Talk:Georgetown University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Georgetown University is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 2, 2007.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives
• April 11, 2007


Contents

[edit] Push for GA

Note: I graduated GU in spring 2007. Bias aside, I think it is useful to mention and cite that Georgetown is ranked in the top 25 national universities (United States) by US news. It is a piece of information that a variety of people interested in the university would be interested in seeing, and certainly could be considered encyclopedic. It is a major factor for many applicants.

I've done a number of changes to our page this morning. Most importantly I've tried to build the McDonough School of Business page with some info from this one. I suspect some people will note the other major change, I moved the well stuffed fiction section to the former Founding of Georgetown University page, which I renamed History of Georgetown University. Like the trivia section, this has very questionable value to the page. This is essentially an unrestricted "In popular culture section, which according to Wikipedia should be avoided. I can see integrating the Exorcist in the Campus section, but not all that was in fiction. Rather than delete it, I've hid it. I worry that it is just a matter of time before this section or one like it is recreated with additional "useful" information about Young Indiana Jones et al.

These changes are largely in order to bring the article up to a level where it can be nominated for Good Article Status. Besides eliminating a section that surely would have prevented achieving that, this brought the size of the article below 50k, which make that goal practical, as articles above that size require justification. Thoughts?--Patrick 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I have never contributed to this article save for adding two images, but you did a good job cleaning it up. My suggestion to you—in my capacity as one who's been involved in several GA and FA noms—is look at other college articles which have been rated GA, or even FA (since some GAs are quite suspect). From there you'd get a really good sense of how to improve the article. Good luck. Chensiyuan 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I took that advice, and I've read the Cornell University and Duke University pages as the closest examples of featured articles. This resulted in a brutal hacking away at the academics section, though I left the info on the graduate school of arts and sciences and the school for continuing studies because they lack separate pages to move this info to. I rearranged the page, removing the "people section" and letting alumni stand on its own like the other pages, with faculty moving under academics and speakers under student life. I also moved some photos to the sub pages, since it was getting very crowded with photos of Healy Hall.

Lastly, I've nominated the article. While waiting for a reviewer, I'll keep trying to trim the article. That magic length is actually 32k. Even with all I did today, it's still a weighty 41k. Comments? --Patrick 02:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    • You can save some words with the citations - i.e., in the notable speakers section, rather than provide an individual citation for each speaker, if you can find a citation which says all those speakers have spoken before, that is more economical, seeing that you have quite a few citations in that section alone. Chensiyuan 02:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Frankly if you count just the readable prose the length is more than fine. I'd be very surprised if someone fails a GA for this due to length concerns. Chensiyuan 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Allow me to make another point. The history section has only a couple of references, but it runs for four rather substantial paragraphs. I understand that there is a separate page for the history of the university, but could you explain why this section does not use many references? It may be a concern. Chensiyuan 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd been avoiding editing them till I have the time to write the full history page, and determine what goes on which page. Anyways, now it's referenced.--Patrick 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fire April 30 at 12:28PM

A fire broke out during the late morning/early afternoon at the Georgetown branch of the DC Public Library (Wisconsin Avenue and R Street, NW) The fire began on the roof of the library building. Units reported fire showing from the roof, but there is no roof access from the interior.

At 12:45pm, a second alarm sounded. Units began pulling the ceiling down, though the fire was still through the roof of the building. All hands were operating.

At 12:47om, the DCFD Firefighting Deputy ordered all units are to abandon the building and let the fire burn.

At 12:51pm, DCFD Truck 5 reported that the fire extended to side B of the fire building.

At 12:52pm, DCFD Engine 29 E29 reported a partail roof collapse of the building and extension of the fire to exposure B.

At 12:57, DCFD COMMUNICATIONS reported a third alarm being sounded on the fire. Units reported that the building was in imminent danger of collapse.

(Radio reports from mackel309@adelphia.net)

http://www.trafficland.com/#city/WAS/camera/200140 - Smoke from fire visible from traffic camera at Wisconsin Avenue and Q Street, NW.

[edit] GA Failure and explanation

It's decision time on this one, and unfortunately it must fail for now.

As I was reading it, I was initially going to put a hold on it. But enough small issues accumulated that I just felt it would not easily be rectified with small edits over the next few days.

First, there are missing citations. When an article is referenced as extensively as this, things like "...under his guidance the institution was developed from an academy into a college in 1801" that go by without a footnote stick in the mind. Especially when the daughter history article doesn't mention this, let alone provide one. Note that the first graf under "Profile" makes some citable assertions as well.

Second, the lists disguised as prose. Do we need that long run-on list of current and former faculty? Or the one telling us what companies and institutions are or have been headed by Georgetown graduates? The former could be a separate list article; the latter is just plain unencyclopedic.

