User talk:LaSaltarella/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Remaining issues for Ohio Wesleyan University

As requested, I have looked at the Ohio Wesleyan University article and have tried to lay out the issues that still remain. The article is greatly improved due its clearer organization. However, there are still several issues that need to be resolved before I think this could pass as an FA. Following is a list of the most important ones, although there are others:

  • 1.) The lead is weak. It’s too short for an article of this length. It should be three full paragraphs (3-5 sentence each) that answer the question "why do we care about Ohio Wesleyan?" or "what is it known for?"
    • Specifically, the first paragraph should include something about its history, namely its founding date (or founders, mission, distinctivness...whatever you feel is MOST important).
    • The second paragraph is too much of a barage of college guides. You should choose the most reputable/publicized/accepted one (which I would say is U.S. News) and stick with that. Also, you should provide dates of rankings and exact numbers where available. Say "U.S. News ranked Ohio Wesleyan 85th in 2006," for example. I made up that number, obviously. You need to also say the date where the international student percentage came from as well. It would probably be helpful to note any particular departments or research that the university is well-known for in this paragraph.
    • The third-paragraph seems almost out of place. I think this may belong in the first paragraph after a brief sentence about its founding, since I assume the charter was established at the same time. The third paragraph shold include other key information as to why we care about Ohio Wesleyan. Athletic achievements, campus geography/attributes, historical movements on campus, nobel laureates, research expenditures, effect on society at its current time, future direction of the university are some of the many important things that could be mentioned. Obviously, don’t mention all of these, but just two or three that are the most important in understanding why we should care about the school.

*2.) FAR too many bullets still. This should all be converted to prose. See Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article for other criteria that are considered.

    • Specifically, Recent Developments should be converted to prose. I would not include all of this information, however, as the history section would then be dominated by 1991-current, which it shouldn’t be. This should be included in the History of Ohio Wesleyan University subarticle, though.
    • "Degrees and majors" can exist as a section, but shouldn’t list every major offered. An overall scope of the curriculum might be helpful, and a "see also Degree programs at Ohio Wesleyan University" instead of the current bulleted list. I personally think "Structure" and "Degrees and majors" should be merged.
    • Convert "publications" to prose. Also, it’s too short right now to demand its own section. Unless it is expanded, should be merged with another section. I also think it might be more appropriately placed under the "Student Life" section, assuming these publications are done by students.
    • "Programs," "Organizations," "Traditions," and "Athletics" should ALL be converted to prose. See Cornell#Cornelliana for how to transform the traditions section.
  • 3.) Alumni section prose is weak and includes 4 one sentence paragaphs. Need to restructure.
  • 4.) References. 26 sources just is not enough. Need to cite every fact.
  • 5.) Delete the "University Presidents" section. Any section that just links to another article shouldn’t exist. You could include the link to the article under History as a "see also" or rename the "alumni" section to "people" and include a link to the article there. Any section, under no circumstance, however, should include just a link to another article and no actual content. I said this in my earlier advice.
  • 6.) "Wesleyan and Delaware, Ohio" section should probably be merged with the "Campus" section. It is generally bad practice to have just one subheading as well. Could be renamed "Campus and Delaware, Ohio" for example.
  • 7.)Image layout issues; you need to remember to consider that everybody’s monitor and resolution is different so you have to optimize how the page looks for as many people as possible. For example, Image:DoricFront.jpg should be moved to the left, while moving Image:Sulphursprings.jpg down and to the right. Likewise, Image:GrayChapel4.jpg and Image:Delaware-ohio-wesleyan-campus.jpg are probably too large and too close on small monitors. Should be reduced in size and spread out more if possible. Image:ProtestOWU.jpg should be made smaller or moved up, and causes "Traditions" to be squished on my monitor.
  • 8.) Image captions, tagging
      • Image:Wesleyansealnew.png needs a fair use rationale
      • Caption for Image:DoricFront.jpg is a bit too long
      • Other image tagging issues including, but not limited to: Image:Sulphursprings.jpg, Image:Wendie Malick.jpg (needs a fair use rationale; in this case, however, I don’t think it qualifies as fair use on this page, and should be deleted)
  • 9.)Should not use bold unless absolutely necessary
  • 10.)External links within the article (not the external links section) should be eliminated. Instead, you can use a citation that will provide the external link.
  • 11.)"Main article" or "see also" should usually be right after the section heading. There are exceptions, and I don’t really know the wikipedia protocol for this, but it is my understanding that they usually appear right after the heading. I remember University of Michigan has a "see also" that is at the end of the section, though, so this isn't that much of an issue.
  • 12.) Fight song and alma mater should not be included in this article. Could be included in the Wesleyan Battling Bishops article
  • 13.) Three external links is probably not enough; should add a couple other key ones; although definitely not imperative
  • 14.) I’d run the semi-automatic javascript program at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js, which will have some suggestions. In particular, it probably will suggest avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement, weasel words, additive term issues, temporal terms, etc.
  • 15.) I didn’t really do a copyedit of the prose, but there are probably some cases that require editing to adhere to 1a
  • 16.) See current FA’s for good ideas: University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and Duke University

I hope that helps! Still a lot of work ahead! :) -Bluedog423Talk 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that

I didn't change the endowment figure. I changed the goal of the fundraising. But as soon as I did it I thought that $250,000 was way too small and I was about to put something on the discussion page asking the real value. It said $250,000 million, which is equal to about $250.0 trillion or something. So I was unsure what that meant. But I obviously chose a value that is way too low. I also couldn't find a source so I couldn't find the actual value. I'm changing it back now. Sorry again. -Bluedog423Talk 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability from the article

Arguably, this song is the most popular and best known alma mater in the United States. It is the only alma mater song included in Ronald Herder's "500 Best-Loved Song Lyrics." In a novel, Betty Smith called it "the saddest and oldest of all college songs." Edward Abbey, in One Life at a Time, Please, mentions a campfire sing in which he contributed "the only Ivy League song that occurred to me: 'Far Above Cayuga's Waters.'"
The tune has been adopted since by dozens of universities, colleges, and high schools worldwide.

Your song does not have these additions to meet the notability aspect of the song itself. –– Lid(Talk) 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I'm not sure those articles should have pages either. I am removing the prod from your article but putting up a seperate one for AfD. If that one gets deleted I will be putting all the songs up for AfD as they really shouldn't articles. –– Lid(Talk) 07:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AndyZ/Suggestions

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
  • Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to a separate page, like Gallery of Ohio Wesleyan University.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 69 Inch, use 69 Inch, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 69 Inch.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, WikiprojectOWU 09:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OWU Feedback

Wow!

