Talk:University College, Durham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

University College, Durham has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

University College, Durham (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

1 Suggested Additions
2 Making Changes
3 Who's who section
4 GA Review
5 Passed GA

[edit] Suggested Additions

Can we put in a "notable alumni" section as Hatfield have one already? I think we should also mention Lumley Castle and the Lumley run. Maybe also the June Ball?

4 June 2006 - I have just added Hunter Davies to the notable alumni - he has a Wikipedia entry of his own (stub) and I tried to make a hypertext link to it, but seem to have failed...

I'm not convinced about the Lumley Run's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia but I agree with your otuhr suggestions. --Strib 10:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Making Changes

Removed details of staff and individual members of the College. Removed "Castle Song". These matters seem to be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry.

Please do not make major changes to an encyclopedia entry without first engaging in a discussion of the proposal on the talk page. I have reverted the page for the time being. 81.156.177.109 18:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I suppose this is why newbies are so dislked on the 'net. I just added some stuff on the colleges accomodation.

No, you did well - Be Bold! I think that what the unnamed user at 81.156.177.109 was referring to was jumping straight in with major deletions to a long-standing article (...but don't be reckless) - but still, sometimes that needs to be done. Wikipedia is formed by people making the changes they think are required. Occasionally those changes will be for the worse, which is easy to undo; but if no-one makes changes then the article will never progress towards its eventual, theoretical, perfect state. For what it's worth, I rarely totally reverse other peoples' changes unless they're clearly in bad faith - if someone thinks a change should be made, they usually have a point; so even if edits occasionally do make an article worse, I still find it's usually better to write something new that addresses the previous editor's concerns, rather than just take it back to the state before they got involved. TSP 18:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's who section

Could this be made more generic, rather than discuss the current incumbents of the post. This is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Out of the list given, the only person significant enough to the college to be mentioned by way of his own person is John Atkin MBE.

Indeed. It's looking more like a prospectus at the moment.

[edit] GA Review

This article is a current good article candidate. In accordance with the good article criteria, I have reviewed it and put it on a seven day hold. This means that it has problems which prevent it from becoming a GA right now, but problems which should be able to be cleared up within seven days.

Well written: Fail. The article needs copyediting, eg "To the west of the courtyard, is the medieval Great Hall, to the still used as a dining room by the students, was built by Bishop Bek in the thirteenth century." In the head section, Professor Tucker should have his title. Non-notable trivia should be purged, ie the section about Smenergy. On the plus side, the article follows a logical and hierarchical structure, although perhaps the library should come before the 'Student Body', and the 'Undercroft Bar' and 'Castle Society' be subordinated to sub-headings beneath 'Student Body'.

I've had a go at proof-reading this though, to be honest with you, the prose are almsot entirely my own so I'd be more than happy if someone else re-read it - its always more difficult to proof read your own stuff. I've left the bit in about Smenergy for now - it is a defining factor of the bar within Durham. --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It just reads in a bizarre way. You're learning about the history and the buildings etc and then you are told how some of the students in 2006 most like to take their vodka. I would argue that it is non-notable and very unencyclopedic. Chrisfow 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I kinda guess it could be called trivia. --Robdurbar 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass. Most assertions are referenced. One problem though. The Wiki guidelines on referencing state that anything likely to be challenged should be referenced. "For two hundred years this was the largest Great Hall in the United Kingdom; however, it was shortened by Bishop Fox". That's a big claim probably open to counter-claims - and an anachronistic one given that the United Kingdom did not exist until 1800.

Cheeers for the heads up on this one. It was acutally covered by the next reference, but I've inserted it in twice to cover. --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Broad in coverage: Pass. The article covers all the aspects of the college which I would expect it to cover.

NPOV: Fail. Subjective words. eg "Other impressive ... parts of the castle", "The stunning Tunstal Chapel", "a mysterious group of Castle students", "The college has a strong artistic tendency"

Well the Tunstal Chapel is pretty stunning. Removed or re-worded most of these. I hadn't noticed the 'mysterious group' bit... --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Stable: Pass. The article is stable.

Pictures: Fail. The uploader of the Castlecroft logo needs to prove somehow that they own the copyright, so that they have the right to release it into the public domain. The copyright probably belongs to the SU or JCR - even the designer of the logo does not own it if they sold it to the SU/JCR/bar.

Using the logo of the Undercroft is fair use I hope? --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is, although I am no expert. I think there is an argument to be made that the use of this image may "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (Fair Use Policy Section 2), since anyone may now use that logo (as Wikipedia content is automatically licensed under GDFL) and they could rip it off in a negative way, or rip it off for their own profit. Policy Section 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". Finally, the policy states that the picture must be tagged with the appropriate fair use tag, if you are claiming fair use. Currently, you have claimed the copyright yourself, which is illegal. Chrisfow 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the tag because I believed that the uploader intended it to be tagged that way... my impression was that this was normal practice. But I'll remove it anyway. --Robdurbar 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These problems stand in the way of GA, but are easily rectified. Well done so far to all who have contributed, it is a good read, and I hope to come back in seven days (less?) and award GA! Chrisfow 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)