Third, some problems with the prose. Some are stylistic: serious writers never refer to the sides in the U.S. Civil War by the compass cardinal points associated with them (It should be "The Union sequestered the campus"). Others are a bit POV-ish or something, like "In any election cycle, a number of state governors will, generally, hold Georgetown degrees" Really?' That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, and sounds slightly boastful.

Fourth is poor organization of the campus section. Its lead sets the reader up for three subsections: the main campus, the law center and the Qatar campus. We get the first, then two subsections on the quads and libraries, then the Law Center, and then ... where's Qatar?

I strongly suggesting following the example of Michigan State University (an FA and one of the best university articles on Wikipedia, if not the best) and other colleges and creating a separate Main Campus of Georgetown University article, where the quads, libraries and other buildings can be discussed in greater detail. There could a separate article on the law center and then a short graf on the Qatar campus, all with {{main}} at the hat. I would also mention basketball in the intro, since it's the other thing most of the US knows GU for. And is it necessry to mention the exact date of the first permanent Jesuit settlement in the American colonies. The year alone would suffice (and along those lines, seriously consider delinking the years per WP:CONTEXT. It just makes the article a little harder to read). Feel free to fix and renom when you think it's ready. Daniel Case 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've waited over a month to cool off. But please, no one from a rival school should ever review this article again. The article follows the template and is indeed based off of Michigan State University. Still, I will calmly make these changes now. Basketball will not be mentioned in the intro and I have no outside sources on the Qatar campus, so there's nothing can be done about that.--Patrick 14:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am unsure of the merits behind the decision to fail the GAN, but what is clear is the article now looks much much better before you undertook the renovation project. I am rather certain it will pass and become GA if nominated again. And really, if the university is strong in any sport (best determined by way of titles), there cannot be a legitimate dissent to its inclusion in the lead. Considering too, that the lead should at least have something about student life when a big portion of the article is devoted to that aspect. Chensiyuan 13:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've done these things in adding something about basketball, student life, and alumni to the introduction, and I've also renominated the article. I do feel the article received an overly strict review previously, and I'm hoping a new reviewer will use the wikipedia provided guidelines.--Patrick 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

This article is good, but I am placing it on hold for the following reasons:

Lead:

  • The lead is not a standalone summary of the article. It is too detailed (e.g. the numbers of students) but it is also missing information. Please carefully read WP:LEAD.

Comprehensiveness

  • I cannot believe that I am saying this, but since the Georgetown basketball team is a nationally-known team, shouldn't there be a bit more on it here, even though it has its own page?
  • The "Campus" section is not divided into the major campuses, as claimed in the initial sentence about that section. What about Qatar? (I noticed that the previous GA reviewer pointed out this problem.)

Prose: I would suggest that the editors have a good copy editor who has not worked on this article go over it. It could do with a few touch-ups.

EX: The arrival in 1634 of the first permanent Jesuits, and previous establishments in 1640 and 1677 set the precedence of Jesuit education in Maryland, and enabled the founding of a school at Georgetown by January 1789. - Hard to follow.
EX: In terms of life on campus, 97% of Georgetown students are full time students,[46] and 78% live on campus, with first and second year students are required to. - I think you can see the problem.
  • There are a lot of wordy sentences.
  • Would the renowned "Faculty" and "Alumni" sections work better as lists? It was hard to read as a paragraph and truly appreciate the greatness of Georgetown. :) (Again, the previous reviewer noted this problem.)
  • The linking choices in this article are sometimes odd. Links should always be made the first time a place, person or concept appears and should not repeat. Obvious links should be left out. Above all, consistency in linking should be upheld: link dates or not, link names of degrees or not, etc. Think about what would help the reader! Please see here for guidance.

Image:

  • The library picture looks much better when you click on it and see it big than small. You might consider replacing it with something a little more accessible.