I don't want to give you a big head or anything, but this is a great article — perhaps the best I've seen. I have no major criticisms, but if you want some constructive feedback, let me just say that the "University President" section runs a little too long. My only other suggestion is that you submit to Peer Review if you want more reviews of the article, though it's probably good enough to go directly to FA Candidacy. Either way, you have my support. If I ever get back to the U.S., I'll have to check out Delaware, OH. It looks like a cool place. Lovelac7 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

I agree with User:Lovelac7 that this article is probably ready for FA candidacy. I'm sure there will be some comments there. Things to fix before that:

  • References should go after the period.
  • For location, it says "Delaware, Ohio, OH, USA." Not sure why Ohio is repeated as the code looks fine. ??

said). Some of the stuff in University Presidents can be put in the history section or the linked history article.

  • Ref 8 is a dead link; please check all links and make sure they are active
  • Refs 7-10 should provide evidence that "Colleges That Change Lives, Barron's, Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report place Ohio Wesleyan among the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges," but instead they all link to U.S. News from different years.
  • Years should not be wikilinked. Only when the exact day is listed should there be a link. See Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Dates
  • Is there a reason that the last paragraph in the history is italicized? Is it a direct quote? then "quotation marks" should be used
  • There are many mid-sentence references. I'm not sure the exact wikipedia guideline for this, but I'd try to minimize it as it makes it look messier.
  • Some paragraphs are a bit too short. For example, the first paragraph in "recent history" and the last in "university presidents." Try to figure out how to best combine paragraphs.
  • 7 references in a row for "The university is proactive in maintaining policies related to the six PrideNet criteria areas on recruiting and supporting students from the LGBT population" is a bit excessive. Choose the best ones. I'd say generally no more than 3 in a row should be listed generally, and perhaps 4 in extraordinary circumstances. 102 is also a dead link.
    • Comment. I agree with you. There was an exchange on this one between user:Faria and user:Indrian and this came out as the solution that would please all parties in proving the claim.
  • Don't need to wikilink things like "flag." People know what that is and can look it up. Again, see Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context.
  • You don't need to wikilink the same thing more than once in an article. If they are far apart it may be appropriate, but for example "Delaware, Ohio" is linked twice in sequential paragraphs as is the "Perkins Observatory"
  • This is not imperative, but it'd be nice to have a detailed OWU Template.
  • I didn't check prose for 1a to be honest. So, a thorough copyedit from someone unfamiliar with the text would help perhaps.

Overall, great job! Good luck!

-Bluedog423Talk 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] brief feedback on request

It needs a good copy-edit. A significant problem is that there are lots of redundant words. Here's the lead:

Ohio Wesleyan University (also Wesleyan or OWU, pronounced oh-WOO) is a private liberal arts college located in Delaware, Ohio. Founded in 1842,[4] the school's original charter provides that it "is forever to be conducted on the most liberal principles."[5] Distinctive features of the university include a commitment to internationalism and community activism.
In its 2007 edition, U.S. News & World Report ranked Wesleyan among the ten liberal arts colleges with the highest percentage of international students, a position the school has held for several consecutive years.[6] College guides such as Colleges That Change Lives, Barron's, Princeton Review and U.S. News & World Report place Ohio Wesleyan among the top 100 U.S. liberal arts colleges.[7] Notable alumni include a U.S. Vice President and a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.[8]
The university resides on 200 acres in central Ohio, located about 25 miles north of downtown Columbus in the small city of Delaware.[9] This includes the main academic and residential campus along with Perkins Observatory and the Kraus wilderness preserves. Construction projects have updated science facilities and several athletic facilities in recent years.[10]
  • Remove both instances of "located".
  • "Original charter"? "Original" is ambiguous, and as well, raises the issues as to whether that charter has been superseded. There's tension with present tense "provides". Just remove "original".
  • It's one distinctive feature, as worded.
  • 2007 past tense?
  • "Several" is vague; provide the number if possible.
  • Metric equivalents for the rest of the world, please.
  • The university resides" is unidiomatic. So is "construction projects have updated". Remove "several" from the last sentence.

See if you can find fresh eyes to copy-edit the whole article; this is not up to FA standard. Tony 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See edit history pages of similar FAs and good articles. Identify those who copy-edit well, as opposed to performing merely administrative tasks. Ask them to assist. Tony 09:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

Kudos to you. The article looks great! 140.247.23.54 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hi - you're welcome :). With regards to your question re: Jimbo's comment on WP:SEMI, it's is only relevant as a safeguard against libel claims towards editors, hence why the statement mentions "bios of ... individuals". Of course, the POV displayed by some editors on the article (quite a while ago, as far as I can see by the timestamps on the talk page) probably doesn't fall under this statement, as the university isn't an individual (though in the case of an edit war, we would normally protect to let it call down anyway). I fully understand your concerns about the disruption you may encounter if anons and new users make disruptive edits to the page, while you're so carefully (and commendably) improving it, but it is important to remember that wikipedia is a wiki, and we declare that we are "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" - as an admin, I have to balance whether to protect or not on the damage currently being done by IPs, and the collateral damage which may occur as a result of such a protection. In all cases, protection is the final straw (and is only given to articles which are being damaged at the very time the admin is looking at them). I'm sure you'll understand why I've declined your request, and if vandalism does occur on the article, contact me and I shall protect it. Thanks, Martinp23 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the time I've taken to respond to your question. By the very nature of an "Activism" section, documenting recent events which are (as I understand it) happening often, there's always going to be some things omitted, or less important issues included - in an absolutely ideal world, we'd have every notable demonstration or action by the students (and university) documented in the section, but of course the section would then become hugely unwieldy and take the focus from the more important parts of the article. Now, not being an expert on any university protects (in the US at least), I don't know whether there is enough notable information to create a spin-off article and link to it, with perhaps a short blurd in the main article highlighting the most notable of the notable (if you get what I mean!). Regretfully, there will always be people who feel that such sections are POV, as they may fel that they omit a notable event, or have too many, or feel that there is nothing out of the ordinary (or a myriad of other things!) - the best thing to do to respond the this sort of criticism is to invite the editor to help you to fix it, as I see you have done.
With regards to the current section, as it is, I feel that it'll be difficult to fully document some of thge more notable protests without making the section too large (it is rather large now, and could probably do with a trim, while including all relevant information requested on the FAC). Good luck with this - ignore my bit about making a new article is there isn't enough subject matter to do so! Martinp23 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, you're welcome! Martinp23 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

