Talk:Coral Gables, Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Coral Gables, Florida was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 11, 2007
Florida Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Florida; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as a Mid priority article


This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I removed the section on the University of Miami at the top of the article, as there was another section on it near the botton. I moved some trivia items to the end of the article. I also trimmed out some fat. As for the number of UM national championships, UM has done pretty well in recent years, but has a ways to go to catch Oklahoma or Notre Dame. -- Donald Albury 11:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are plain wrong. In describing total history, that may be true, but UM wasn't serious about football until the early 1980s. In the past 25 years, UM has five national championships (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991 and 2001), making it undeniably the best program of the past quarter century. No one argues that, even Notre Dame fans. The other two teams you reference are not even close: Oklahoma has two (1985 and 2000) and Notre Dame has just one (1988). Tag removed. MiamiDolphins3 14:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
So, you've restored to very poorly written version. All of that needs to be sourced. -- Donald Albury 15:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
No, actually commonly-known information does not need to be referenced. We know that UM is in Coral Gables. We know that--based on USNWR and other rankings of the school as a whole and several individual programs--it is among the top tier of U.S. colleges and institutions. And the information about its football program is well-known (not by you, apparently) but cited in the see also section. MiamiDolphins3 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] UM Tilt?

Separate from the football debate, it does seem to me that there is a bit too much flattery going on in regards to the University of Miami on this page. I don't deny that it is listed in well known and commonly cited rankings charts, but I think that some of the text here goes a bit overboard, and the citations don't necessarily back up the claims. For instance, there are two citations purportedly to back up the statement that the many UM academic programs 'are among the best in the world'. The first is a press release from UM stating that it received good rankings from the Princeton Review in two categories, but neither of them ('Diverse Student Population' and 'Students Pack the Stadiums') are related to academics. The second citation is a link to UM's own promotional material which does indeed declare that it is 'one of the nations leading research universities', but provides no external data to back it up. Beyond that, I don't know how to verify the claim at the outset that UM is a 'globally recognized' university, and where do we define the 'top tier' of US colleges and universities? On the USNWR rankings, which is probably the most 'authoritative' (if such a subjective thing as a college rankings list can be described as such), UM is #54. Does that really qualify for the 'top tier'? The text in this section seems rather biased and unverified. Cuffeparade 10:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think it is overdone, but one editor vigorously defended it. Let's see if we can reach consensus on what belings. -- Donald Albury 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

MiamiDolphins3, Primary education means the early years of school, and does not include high school. See Primary education. -- Donald Albury 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting citation requests for basic information. Certainly, none of those facts are contestable and citations would look ridiculous. Do you contest any of those facts? Also (unrelated), can anything be done about the gaps in text, which is due to the page layout and number of photos? I think it could appear more readable without those gaps? Thanks. MiamiDolphins3 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added some sources and was forced to remove some photos to make the page look presentable. MiamiDolphins3 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy of Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what you or I know. There may be readers coming to this article that know nothing about Coral Gables or the University of Miami, and it is discourteous to such readers to not include reliable sources. If something is well-known or obvious, then it should be trivial to supply sources. -- Donald Albury 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is there so much info on UM anyway? Shouldn't it go on UM's page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Averette (talk • contribs)
That would be my preference. -- Donald Albury 19:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
UM is the largest employer in CG and the best-known organization in the city, so it warrants the few paragraphs we've given it. Also, I did link the historical national championships, so that is referenced. Let me see what's out their on the Heisman and Hall of Fame references. The pages looks better, at least, without those huge white gaps. MiamiDolphins3 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
University of Florida is the largest employer in Gainesville, Florida and the best known organization in the city (it's the 4th largest U in the country), yet there's not much more than a short mention with a link on Gainesville's page. - Marc Averette 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, Gainesville may well warrant more on UF and its important role in the city. MiamiDolphins3 01:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page layout

The page layout, including the photo placements, are vastly improved. Nice job. MiamiDolphins3 01:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elevation question

(moved from top of page to here per talk page custom)

Here's a question: elevation? Which is it, 2m or 33ft? Mxzombie 03:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The USGS[1] puts it at 10 feet, but also puts various points within the city at sea level up to 13 feet.[2] I've corrected the article. -- Donald Albury 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Too many one sentence paragraphs and WP:LEAD has not been applied.
2. Factually accurate?: Impossible to know, the article is unreferenced.
3. Broad in coverage?: No, lacks thorough coverage of culture, demographics, climate, government and history.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pretty close.
5. Article stability? No, was a reverted POV edit in January.
6. Images?: Some, but could use improvement.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Alan.ca 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)