Please drop me a line when the editors have finished revising the page, and I will re-review it. Feel free to ask me any questions about the review as well. Awadewit | talk 03:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to fix these things. I really need to note about Qatar that I changed the lead for the campus section so that it wasn't considered its own campus. There are no good English sources regarding this campus either. I've seen a photo of it, and it seems to just be one building, but again no sources. Should I remove the reference to it so that it can be GA? I think not, but neither should it be a section or subsection. It also has its own article, which is linked to, but is just a stub. Some of the things that get linked more than once are done instead of doing a "see also School of Foreign Service and School of Nursing & Health Studies and..." which I feel is undesirable. Also, the manual of style does recommend wikilinking important concepts in each subsection. Whole dates are wikilinked so they'll work with the per user settings for date style while just the years are not, as the last reviewer complained it made the article "a little harder to read." I don't quite understand what's wrong with the library photo, it's too small? With regards to the first sentence in the history section it was a bit of a compromise, and you can see the discussion above, but I'll work on it. Thanks for your advice--Patrick 03:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The sentence about the main campuses is one of the sentences that is unclear and needs to be copy edited. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
There should be "see also's" rather than multiple links within a section. It is aesthetically more pleasing and wiki-convention. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
On the dates, I meant to either wikilink all whole dates or not; currently, the article is not consistent. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
When the library picture is "thumb" size, it is too small. I initially thought it was a picture of the stacks - I had to click on it to realize that it was supposed to be pretty. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the first sentence in the history section is a compromise is irrelevant; the sentence is still grammatically incorrect and difficult to understand. Awadewit | talk 04:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made a number of those changes tonight, you can see here, but I'm sorry if I'm not understanding your advice, but what does "needs to be copy edited" mean? I suppose I can ask users Chensiyuan and Awiseman to help out here, but what should I ask them for? Also, there are only two whole dates in the article, the date it was founded and the date instruction began, and they can be de-linked if they need to be, but I guess I don't understand the inconsistency there either. Thanks again.--Patrick 05:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not ask anyone to copy edit the article who has worked on it. You need a fresh pair of eyes to read the prose. I did not want to detail all the nit-picky problems (I listed the biggest problem: wordy sentences) and gave a couple of examples of problematic sentences. There are just sentences sprinkled all over the article that need reworking for clarity and grammar. A good copy editor will see these (you can also ask the League of Copyeditors for help. The dates are fine. Awadewit | talk 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I qualify as someone who hasn't really worked on the article at all, so I've gone through and done some copyediting. It's not perfect in terms of syntax and diction yet, but I think I've fixed all the subject-verb stuff, changed US to U.S., took redirects out of the wikilinks, standardized "main campus" over Main Campus, inserted commas, reworded, etc. Hope that helps!
As a side note to the library photo stuff above, I frankly don't think the library section adds anything to the article anyway, other than just to list minutiae. Esrever 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for going over that. I did make a campus only article, and since the library stuff would be more relevant there, I've moved the whole section. Issue avoided.--Patrick 20:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No prob. :) Esrever 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please reinsert the library section. Georgetown is a research institution (actually, it is what is called a Research I university), meaning that research is one of its primary goals. The library is a major part of that endeavor. Here are the statistics from the Association of Research Libraries on Georgetown:

  • Rank: 59
  • Number of volumes: 2,407,125
  • Current serials: 28,173
  • Total expenditures: $22,184,204
  • Permanent staff: 211