I'm pretty good at writing prose. (At least I think so.) I'll help copyedit the OWU article over the course of the week. Let me know if there's anything in particular you want help with. Lovelac7 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OWU FAC

I hope Fariah didn't doom this article with resurrecting a past debate... her ressponse was a little over the top in an FAC where civility should rule. I think it is good that you came in and tried to quell it some. I'll look at it more later on and try to give you some specific recommendations on the section... but my two main ones are that it is ALL very liberal and mostly very current. I think the case would be stronger if you showed a continuing history of activism. I also think part of the problem is that the section doesn't sound objective in reporting the cases, but rather takes pride in them? Does that make sense?Balloonman 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiprojectOWU, I do not believe you were around when the "disagreement" between Faria and myself began, so I would just like to clarify a couple of things to add a greater understanding of the issue. This could very easily devolve into a he said she said kind of thing, so I promise that if Faria responds here, I will not "take the bait." It is easy when looking at Faria's libels (a strong term, but one that is appropriate in this context, if you really care, you can look at the OWU talk page, my talk page, and Faria's talk page to see what I mean and draw your own conclusions) that I have some right-wing political agenda in regards to the OWU article. This would be entirely wrong. I have never made any of my OWU edits based on political concerns, but rather on concerns of verifiability, neutraility, and accuracy. Faria is unable to see beyond edits on issues that are presumably near and dear to her own heart and has chosen to view these edits as politically motivated in spite of paragraphs of unfortunately wasted responses to the contrary. I am sure that in my genuine anger and frustration over the continued defamation of my character and misrepresentation of my statements I have probably once or twice crossed the lines of wikipedia policies on civility, but I have not engaged in the full-scale attacks that Faria has.

I posted an objection to Ohio Wesleyan University to becoming a featured article the first time it was nominated, and I have done so again now. This objection is not based on any political view of mine (heck, I am a liberal), nor is it based on any acrimony over my run ins with Faria. I applaud Balloonman's decision to delete the FA tangent started by Faria, and almost did so myself before deciding that if I were the one to do it, it would seem like an attempt to censor her opinion of me. You may not be aware, but I have been forced to endure fresh attacks of homophobia and right-wing fanaticism from Faria everytime I have chimed in about OWU on wikipedia, and when my character is defamed in that manner, it is my duty to respond. When Faria stops defaming me, I will stop defending myself. However, I certainly encourage other users that halt Faria from bringing her attacks to inappropriate fora. As to my objection itself, I basically decided to wash my hands of the affair and let the activism section stand rather than engage in a pointless edit war with Faria, but that does not mean I feel the section is up to the standard of a featured article. The policies of neutraility and comprehensiveness necessary for a FA requires something more than what is already there. Must it be as thorough as possible at this juncture, of course not, but the current section is POV and not up to FA snuff. This is not a POV of left vs. right, but a POV of a user or users posting a particular event he/she/they take pride in without any proof as to its larger signifigance in the history of the university. It also must include more from earlier eras or it is no true activism section at all. I think it would be great it OWU became a featured article, but I have not, nor will I ever, raised an objection based on a personal grudge and stand by my objection as valid and actionable. I wish you continued success in your endeavors to improve the article. Indrian 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Indrian, I understand your position... but going around to everybody's talk page who has commented on this dispute is, IMHO, not appropriate. You need to work it out with Faria---or keep your responses short and simple---WHERE SHE ATTACKS YOU. Perhaps create a subpage on your own page wherein you document the issue and when she attacks you, you simply refer people to that document... then drop it! I found her actions wrong on the FAC. I find your actions to be in the wrong right now.Balloonman 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
People posted about the issue on my talk page, and I responded to them on their talk pages. I really do not see the problem. If you had not contacted me, I would not have contacted you. You involved yourself in the dispute by removing our later comments from the FARC, which was certainly the right move, but also gets you involved on the edges. Also, the majority of my responses were about the continuing FAC and about clarifying my objection therein. In fact, the entire second paragraph above is about this issues and not Faria, as is the second half of my response on your page. I believe that WikiprojectOWU was looking for just such a a clarification judging by her comment on my talk page. I am hardly soliciting anyone, and some background was needed here because it appears that WikiprojectOWU though that the arguement was a political dispute of liberal vs. conservative POV. I am certainly not in the habit of spamming people, so the very simple way to not have me respond to you on your talk page is not to comment on mine, or clarify in your initial post that you prefer I not respond to you on a particular issue. I find your characterization entirely unfair, but apologize for the inadvertent offense I have given by my response. Indrian 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Activism

I believe your most recent post to me on this matter covers my concerns perfectly. If you can get this up to snuff, then I can support the article. As to your other points, I have no plans to say anything untowardly about Faria nor bring up any of our disputes, nor has that ever been my plan, but will defend myself if attacked. I do think, however, that there is a strong consensus that that stuff does not belong on the FAC page, and I will delete any attacks by her there rather than respond. As for withdrawing my objection, that is a strange request. I have made an actionable objection based on the FA criteria and will not withdraw it until my concerns have been met. From your last comment, I believe you will be able to address those concerns adequately, but will not withdraw my objection until this actually happens. Continued good luck on the FA process! Indrian 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MSU Activism

WikiprojectOWU,

First off, let me say that I do no get involved in drama in the Wikipedia. That said, you asked me about the "Activism" section in the MSU article. For easy reference, I have color coded the various sections, with blue for liberals, red for conservatives, and purple for moderate, bipartisan, and nonpartisan. Furthermore, historical protests and movements are highlighted in goldenrod:

Activists have played an important role in MSU history. During the height of the Vietnam War, student protests helped create co-ed residence halls, blocked the routing of Interstate 496 through campus, and led to the resignation of MSU President John A. Hannah. In the 1980s, Michigan State students convinced the University to divest the stocks of companies doing business in apartheid South Africa from its endowment portfolio, such as Coca-Cola. Today, MSU has many student groups focused on political change. The student government is the Associated Students of Michigan State University (ASMSU). It is known for its unusual nonpartisan bicameral structure, which includes the parallel Student Assembly and Academic Assembly. Graduate campus groups include the Graduate Employees Union (GEU) and the Council of Graduate Students (COGS). Michigan State also has a variety of partisan groups ranging from liberal to conservative, including the College Republicans, the College Democrats and several third party organizations. Other partisan activist groups include Young Americans for Freedom on the right and Students for Economic Justice and Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA) on the left. Given MSU's proximity to the Michigan state capital of Lansing, many politically-inclined Spartans get internships for the state representatives.

