land.
- Comments Listy,
notable alumni not cited, does not follow WP:MOS on section headings. Sandy 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alumni list is now cited. Can you please elaborate on why the article does not follow the section heading guidelines? -- mcshadypl TC 05:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please don't strike comments from other reviewers: wait for us to come back and strike ourselves. I do not see references for the notable alumni (where are they?), and the article is still very listy. An example of sections heading which don't conform is Faculty and alumni, followed by Notable faculty and alumni.
-
- Please sign your posts. If I perceive an objection to be illegitimate and invalid, it is only appropriate to remove it. Furthermore, it does not seem that the author of the original comment has even followed up on my statement. Thus, how can I expect him to strike it out himself? -- mcshadypl TC 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is very unsightly in the lead of an article: The University of Chicago is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost universities.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The same thing can be accomplished by combining mention of all sources inside one set of ref tags. For an example of how that was done effectively in an exemplary FA, see Daniel Boone. This article should go to peer review. Sandy 18:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object; Images are too big (800x600 resolution is still common), and a few references are weak. Don't use other encyclopedias to back up claims; go to the actual sources. Also, don't put sources in the text itself (like "adapted from the official page"); just cite sources normally. And putting half a dozen citations in a row is overkill—if they're all necessary, put them in the same note. --Spangineeres (háblame) 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Object: Please remove the image gallery. It is quite unhelpful. NatusRoma | Talk 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Conditional support rmv excessive images as per Spangineer and NatusRoma. Also, add more information on administrative structure and financials. Reduce the citations - for example, you provide so many citations to back up claim that UC is one of the best - that is excessive and not necessary. Prose require copyediting. I'm saying "conditional support" because I think you can fix this problem swiftly. Rama's arrow 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object Send to peer review. The images are too large and unevenly spaced. Too many lists. There should not be one or two sentence paragraphs. These are just a few things that need to be improved before the article is FA. --Xtreambar 00:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Object The history section is short for a school founded in 1891, and seems to need a lot of work. The current history starts out ok around 1891, and then jumps to 1947. Did nothing happen during this period? Also, the history section makes a number of claims in bulleted format yet none of these claims are cited. And towards the end of the history it starts to turn into a "in 1955, in 1978, in 1999, in 2006," not the most exemplary writing. KnightLago 13:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Also, references 6 and 29 don't seem to work. 6 goes to the NYT but not to a specific article, and 29 doesn't work at all. KnightLago 13:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