This is not insignificant: note that Georgetown spends 22 million dollars on their library holdings. This data is from 2003-4. (Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education "The 2005-6 Almanac" Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 34; here is a link. I don't know if it will work if you don't have a subscription.) Awadewit | talk 05:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that this should probably be reinserted as it is significant to this institution.
Please note that there are no "Research I" institutions; that classification went out of date quite some time ago (at least two revisions of the Carnegie system ago). And please don't confuse classifications or taxonomies with missions or goals; you've got them completely reversed. It's classified as a research institution because research is one of its goals, not the other way around as you stated. --ElKevbo 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The Carnegie may have replaced its categories, but I've never heard anyone actually use the new ones in casual conversation. Who refers to Georgetown as a "DR Extensive", for example? Also, I did not conclude that Georgetown had research as a goal because of the classification - that was a parenthetical, informative fact. I stated that "Georgetown is a research institution . . . meaning that research is one of its primary goals." This statement does not imply what you say it does; it is merely redundant - I was trying to get the point across. Awadewit | talk 06:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that no one refers to Georgetown as a "DR Extensive" considering that it's a "Research University (very high research activity)". :) --ElKevbo 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the library information is significant; noting how many books the library has doesn't indicate at all what sort of research is being performed and to what extent. That's information that can be covered elsewhere in a different way. Talking about the libraries' holdings and expenditures strikes me as trivia in the context of this article; it's better in the Campuses article.
Then again, reasonable people can disagree. If you think this article's better with the information, I've certainly got no objections. :) Esrever 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I may have been a bit unclear in my previous statements. I do not assert that the exact text that was removed should be reinserted but that some relevant text about the libraries should be included in this article. I'm sure the text could be improved and cleaned up. I agree that merely listing some statistics (size, number of volumes, etc.) is not very helpful or informative without sufficient context. --ElKevbo 14:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently Georgetown disagrees with you both. I quote from their website: "The University libraries are the intellectual backbone for research activities at Georgetown. Collectively, seven libraries provide access to 2.4 million volumes and 35,000 print and electronic journals." Most research universities like to brag about their libraries and since graduate students and faculty (if not undergraduates) spend so much time using their resources, it is crucial to mention them (the number of volumes is a good indicator of the comprehensiveness of a library's collection, for example). It would of course be better if the editors bothered to find out what kinds of collections make Georgetown unique (such as some details regarding their "specialized legal, medical, scientific, bioethical, and theological collections"[1]). I was only offering the basics for such a section and proof that it is important. (By the way, you would care a great deal about the library's budget if you had to do serious research there.) Awadewit | talk 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree that libraries are an important part of a university (believe me, I've done plenty of "serious research" in the one at my alma mater). I just don't know that there's enough that's notable about this library system (as it's currently written) to justify including it. Yes, they have 2.4 million volumes and they spent $22 million last year. What's your point? Is that the 3rd largest library collection in the known universe? The 59th? Is that the most money that's been spent on a library in the last 10 years? The number of volumes may be a good indicator of comprehensiveness, but if we're going to assess GU's own comprehensive, it needs a source. "According to The World's Largest Library Factbook, Georgetown's library includes one of the largest medical and bioethical research collections in the United States." My only point in suggesting that it be moved elsewhere was that it distracted from the otherwise well-researched and well-presented information about the university in this article. I don't imagine that the presence of library information is the sort of thing that stands between a B-class and GA-class article, right? Esrever 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, this discussion has just caused me to wonder why there is no discussion of the university's finances in the article (I think I remember only one sentence). What is its endowment? What kind of fundraising is it doing? etc. Shouldn't that be a subsection, at least? Universities are being run like businesses these days (sadly). Awadewit | talk 14:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A few things, the library information wasn't deleted, just moved to the subarticle, Campuses of Georgetown University, which will need lots of love in the coming months. I would favor a research section, probably under academics above admission. The section from Michigan State is likely far too detailed, but perhaps that would be a place to insert the former trivia item that I once moved to the School of Medicine page about the HPV vaccine. About the finances, Georgetown has a history of being a very poorly run business I do know. The $1B capital campaign was mentioned, and the endowment is listed in the infobox. I have been wondering where I could note that Georgetown University, unlike say Catholic University, technically has no connection with the Roman Catholic Church, other than hosting the Jesuits, and is under a board of directors instead. I could also note the battle over the crucifixes, which most classrooms have. But my concern is, while I really like that the discussion is active, this is a lot of tampering with an article I do feel has met GA qualifications for a while now.--Patrick 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not tampering; even a GA-class article needs improvement. So long as there aren't edit wars going on, it doesn't detract from the stability of the article (at least not in my opinion). Obviously, I'm not the person who's chosen to review it for GAR, of course, so I'll leave it up to Awadewit to assess the imperfections in the article. I was just noting the thing that I thought could be improved (the library information). Esrever 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Do the editors want me to re-review the article at this point? Awadewit | talk 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like another day, and I will get another copy edit on it.--Patrick 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. I'm in no rush and good copy editing takes time. Awadewit | talk 05:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. I feel fully comfortable that the edits I've managed to make over the week covers the necessary ground to bring the article to GA status, and also responds to the issues raised above. Either today or tomorrow, the article should be re-reviewed to verify this before the hold status expires. Thanks again for your time and useful suggestions.--Patrick 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold, part 2

I would really like to pass this page, but two things must happen.