Let's look more closely at the colors in this paragraph. Most of the political groups mentioned are centrist or nonpartisan. The paragraph is slighly slanted towards the left, though much of that is from our parent's generation, as you can see from the goldenrod highlighted section.

Anyway, I hope this helps. Good luck, and let me know if you need anything else. Lovelac7 03:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I will post a copy of this color-coded paragraph on the FAC page as well.

[edit] Methodist Affliation

I agree with you totally about not worrying about it, but the objection was not mine. You are going to have to deal with DaveOinSF on that one. Indrian 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

I just wanted to say that you have a done a great job with the OWU article, and it is clear that you have put in a lot of work to significantly improve it in every regard. Don't take the FAC comments personally, although it seems as if you take them quite well already. Also, if it doesn't pass, don't give up! The criteria for FAs is getting increasingly harder, so while it seems that other university articles may have gotten away with certain flaws, OWU is being held to a higher standard! Anyways, I will probably take a thorough look at the article within two weeks to try to help out. -Bluedog423Talk 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Request

What kind of copyediting are you interested in? I will sometimes do the "printable version" of an article (in box at left), paste it into a word processing program with a spell checker and look at it that way for typos. There is also copyediting for redundancy (tightening up the article), POV, grammar, etc. I may be able to take a look at the article in the next day or two, but if I knew what to look for, that would be helpful. Otherwise I am not sure I know anyone who is looking to copyedit, but will mention it if someone comes to mind. I once saw Harlan Ellison read at OWU. Take care, Ruhrfisch 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Another possibility for POV copyediting is to leave a request at User talk:Jefffire. Ruhrfisch 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Jefffire has helped me on minor POV issues in the past - I am assuming this is something s/he enjoys doing (used to have a notice on user or talk page offering to help on POV edits). I will do the paste for spell check first. Ruhrfisch 20:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry I have not done more with copyedits - I have been quite busy with a FAC. Once things settle down I have some suggestions and questions that I think will help improve the article. Ruhrfisch 03:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Activism

I think you are definately on the right track here. I like the antebellum stuff that you have added and a lot of the basic structure. I just have a few notes at this very early stage. First, I do not think that the activism section needs a definition of the term; a wikilink should be enough. Second, I realize you are trying to keep everything that is already there, but I am still not convinced of the necessity of including those particular protests from the last couple of years. If you look at the Michigan activism section that has been posted here and on the FAC page, it does a very good job of highlighting all aspects of Michigan activism without favoring any particular group or protest. The specific example of Campus Crusade for Christ should probably stay, as this was an issue directly related to the university that appears to have garnered a lot of interest over a couple of years. The specific anti-war protest probably should not be kept and should be replaced with a more general overwiew about anti-war sentiment on campus. Finally, the 2004 election stuff should not be in the activism section. The information is appropriate as a reflection of the political makeup of the campus, but should be part of the section about the attributes of the student body right along with international character, academic achievement, etc. Keep up the good work! Indrian 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary Definition

WikiprojectOWU,

I don't think the activism definition is necessary, because anyone reading the article will either:

a) Know what activism is, and/or
b) Check the wikilink

I do suggest one minor change, which I will make myself — linking that article not to the activism article but rather to the comprehensive student activism article. I think that will go long way to silencing any critics.

Talk to you later, Lovelac7 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OWU Project

Fair enough. Am removing the link as per your request. I would however be interested in what you think of the actual proposal itself, as you seem to have read it. Badbilltucker 16:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on the OWU article

I have looked at the Ohio Wesleyan University article again (and it has changed some since I last looked a few days ago, so it is clear it is being worked on). While it is obvious a lot of work has been done, the article still has some ways to go. Here are some thoughts.

1) Be as specific as possible and avoid vague generalities (for example give the exact distance from Columbus, not about 25 miles, or give the exact day and month that the first classes were held, not just the year). What was the original name (the article says it was founded as a college - Ohio Wesleyan College? If OWU was original name, say that). If giving statistics, give the year (as of 2004) and the exact figures.

2) Avoid duplication - for example Methodism is wikilinked three times in the first five paragraphs, and you really don't need two pictures each of the sulphur spring or of Branch Rickey (so just pick the best one).

3) Be consistent. Photos should be the same size for their format, horizontal ones the same width, vertical ones the same smaller width (you can perhaps break this rule if you need to show more detail in the photo). Always give dates of graduation for notable alums and be consistent in the amount of description given to each (so I would give a few sentences to the VP and Nobel Prize recipient, and a phrase or at most one sentence each to other alumni who are less notable - why does Wendie Malick get more words than almost any other alum and Melvin van Peebles gets no description?).

4) Remember that you are telling a story. Put things in chronological order unless there is some strong reason not to (so the Founding section has the third paragraph taking place in 1842, before the second paragraph in 1844.) Read and think of gaps in the story - the charter was 1842, the doors opened in 1844, but the first president was not inagurated until 1846? Who ran the place before that? Or who is Joseph Trimble (editor of the charter)? What is the Dartmouth University case (the link does not tell this) and why does it matter? Make connections explicit (I assume Elliot Hall is named for one of the founders - if so, why not say so?).

5) Use pictures to advance the story being told. Try to put photos in places that add to the story (so why is the photo of Elliot Hall, the oldest building on campus, at the bottom of the article and not up with the description of the founding?}. Captions have to be concise, and should add to the story. The Doric Front image is in the right palce, and the caption is interesting, but too long (and yet not detailed enough to tell the whole story). What about something like this as a caption "X Hall (left), Thomson Chapel, and Elliot Hall formed the campus' Doric Front from 185x to 188x, when the chapel was demolished. Elliot Hall was moved in 19xx." Then mention these buildings in the history as well (when built, purpose).

I hope this helps. I can copyedit for typos and grammar, but at this point enough work still needs to be done that it seems it would be premature to polish. Ruhrfisch 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I tried cleaning up the alumni section, adding dates of graduation (best guess if not easily found on WP or source listed - 22 years after birth year) and added a ref for Byron Pitts. It would be hard for me to clean up the History section because I do not know the information needed in some cases. What would be helpful would be to have the History of OWU article have more detail and then pare it down for the main article. As it is, there are unique things in both articles (when ideally the main article History section should only have things also in the History of OWU article). If you don't like my changes, please revert them, but I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to be of help - I see Melvin Van Peebles (whom I confused with son Mario in my earlier post, now corrected) still has a question mark for his date. I would add pictures of NV Peale and Lemonade Lucy Hayes to the alumni gallery. Ruhrfisch 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting; Peale

Hi. Thanks for your dedication to the OWU pages. (1) I think the main OWU page still needs more copyediting. Some sentences are still awkward, and some sentences or entire sections could stand some major trimming, I think. (2) I'm unclear why adding Peale as a notable alum would be controversial; he is more famous to the general public than almost any other alum listed (at least to middle-agers and up). And I think it is accurate and NPOV to call him a preacher (or minister). Thanks! Bob schwartz 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I hafta agree... IMHO, Peale should be added. He is extremely famous---when I was there in the late 80's he was considered OWU's most famous alumn. There aren't many alumn who have had their lives made into a biography (One Man's Way.) But the thing that I think clinches his inclusions is the fact that he was the key note speaker at the sesqentential (150th) graduating class in 1992. And again, he was a minister first and foremost, so calling him something else is POV.Balloonman 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the issue of whether someone is extremely famous or not will invoke investigation of two issues. One is the issue of perspective and who makes the judgement call and the second issue is one of values and how we, as impartial observers, value different aspects of life in general. Third, and very likely the most important issue, is how society values them? Peale is currently in the Alumni section and I think it is only fair to keep it that way. It might be interesting to pose for discussion whether his contributions in the spiritual world are more important than other people's contributions in the worlds of science, politics, education and so on. This, without a doubt, will generate an unambigously political discussion and a very controversial one as well. If you are a deeply religious person, you might say that religion is very important. On the other hand, if you are a humanist, you very likely will disagree. Most people will opt for the middle ground on placing a judgement call. I think focusing on his work without redundant characterizations will reduce debate on the controversial topic of religion and its importance of life. WikiprojectOWU 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with religion or Peale's contribution to religion. Norman Vincent Peale was a major voice in his day. He is, objectively, one of the most famous almni from OWU. A websearch of "Norman Vincent Peale" produces over 80,000 hits. I guarantee that your parents know who he is and about his books on the Power of Positive Thinking. He was first and formost a minister, but his contributions are significant, and to be honest with you I think your refusal to consider him is proof of your bias. Ask a 100 people who Charles Fairbanks, Frank Sherwood Rowland, or Shirin R. Tahir-Kheli are, and you'll probably get 99 blank stares. Ask a 100 people who Norman Vincent Peale is, and most of those people will recognize the name (particularly those over 35.) I'm sorry, his being a minister is not justification for leaving him off the list. The people you mention are much much less well known than him. Some don't even have articles on wikipedia or bring up only a few hundred hits on the web. It doesn't matter if we believe religion is important or not, he is.Balloonman 20:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't know who added him, but he is on the mainpage now, and I think it's appropriate that he is there... he is much more famous/influencial than most of the people listed. Inclusion, doesn't mean concordence with what he said. 20 million books sold in 41 languages alone makes him more notable than most of the people on the page.Balloonman 20:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
For his contributions to the field of theology, President Ronald Reagan awarded Peale the Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest civilian honor in the United States) on March 26, 1984. That alone, in my opinion, moves him above Tahir-Kheli in deserving prominence in this section. It doesn't matter if we agree with him or not, but I'd argue that a Medal of Freedom winner, a Nobel Prize Winner, a VP, and Branch Rickey are the most important alumni!Balloonman 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt any bias is involved, except perhaps an understandable bias toward efficiency in trying to make this article FA-quality. Ideally, writing that Peale was a minister shouldn't cause problems, but history shows that even a neutral, factual mention of religion might trigger a time-wasting dispute. I sympathize. Bob schwartz 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Updated DYK query On 12 December 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Congrats on getting the lead spot. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow, this is unexpected but humbling. Thank you! WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Section

Just so you know, the only reason why I elevated the issue by putting a POV section to the article was because of the DYK... if it wasn't for that, I would have let time work it's course, but since this is getting more attention than normal, I felt that the POV/verifiability problems are clear to the casual reader.Balloonman 23:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RobinsonRickey.jpg

That's a great image! However Image:RobinsonRickey.jpg is currently lacking information on source, which is needed. Please add that information to the image page on Commons. A detailed caption (eg, date of the photo, go ahead and say right on the photo page who the people shown are) would be helpful as well. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responded

Just so you know I responded on my page.Balloonman 09:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OWU's Pell percentage - compared to what?

Hi. The sentence at the end of the Pell Grants paragraph was just changed to saying that OWU's % is comparable to Vassar, Reed, Colorado and Hampshire. I think it was better before, when it said OWU's 18% puts it the top third. Readers are unlikely to know where those 4 other colleges fall in % of Pell students, so the new sentence is not very informative. The previous version says something meaningful to all readers. (Also, choosing those particular 4 colleges is problematic -- comparing OWU to only famous colleges may leave an impression of striving or partiality, reducing the article's credibility.) I'd suggest changing it back to something close to what it was before. Thanks! Bob schwartz 01:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion that you made however the statement that you propose is problematic because this is not what the document states. This was a problem noted by another experiencd WP editor brought up on the Talk page. WikiprojectOWU 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I must have looked in the wrong places to find the comment you mentioned, but how about "This percentage of Pell Grant recipients is higher than at 2/3 of national liberal arts colleges"? (Whichever sentence is used, there is still the issue of comparing percentages from 7 years apart, but I don't see a way around that.) Bob schwartz 02:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can convince the editor who objected to that wording, I do not mind. WikiprojectOWU 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I found it; I'll put the suggestion on the Talk page. Bob schwartz 02:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I'm the editor who objected to your revision, because it wasn't what the cited source said. I'd love to have your version, because I agree it is a more powerful/meaningful statement. The problem is that the citation didn't support the wording.Balloonman 05:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for all your work on improving the OWU article. I double-checked the reference. On pages 3 & 4 it lists 52 National Liberal Arts Colleges. The percentage of students with Pell grants ranges from 79.4% at Berea to 3.7% at Washington and Lee, with 1/3 at 17.7% or higher. So I think it is OK to say that OWU's percentage of "nearly 18%" is higher than 2/3 of these other colleges (even though OWU is not listed as one of these colleges).
One might object that their list of LACs is unrepresentative, but if you were to compare OWU to only the top 37 USN&WR ranked LACs (the ones in bold), OWU would rank even higher. So the comparision I'm proposing might be a bit understated. Am I missing something? Thanks! Bob schwartz 15:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Sure, I'll take a look sometime this weekend. It looks like you have put in a lot of work on the article since the FAC. I'll definitely try to help out in any way I can. -Bluedog423Talk 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From TimVickers

Hi there, have you considered Wikipedia:Peer review?