  1. The lead must be expanded while at the same time insignificant details such as the exact day GU was founded need to be taken out. I quote from WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." - Currently the lead is unbalanced; it does not adequately reflect the article.
  2. There are no citations in the "Alumni" section. Also, I would think it would be best to say who the alumni are rather than simply their positions. It is a long section to be so vague. Awadewit | talk 07:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've did a little cutting of what I see as extraneous facts in the lead, if someone now wants to do the remainder and add currently unrepesented things in. --YbborTalk 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
What would everyone think of just cutting out the alumni section entirely ? Or at least drastically shrinking it (see GA Dartmouth_College#Alumni), GA Princeton_University#Noted_alumni)? --YbborTalk 13:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold, and drastically cut the alumni section. Really, readers should look to the main article for this. --YbborTalk 13:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
And I've tried to work on the lead a bit. I feel like it's still lacking a little something, but I can't figure out what else to say. Someone else want to take a crack at it? Maybe another paragraph about future developments at the school, e.g., future buildings or something? Esrever 14:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Minor point: Georgetown is able to host a variety of speakers and lecturers each year from around the world, including visting heads of state. - All universities of the caliber of GU can do this; it's not special. Awadewit | talk 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. I was trying to come up with something to say about its location in D.C. Like I said, someone else can have a go at it now—the creative juices aren't flowing for me this morning. :) Esrever 15:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is no prerogative to be special, just notable and verifiable. Now if you are disputing whether or not the caliber Georgetown's guest speakers are notable and deserve inclusion in the article, that is different. I have changed it to reflect a more verifiable position, in that it is a priority of the Lecture Fund and Office of Communications to invite these speakers. The alumni now have references and statistics. Dartmouth has a bullet list, which I have always avoided. I've tried to turn lists into coherent, if lengthy, paragraphs. Now they note by name seven of their most important alums. Right now we note 3. Who else deserves this lofty honor?
There is no requirement that the lead distinguish GU, but I would think that the editors would want to do so. When I read a sentence about famous speakers in a lead, I think "so what?" Readers will expect GU to have such opportunities for their students; I don't think that it belongs in a summary since it is common knowledge that major universities attract excellent speakers. The lead is supposed to interest the reader - that statement is not interesting. I won't fail the article on that sentence alone, but I do think that it hurts rather than helps the introduction. I once saw a hotel that advertised itself this way "Clean rooms." If that is all they could say about the hotel, even in an advertisement, that is pretty scary. The same goes for the lead here, in a way. State the most impressive things you can, within the bounds of WP:RS and WP:LEAD. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, the introduction, does it need to be longer? I removed all the detailed information from it last week, per the recommendation. Should specific student groups merit inclusion in the first paragraph? Specific buildings? More about the research and libraries? What I've tried to do with it is summarize each section and subsection, put it in order, and then try to make the sentences flow. Which section most requires balancing? Is it just the phrasing? I worry today's edit may have made it a little boastful, something I've avoided, but this is highlighting exactly what it is that make the school notable and well ranked.--Patrick 21:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, clean rooms. Wish I could say Georgetown had those to advertise. The clubs now noted in the lead are biggest and oldest ones. I spent a lot of time yesterday reading the leads to other universities, so it is now three paragraphs, with location and dates right up front, followed be organization, followed by what makes it notable. The campus sentence isn't particularly notable, though I suppose not ever school has silver LEED certified buildings, but the next one notes that Healy Hall is, in fact, important. I suppose we'll needing a last read through today.--Patrick 16:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Just let me know when to re-re-review it. Awadewit | talk 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, go ahead now. I'm not seeing anything else to drastically change. I try to keep from any edits till tonight to give you some time. Thanks again for all your help these last two weeks, the article really has benefited from it.--Patrick 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am passing the article now. Nice work. If you go for FA, more copy editing will be needed and close attention to manual of style issues. Awadewit | talk 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up with the League of Copyeditors, and will seek a peer review soon. FA can wait, but I'm sure I'll get itchy for the hunt soon. Thanks everyone.--Patrick 03:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem

We've got a problem. A small one, but a problem. Image:Johncarroll.jpg, Image:Healysunset.jpg, Image:Dahlgren.jpg, and Image:Riggslib.jpg (not used in the main article) are all copyrighted, but Georgetown allows their use for any purpose, but only on the web. This essentially fails to satisfy the guidelines of a "free" picture, since you're not allowed to make any derivative works you want; only those on the web. This means 1)The images that are replaceable need to be replaced 2)we need a fair use tag on anything that isn't replaceable. Now, by my estimation, just about everything there is replaceable, and a quick trip around campus with a digital camera should satisfy the problem. I've found a few substitutes on Flickr, but they're all copyrighted, so I'm flickrmailing the authors to see if they'll release them under cc-by-sa (John Caroll, Riggs Library). I'm not having any luck for the Dahlgreen quadrangle, and as far as the Healy sunset image goes, I think we already have a much more illustrative image of Healy (if we really want another, commons has another available at Image:Healy hall georgetown.jpg, but I personally don't think it's worth it, and I'll see about getting this flickr image of Lauinger Library released. Obviously, if we're going for FA, we can't have these types of copyright problems. So about the only one we really need help on is the Dahlgreen quadrangle, if anyone's in the DC area. --YbborTalk 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I've sold all the nicest photos of the campus I've taken to the school because I'm poor like that, but fortunately I usually take two of each shot. There is this one of the quad, but that's a winter photo.--Patrick 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, We're one for one so far. catelinp has graciously provided us a (rather nice) photo of Lauinger Library. I'm uploading it to commons, and placing a speedy tag on the Healy sunset one unless anyone has any objections. --YbborTalk 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, this may be a bigger problem than I thought. Image:Healysnow.jpg, Image:White-gravenor.jpg, and Image:Whitegravenor1.jpg also have the same problem. These are mostly used in galleries, so they probably won't be sorely missed, but just putting them here for easy reference. --YbborTalk 15:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've found picture of of the Dahlgren quadrangle. I guess it helps if you spell it right. These two are already under creative commons, but improperly licensed. However, I'm holding out for this one, which is fully copyrighted, but a much nicer shot. --YbborTalk 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Two for Two now. We got Dhalgren Quadrangle. Same process as above. --YbborTalk 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I put some of my personal collection up on the commons. Pick whichever. I did like that Dahlgren one, so I will try to take one like it. Otherwise, I've never found the big one of Healy to be compelling. Also, Gaston has a poor shot as well. The one of John Carroll I will also be sad to loose. --Patrick 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Healy Pink

Georgetown Key

Georgetown Riverview

Georgetown Spires

Georgetown folliage

Car Barn

Georgetown Jesuit Residence

I put some of mine in and rearranged things.--Patrick 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for other editors

I have a few quick questions for other editors, that I would like some feedback on.

  1. Should the history section be broken into subsections? This would probably be "Founding", "Civil War", and "Expansion". Other universities do this, but they don't always have separate articles.
  2. Which other alumni should be listed specifically? Right now only Clinton, Scalia, and Edward Douglass White get mentioned by name. Though I don't want a long list, two or three others, particularly from outside politics, might be appropriate.
  3. Should we try to keep the Speakers and visitors section? If so, how? I renamed it "Events" to try and broaden its scope. But I am aware that as it moves toward WP:FAC, someone will challenge the existence of this section, and there needs to be a specific retort ready, should we want to keep it.
  4. Should there be a new, separate section on Jesuits? This is something I've thought about. There is no mention of crucifixes in the article, or the fifty-six Jesuits live on campus.[2] Nor is there information about Georgetown's link, or lack there of, to the Roman Catholic church, or their policy on the sale of contraception. I'm not sure what existing section this information could go in. BC does have a Jesuit-Catholic tradition section, but otherwise this is unique to Georgetown.--Patrick 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admissions Section & Viewbook Reference

I would like to first say that I would really like to see this section grow, considering for a lot of people (somewhere on the order of 14,000), that's where their experience with Georgetown ends ;)

I would like to clarify something though, Patrick. Here you removed a reference I put in a few weeks ago about the undergraduate prospectus, complaining about both redundancy and the lack of an online version. When I put that in, I also added the information about the 35% of students who were 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in their class. However, you removed the reference without removing the bit about the 35%. The collegeboard link does not specify about those 35%, that comes directly from the viewbook.

I put the reference at the end of the sentence since I'm pretty sure (although I could be wrong) it's bad form to include references halfway though a sentence, rather, it should just be placed at the end (IIRC I've had a few editors move my references when I've tried this). I'm not 100% certain, so I'll look into the MOS, and you might want to do the same. A-ha! Found it! Apparently I should have placed it after a comma. My bad.

As far as not having a weblink, I actually looked before adding the reference, but couldn't find anything. I don't believe there is any burden on us to find web links for reliable sources; the article has other sources that are confined to ink and paper, although I'll grant you those have ISBN numbers. If it matters (I know it doesn't), I have the book in front of me. Anyway, just put the citation back or remove the [uncited] 35% entirely. I'd do it myself, but despite WP:OWNERSHIP, you really know what you're doing, and have done some great work :) Again, I'd really like to see this section grow. I noticed you asked somewhere else for help finding people to work on this "smaller" school. I'd be willing to help (especially before I go back to High School in September, and start filling out the forms to get a first-hand experience of the admissions process ;) ), but as I don't usually get tied down to a single project around here, if you could give me some tasks you think need work, I'd gladly do what I can :). --YbborTalk 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm just artsy, and two reference tags in a row stand out. When I've had that I usually try to make two sentences. But if the citation is necessary, then my bad, it should be put back. I think the prospectus is linked to in the external links section too. My thoughts on the admissions section are this: we probably should make two paragraphs out of it, one with undergraduate and one with graduate information, since they seem to be distinct. Undergraduate should have SAT scores and graduate should have GMAT or LSAT or MCAT scores sourced. And thanks for the compliment, I've just had time to kill this last week on the article. As far as tasks go, I'm really not sure what more needs to be done, which is why I've put it out to try to get ideas from editors here and at other schools. G'luck applying this fall!--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll put the ref back in. The link to the viewbook is a dead link, and IIRC, has been for some time. --YbborTalk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on Admission states "With 16,171 applications and 3,305 admitted for the class of 2011,", how is this possible as they are only now accepting applications for 2008? 71.32.31.181 11:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Thom Henricks

"Class of 2011" are students admitted in 2007. The "Class" refers to when students are expected graduate (after 4 years), not when they enter.--Patrick Ѻ 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation

Lately I've been adding bits about the Metro to many D.C. area universities. I wanted to do the same with Georgetown, but simply putting the stations in the |publictransit = parameter of the infobox seems like a disservice, since there's also the issue of the shuttle buses to and from Rosslyn. I'm not familiar with Georgetown, but I would imagine it has other types of buses to (like to other campuses). I don't suppose someone familiar with the Georgetown Website can direct me to a place where we can write a more complete "transportation" section? (Statistics on the number of students with cars would be great too). --YbborTalk 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Office of Transportation Management runs GUTS buses from campus to both Dupont and Rosslyn metro stations. There is no one public transit service, maybe we could put "Bus", "None", or "Dupont/Rosslyn via GUTS Buses".--Patrick 16:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, do we want to make this a full sub-section or not? And if so, where should we put it? I'm tihkning either under Campuses or Student Life. --YbborTalk 17:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that would work in Campus, after describing where the main campus is. So after "are located at the intersection of 37th and O Streets, NW". The alternative is after "with some in Dupont Circle and elsewhere through the region" under Student Life.--Patrick 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic

User 75.34.31.66 put "Roman Catholic" in the first sentence between "private" and "research university" here. First I don't where to highlight this fact. In the new Jesuit section, I've tried to lay out that Georgetown's connection to the Roman Catholic church is through the Jesuits, and is not Catholic in the way that CUA is. Second, this might be read to sound like Georgetown is private school for researching Roman Catholicism. I will try to find a fix, but would love feedback.--Patrick 22:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Georgetown is a Roman Catholic university seems to me to be more an identifying characteristic than the fact that it is a research university. Maybe drop the word research in the intro sentence if you are concerned about the phrasing. --Jdurbach 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, now 128.230.74.218 from Syracuse U has changed "Roman Catholic" to "Jesuit." I must at least correct the link to "Society of Jesus." What do we think of this? Jesuit presumes Roman Catholic, and it is more accurate. I'm initially inclined to let this ride out, as I don't think "Roman Catholic" is a great definition.--Patrick Ѻ 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way you could rearrange the first sentence to avoid running links or move the word Jesuit elsewhere? I don't like running links, and I like superfluous punctuation even less. Alas I haven't been able to write a version I totally like... about the best I've been able to do is expand the term private university and remove the commas. --kingboyk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it's not an easy sentence to work with. I based the wording off of other University FAs that had the string of wikilinks. "Private Jesuit university" is the wording I like, but it breaks your private university link. If I had to drop a word there right now, I'd probably loose "private" since there are no public Jesuit schools. But I think readers are expecting a definition that says public or private. While you could note that Carroll was in the Jesuits, he wasn't when he founded Georgetown, and didn't rejoin (though he worked closely with them) after the suppression ended. So it gets tricky with the wording. As I've said above, Georgetown isn't funded or governed by the Catholic church or any branch of it, and I try to give a fuller definition in the "Jesuit" section. All this to consider in the word order of the first sentence! Thanks for your help today.--Patrick Ѻ 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Understood, thanks.
Re my "help": You're welcome, and thanks for writing a very comprehensive Featured Article! Congrats on getting the main page, I know from experience (The KLF) how hectic a day it can be! --kingboyk 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) PS I'm surprised you didn't get advanced notice of being FA of the Day (maybe you were slotted in at the last minute?).

[edit] Fullstops

Not all thumbs have fullstops after the captions (especially the longer ones). It should be consistent? I'm assuming of course those without are not "complete sentences" per MOS. Chensiyuan 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia had me put the periods in last week for caption that had complete phrases. I'm not so sure this was necessary, but I don't think incomplete phrases should ever have periods. So either all without, some with, but not all with.--Patrick Ѻ 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement of notability of student body in the lead

The reasons I wished to see that assertion cited are that a) it's a pretty bold assertion to say that the student body of any college is noted for anything; b) it sticks out as potential vanity given that students or graduates of the university may well have written the article. I'm entitled to disagree with FACs by the way, and you are entitled to agree with me :) Thanks for sorting it! --kingboyk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hoya Saxa"