Some initial comments.

  • Avoid the term "In recent years"
  • Giving percentage increases in a figure (student funding) is meaningless unless the initial figure is stated.
  • The section "Academics" seems mistitled. Perhaps "Teaching" might be more accurate.
    • Hm, what about the student profile and the degree programs in that section? Teaching will be too specific. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on the UN flag seems unimportant.
I combined it with another part, now it is one sentence. It could show tribute to international awareness. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reference 91 for "Ohio Wesleyan holds a fairly positive relationship with the City of Delaware." refers to Bates College, not OWU, is this part of the university?
I agree. Mid-way through the article, the former president talks about the OWU-Delaware relationship. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Perkins Observatory is now the most visible and most reliable source of information related to astronomy and space exploration in central Ohio." You need a reference if you are going to say it is the most reliable source.
Good comment. I have to ask someone. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Approximately 200 upperclass students live in the Small Living Units (SLUs)." Upper class in what sense?
  • "Greek life" is jargon and means nothing to people outside the US.
    • That's why the word is linked. If we call it something else (e.g. academic and social organization), then it will be encompass everything else. Any comments on how to fix this are welcome. WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "In the 1980s, student political action had brought Ohio Wesleyan's administration to pledge to fully divest holdings connected to South Africa." The way this is worded I can't tell if they carried through on this promise or not.
  • Have any notable comments been made about the fact that only men have been presidents?
    • Wow, nope. I'll include that! WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope these comments help. TimVickers 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Very helpful! Thank you! WikiprojectOWU 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AKA locally as Wesleyan

OWU is known as "Wesleyan", but not widely. If you live in Illinois and tell your neighbor that you are going to Wesleyan, the neighbor will probably think of Illinois Wesleyan, not OWU. If you live anywhere outside of Ohio, the neighbor will probably either think of Wesleyan University or one of the local xyz Wesleyan Colleges, if there is one in that state.
Local shorthand is useful information and worth mentioning. So I suggest that "locally" (or "in Ohio") be added to the first sentence:

Ohio Wesleyan University (also known as OWU, pronounced oh-WOO, or locally as Wesleyan) is ...

I think this will help inform the uninformed (our audience!) about the scope of the "Wesleyan" shorthand, and avoid confusion with Wesleyan University. It is incorrect for the article to imply that OWU is also known as just Wesleyan in most of the U.S., much less globally. Thanks! Bob schwartz 02:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what you claim? WikiprojectOWU 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Using "Wesleyan" as a synonym for OWU is common for OWU folks and probably for many in Ohio, but not in the US and world, where the audience for this Wikipedia article lives. Wesleyan University is the university generally known by the shorthand "Wesleyan" because it is larger, better known, higher ranked, has graduate programs (which generate more awareness), and its name is just Wesleyan University, unqualified by a state. But no, I don't have a source comparing Wesleyan University and OWU shorthand.
The problem I'm trying to fix is that the article currently lacks a reference to support the existing claim that "Wesleyan" is another widely understood name for OWU. US and international readers unfamiliar with American colleges and universities (a prime audience for this article!) will be misled if the article says Wesleyan is another name for OWU without mentioning this usage as regional. That's the additional, practical problem.
To remedy this, I'd suggest either adding a qualification (see earlier post), or moving the mention of "Wesleyan" as a shorthand from the first sentence of the article to, say, the Student Life section where a sentence like "OWU students and faculty often refer to the school as simply Wesleyan" could more appropriately include this useful information.
Hope this helps. As it stands, this unqualified regional claim weakens the first sentence, right where the reader needs to be reassured of the article's impartiality and credibility. Bob schwartz 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. I've seen in several Ohio and national newspapers the school being referred to as Wesleyan as well. I could provide references but I trust you will be able to find them too. Notice several of Huddleston's speeches and the Bishop shirts. The fact is that these names have been confusing for years. I've looked at the pages of the other schools and a few deal with this issue. We can't change what someone somewhere may be confused about unless all schools drop Wesleyan in their names. However, we have spelled out the name loud and clear in the first sentence. Do you think a fair number of people can not distinguish between Ohio and Connecticut as two distinct states in the U.S.?WikiprojectOWU 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of OWU article

I think it's an excellent article and you've done some really good work. My specialty is military history, so I'm not sure if I can accurately predict all of the concerns that FA reviewers might have about the article, but I'll list some suggestions and/or observations of the article below:

  • Inline citations should come at the end of the sentence, not after a comma, although, I don't always follow this rule myself. That may mean that there may be more than one citation in the same spot. That's ok, you can either combined them in a single citation or place two citations side-by-side. Also, it's usually good to end each paragraph with an inline citation, so it doesn't look like an uncited passage is "dangling" out there in the article.
  • Some of the sentences can be combined to eliminate "choppy" prose, such as: "The charter established wide powers to a board to be composed of twenty-one persons. The charter emphasized the democratic spirit of freedom of teaching." to: "The charter established wide powers to a board to be composed of twenty-one persons as well as emphasizing the democratic spirit of freedom of teaching."
  • Try not to begin sentences with "it."
  • Since there is a separate article on the history of the university, the history section in the main article could probably be shorter.
    • Bluedog423 just helped with this one. WikiprojectOWU 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Profiled" section under "Academics" uses some terms with which I'm unfamiliar: "regular decision applications" and "yield."
  • There's a picture of a "sulfur spring" and then no mention of it in the text (that I could find).
    • There are several mentions in the text. WikiprojectOWU 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs some copyediting to smooth out some of the grammar. I'll try to help out with that.
    • Thank you! Copyediting will be so helpful! WikiprojectOWU 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some FA reviewers complain if the "Notes" section comes after the "References" section instead of before it.
    • This one will be easy to fix if someone brings it up. WikiprojectOWU 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If any of the "external links" are used as references, then they should go under the references section. If not, then "external links" as a separate section is fine.
    • I don't think that applies here. WikiprojectOWU 06:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's all I can think of. Please let me know when you nominate it for FA and I'll try to follow it's progress through the nomination process. Cla68 07:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: I just read the discussion page of the article. I hadn't realized that an article on something as seemingly uncontroversial as an academic institution could generate so much debate. Unfortunately, the debate appears to have inhibited past attempts at FA. Hopefully it will make it the next time. Cla68 07:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

Hi WikiprojectOWU, Here’s some good places for featured article advice/suggestions:

Also, check out other Universities that have reached featured status, such as Michigan State University and its sub article, History of Michigan State University. I’ll post my specific feedback as part of the peer review. Bobanny 10:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Wesleyan University

Hey, thanks for asking my advice about this article. Unfortunately, my experience with regard to featured articles is in reality a bit limited. My work has been mainly limited to articles on politics, pop culture, computer software and a few odds and ends like King James Version of the Bible — I don't have much (actually, I think I don't have any) experience dealing with education articles, let alone getting them to featured level. All I can do is offer some general advice which you've probably already seen before, such as making the lead a summary of the article (instead of just being an intro), making good use of footnotes, and most importantly, making sure the writing is good, neutral, factual, and encyclopedic in tone. I see you've asked for peer review, and the suggestions there are all good.