Can someone provide the source, in Latin and Greek, for these two words, please? -The Gnome 17:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By "source" do you mean a reference, the translation, or the historical origin? If you mean reference, there is one, from hoyasaxa.com. If you mean translation, I think the hoyasaxa.com page has that too, and do you mean to reference a definition? If you mean the origin of the phrase, that's actually unknown.--Patrick Ѻ 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did not find much in the hoyasaxa.com website. But I searched the web a bit more, on the basis of what you wrote and found the following: The word in Greek was originally (h)oia, meaning "those which are" and, when used as an exclamation, has the meaning of admiration and astonishment, i.e. "What [noun]!" The orthography of hoya initially confused me. Saxa is the plural of saxo which means "rock, stone" in Latin. E.g. From Ovid's Ars Amatoria :
Quid magis est durum saxo, quid mollius unda?
Dura tamen molli saxa cavantur aqua.
What is more hard than stone, what is softer than the wave?
Nevertheless, the hard stones are worn away by the soft water.
Perhaps the origin of the term "Hoyas" (and "Hoyasaxa") deserves its own section in the article. For instance, I found in the Washington Post blog the following claim: "The phrase (from GU legend) supposedly originated after the Civil War when the front wall at Gtown stopped an assault by somebody (I don't remember who) - someone shouted "what rocks!"." -The Gnome 12:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the phrase is supposed to make grammatical sense, or even if its supposed to be directly translatable. I think an expansion of the "What's a hoya?" section at Georgetown Hoyas might be more appropriate than a new section here. Alternatively, I've considered for a while now that there might be enough information and history to warrant a Hoya Saxa article that this, The Hoya, and Georgetown Hoyas could all point to instead of each giving another version of the information. Do you have a link for that blog by the way?--Patrick Ѻ 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I heard it was something to do with the football team - they held fast and someone called said "What rocks!" I am almost positive there was no Civil War engagement at Georgetown University. --AW (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The link to the blog is this. AW says "there was no Civil War engagement at Georgetown University" but in the entry itself there is a picture of "Union soldiers across the Potomac River from Georgetown University"! -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
While there were soldiers stationed on campus for a number of months, and solders in the infirmary for the war, and soldiers (pictured) stationed at the Key Bridge, there was never any civil war engagement at Georgetown. Perhaps the post refers to the recent spirit movie, Georgetown Forever where the armies of the Ivy League are stopped at the stone wall.--Patrick Ѻ 18:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] green space and environment

"Georgetown's three urban campuses feature traditional collegiate architecture and layout, but prize their green spaces and environmental commitment." This sounds like it was written by the university's marketing department.--Gbleem 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, a bit. But if you have a more punchy way of saying "There are some trees and old buildings, and some are environmental" then go for it.--Patrick Ѻ 23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use statement

I was suprised to find a featured article with incomplete fair use statements. I would have thought that checking each image would be part of the feature article approval process. But apparently it is not. I did fix one of the images, but one still needs additional fair use statments as it is used on multiple articles. Dbiel (Talk) 02:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out which images are lacking FURs? It would save those of us who watch the article from having to click through all of them. Cheers! Esrever 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The one that still needs work is Image:Seal original 200.gif There is a valid fair use statement for this article but not for the other 4 articles that are using the same image. Since the image represents the university as a whole, when it is applied to individual part of the university I was not sure just how to address that issue. Dbiel (Talk) 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. And I agree, the image needs more FURs for the other articles. The problem, of course, (and this is a conversation that probably needs to happen at a higher level) is that I don't know how "fair" the use is in those other articles. Can one fairly use the Georgetown seal in an article about the school of medicine? I'm not sure.
Of course, I'm also of the mind that using university seals is almost never a "fair use", since most universities and their constituent colleges have actual logos for that purpose. Universities tend to be much pickier about where they put their seal than their logos, and I sort of think Wikipedia abuses that. I'm not saying this article's at fault, just that many articles are. Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll add boilerplate FURs for now. Cheers! Esrever 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not have any problem adding the fair use statements for the other image as the one that was there clearly applied to all the linked articles. I just was not confortable in doing the same for the seal, for the reasons you mentionded above. Dbiel (Talk) 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of GU

This section seems to be missing. Is there any? Surely there must be some criticism of the faculty, curriculum or Catholic heritage. This FA article reads more like a brochure.

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jesuit section has criticism related to the Christian identity, as does activism. What more should it criticize?--Patrick Ѻ 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

The Hoya recently gave their website a much needed revamping. This has however, broken nearly all the 60 some links to Hoya articles from the References section. If anyone has time to give this a shot, please update!--Patrick Ѻ 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose a merger of Georgetown University Student Association into this article. The Georgetown University Student Association article suffers from WP:Original Research and as campus organization, it generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose That's a lot of information for the already long article. And I don't think merging solves the issues with the article, but rather pushes them onto an already working page. I'll see what I can do about referencing that next week.--Patrick Ѻ 08:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Patrick, This discussion is relevant to what has gone on with the article Washington University Student Union and the discussion at: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. Thanks,--Lmbstl (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for that. I see this is a wider and general merge campaign of student association articles. I've added a number of references to the specific GUSA article, and request that it be re-evaluated.--Patrick Ѻ 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)