You might be better off asking those who have experience with education-related articles; Cornell University, Duke University, Michigan State University and University of Michigan are all featured articles, so you might consider contacting those involved in writing those articles for more specific advice. Congratulations on your work thus far, btw — in my uninformed view, it looks like an FA already — and I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From User:Piotrus

Sure. John seems to have said it all, though. Look at similar FAs and send it to WP:PR (drop me a note and I'll make sure to drop some comments there in exchange). Comments from former FACs attempts should be addressd before the PR. Good luck!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From SG

Reply on my talk page. Sandy (Talk) 15:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodness me

Goodness me, that is a monumental work. As you may have noted I have one or two other pressing things to attend to on Wikipedia at the moment, but a quick glance at the page suggests the reference and notes sections need to be disentangled see Belton House for how this should be (IMO). It does need a thorough copy edit. The lead looks a little short for the length of page, and the text is very verbose, I don't normally (he won't mind me saying this) like the concise clipped style of Tony but in this case the page would benefit from it. Take a look at other long FAs like Sanssouci or John Vanbrugh or one of Bishonen's FAs to see how they are presented. Personally I don't like to see images left and right, but aligned together on the right, but that is my personal style - others don't agree (I assume all the images are above board and "legal") I do wonder is some of the many section could be amalgamated, and the page shortened without losing too much content. Anyhow, that is purely ,my view, it is a good page, I;m sure it won't take much to get it up to FA standard. Regards Giano 17:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OWU in CTCL is notable

I think one of the things that is most notable about OWU is its inclusion in the Colleges That Change Lives book (and Web site). I'd say this certainly deserves a mention in the text, and probably in the intro -- I think it is at least as meaningful as being ranked 95th by USN&WR. Maybe during the overhauls this got removed? Thanks! Bob schwartz 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the Pope publication and I do not mind including it. Take a look when you get a chance at the other FA school pages and be aware of what POV concerns it might generate. I will ask the three users that I am in close contact from the other FA pages to see if this is something that we can include without somebody saying that it is POV and doesn't read like a WP article. Will that be fine with you? WikiprojectOWU 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thoughts

I just finished a general copyedit of the lead and history sections. Thanks for the appreciation of my efforts. In any event, I'm sorry to say this, but I think this article is farther from FA than I previously thought. However, I am basing this on my editing of the history section, which probably was the section in most dire need of help. Thus, I might be shortchanging the other sections, which, on an initial glance, appear to be in much better shape.

In regard to the history section, I significantly shortened it, eliminating extraneous information not central to OWU's history. The information I deleted should be added to History of Ohio Wesleyan University. I did add a couple of sections there already, but I definitely did not do it properly as some of the information overlaps and many dates are still left out. Overall, the article is now 83 KB instead of 88 KB. For comparison to other FA's, Duke University is 66 KB, University of Michigan is 49 KB, Michigan State University is 55 KB, and Cornell University is 80 KB.

In regards to "important information," I definitely had to make some personal decisions about what I thought fit that bill; I also eliminated a photo since there is now less space. You can discuss these changes with other editors since some of them are surely personal preferences.

I put forth several embedded questions within the history section that need to be answered. I would also suggest that you add at least two sentences about important events that occurred between 1940 and 2000, since it appears that OWU did not exist during this time, according to its history. ;) I also think the details about the PhD percentages in the "Today" section are quite long and unnecessary. Ideally, one sentence would be appropriate. I also don't know if some of the details in the latter half of "Campus expansion and fundraising" are all significant enough.

It is clear that you have conducted a great deal of research about OWU and have invested a lot of time and energy into the article, and your efforts have definitely been worthwhile. However, I believe that there are still some prose issues throughout and issues regarding references that do not fully support certain claims. They may suggest similar things, but have slightly different connotations. Also, make sure there is no plagiarism - I don't have the books so I cannot check, but a couple of sentences from websites were clearly copied directly. Anyways, I sincerely hope that this passes as an FA in the future. I may get a chance to look at the other sections sometime in the near future. Hopefully, my edits don't contain too many mistakes (although I'm certain there are a couple, so take a look! I don't claim to be perfect either). Let me know if I made any glaring errors. Good luck! -Bluedog423Talk 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad about size being a problem. I was wrong. I now realize that it's only big because of the citations, so the prose is actually not terribly long. But the history section still needed to be shortened.-Bluedog423Talk 01:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Great job with updating the "Today" section within history! Looks much better! -Bluedog423Talk 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Image:Orchesis1997.jpg needs a more detailed fair use rationale. I honestly don't know if fair use is appropriate in this case since it seems like a free version should be readily available by anybody who attended the event. Not sure, though, but somebody might oppose FA status on these grounds. -Bluedog423Talk 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for help response

I've had a quick read, the image on the Orchesis performance is one of the first thing I agree with Bluedog and would expect it to get knocked at FAC; no rationale, as its only two sentence within the tradition section making more a decoration, personally its such a low qualtiy it doesnt add to this article any way. My oother pick is the lead as it introduces new information instead of summarising the article. I'll be back tonight for a more detailed read. Gnangarra 02:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More suggestions

I've glanced through the other sections. Here are some more thoughts/suggestions:

  • 1.) Footnotes come at the end of punctuation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation. Sometimes, there is a reference cited in the middle of a sentence without any punctuation. I personally like them at the end of sentences instead of after a comma because it just looks messy, but it doesn't seem to be against the manual to put them after commas. But definitely can't just be after a word.
  • 2.) The profile section is a bit too long. Mainly, the details about Ph.D. graduates are really not that important. People care more about things like aspects of the student body. Also, an entire paragraph that includes quotes (which definitely aren't interesting at all and thus ought to be paraphrased even if they were significant) about females in academia is completely unnecessary and harms the focus of the section. OWU stats are not even that much different than the national stats, so I would consider dumping that whole paragraph. Things like SAT averages are not even mentioned, and that's the kind of stuff people who read the article care about. Also, the information under student life should probably be under the profile section, as it is a profile of the student body.
  • 3.) Don't start sentences with numerals. e.g. "59% of Ohio Wesleyan students" should instead begin "Fifty-nine percent...."
  • 4.) The student life lead section is very choppy and is a bombardment of facts at times. Try to make it more cohesive and flowing.
  • 5.) When you are quoting something you use "quotation marks" not italics.
  • 6.) You don't need to provide a source to state that something exists. You need references to back up claims. In this following example, the references add nothing except now we can be certain that they exist, yay: "The Daily Bulletin[125] is the student-run daily bulletin. Other student publications include the weekly The Transcript,[126] the electronic Connect2OWU,[127] @Wesleyan,[128] an online magazine published four times a year, and several academic publications, such as The Civic Arts Review[129] and The Historian,[130] a journal of contemporary and relevant historical scholarship." If you say something like, "The Transcript has a daily readership of 5,000" then that should be cited. But merely stating that it exists doesn't require a reference.
  • 7.) Sports are not capitalized. e.g. chess, hockey, skiing, etc. I shouldn't be finding things like this at this point.
  • 8.) Alumni section is still a bit choppy. Consists of short, stubby paragraphs.
  • 9.) Organizations and activities still seems like a list. I'd suggest to choose the most significant things and expand on them slightly. What impacts the most OWU students? That's what should be focused on.
  • 10.) Going along with my point 9, things that impact very few students probably don't deserve mentioning. Although sometimes it is appropriate to give a brief summary of a few representative organizations; and I can deal with that. Likewise, aspects that are mundane probably can be deleted too. For example, do we really need an entire paragraph stating that commencement exists? Probably not. Is a sentence about midnight breakfast really necessary? We have that at my school, too. Does that really add anything to the article? I think there are a lot of random organizations mentioned and facts presented that can be deleted. Add more subarticles if you want to have this information somewhere. This article is supposed to include the most imperative things about OWU. If you had 15 minutes to explain OWU to somebody, what would you include? I do not think it would be that the Pell grant averages are similar to "Vassar College, Reed College, Colorado College and Hampshire College.[113]" Things like that are not important. Stating the percentage is fine, but anymore than that is beating it over the head. Plus, naming those colleges tell us nothing as they could have been hand selected. If you said this is among the highest 100 institutions in the nation, that actually gives us information.
  • 11.) Flow is sometimes an issue. The article should be telling the reader a story that they can easily read from start to finish. The main sections that need improvement in this regard are "Organizations and activities" and "Traditions."
  • 12.) Also, the lead could probably be a bit longer for an article of this size. A couple of more sentences would be appropriate. Maybe include a sentence about activism or traditions or the profile something. Those seem to have more information in the text than recent construction, for example. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; not add new information. Everything contained in the lead should be contained with the text of the article as well (I may have been at fault at this point, though, in my article too; but you should strive to be even better than past FA's!)

Ok, that's it for now. Good luck again! -Bluedog423Talk 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Response

Hi, sorry for late responses. As for prose, I've also the same problems, but I took the same measures as you did. Ask people to do the copyediting. I saw you'd been helped by some people before. So good luck with the article. — Indon (reply) — 17:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hi, you seem to be taking a simple check as a personal attack - I assure you, it is not. You have contributed to only one article, and its sub-articles, as can easily be seen by looking at your contribs.[1] This article has had a history of contention. Administrators regularly check out and ask questions about accounts whose only contributions are to a contentious subject; Wikipedia is getting very large and part of that means a lot of sockpuppets pushing their POV. If you're not a sock, be happy that people are trying to keep Wikipedia sockpuppet free - and if you are, well, that will of course be different. It is similar to a roadcheck by police for license and insurance card. The police are not accusing you of anything, and if you are legal, you go on your way. Becoming angry, uncivil, or making statements about consulting with authorities about what to do about the unfairness or indignity of the checkpoint is not only silly, it is counter productive. I hope this analogy helps you view things a little differently - please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this issue slightly. As a person who is on the other side of many of the debates on the OWU page and a person who suspects a fair amount of sockpuppetry on the OWU pages, User:WikiprojectOWU is one user who I don't consider to be a sock. I don't always agree with User:WikiprojectOWU but I do believe that she is trying to make the OWU pages better---while trying to be open-minded. There are other users that I do suspect of being puppets to push specific agendas... but, and I may be niave, User:WikiprojectOWU isn't one of them. She may be single minded on this subject, but so too are a lot of other Wikipedians... I don't partiularly care for her name (it is easy to misinterpret as brought up elsewhere) but she is a solid/concerned editor. Balloonman 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I normally reply where I receive a message, in this case I am replying here, splitting the thread, because I'm not sure you have my page watchlisted. You are more than welcome for any clarity my little analogy has given; please feel free to ask me for any type of assistance I can give in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drama

If I could give you a word of advice: stay out of drama. Some Wikipedia editors are just looking to pick a fight. Stay away from them and focus on your article.

By the way, I left your some feedback on the WP:PR. Keep up the good work!

Lovelac7 20:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to echo all of the above. Often the best way to diffuse a situation is to step back from it and soldier on. Sometimes, other people's remarks might seem more than what they actually are ("Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"). But on Wikipedia, it's often better to assume the best, rather than assume the worst. Cheers, Gzkn 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
We even have a guideline about it: WP:AGF. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

Hi. If I dare make a suggestion: you could simply change your username (see WP:CHU). I can imagine that "Wikiproject" in a username can raise some questions by other wikipedians and might lead to some confusion and misunderstandings. Just an idea from an outsider.... All the best, --Ligulem 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest with you, your user name did throw me for a loop when I first saw it as well... I didn't realize that it was a user name. Balloonman 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template Wesleyan

Hi WikiprojectOWU,

I just wanted to let you know that I asked Sandy a question about the {{Wesleyan}} template that is being used. I think we might want to change it to {{OWU}}, but wanted to get her feedback as she is an editor we both respect. My concern is that Wesleyan is used by more than just OWU and is in fact the name of a specific shool. If I'm not mistaken, an admin could change the name and instantly change the occurances of the templates automatically. Balloonman 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/s/User_talk%7ELaSaltarella_Archive_1_e113.html"