Talk:National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy 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: January 27, 2008
Good article National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy was a nominee for Social sciences and society good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Ukraine Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
To-do list for National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Avoiding political preferences in choosing the most appropriate terminology

    I hope editors will exercise their best care in choosing the best terms when writing this article (I will also try my best) and will concentrate on the article content rather than on pushing the terms they favor into the article. This is not to say, that terms I choose are the best, but I am trying. Thanks to all, who will contribute Irpen 03:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Choice of names: Kiev/Kyiv, Mogila/Mohyla

    I think that it's fine to keep Kyiv and Mohyla in the school name because that's how it calls itself. However, when talking about the city, Kiev should be used. The city is called in English as Kiev now and, AFAIK, was called so for as long as there are any records. The discussions on this are abundant in several WP talk pages. Also, the school's founder is called in English most frequently as Peter Mogila (see for example a Britannica article [1]). So, let's call him as such and keep the alternative spelling as secondary in the article. Irpen 15:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

    The city is also called Kyiv in English, today. The abundant discussions and resolutions are about article titling, and didn't rule out other usage where it may be acceptable.
    I agree that the usage of the city name in other articles is a different issue from the article titling. I also agree with you regarding the fact that the city is now also called Kyiv sometimes. I see the usage of Kyiv by many authors as a completely legitimate attempt to change the established name of the city. This may or may not succeed. However, encyclopedia, being a reference book, should not be in the forefront of the new terminology. When (and if) the new name gets established, it can be used in WP rather than the usage in WP should help establish the name. Irpen
    More importantly, this article is about a living Ukrainian institution, named after a Ruthenian saint (of Moldovan origin) who lived in a city in Ukraine under Cossack rule (I think; correct me if I'm wrong).
    I think it was under the the Polish and Lithuanian rule. Khmelnytsky's Cossacks entered Kiev two years later afet PM's death. What's noteworthy, though, English sources have always called the city as Kiev AFAIK. I can't look up in 17th century texts of course, but that's what I have read elsewhere about the name usage.Irpen
    Giving primacy to the Anglo-Russified(?) version of the name seems especially inappropriate here, as well as in the article on Petro Mohyla.
    I view it as giving primacy to the accepted in English version. If such exists, it is unimportant what its source is. Irpen
    Anyway, "Petro Mohyla" (659 Google results) seems at first glance to be used more than "Peter Mogila" (241), Britannica notwithstanding. —Michael Z. 2005-04-15 17:22 Z
    Update: results for English-language pages only: "Petro Mohyla" (473), "Peter Mogila" (226). —Michael Z. 2005-04-15 17:28 Z
    I agree that here google test is inconclusive. Lets check other reference sources: Britannica, Oxford and Encyclopedia Americana use Peter Mogila. So, I think we should use it here too. Irpen 18:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
    Subtelny's history uses "Petro Mohyla". —Michael Z. 2005-04-15 19:29 Z
    • Orest Subtelny. Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8020-5809-6.
    There is no doubt that P.M. is a notable political figure in the History of Ukraine. On the other hand he is an important religious leader and a prominent Christian theologian of his time. I believe the authors in the history of UA are more likely to have the Ukrainophile views and, therefore, would use Petro Mohyla. If, however, you would do any of these google searches: (P M Christianity), (P M Metropolitan), (P M Orthodox), alternating Petro Mohyla and Peter Mogila for P M, the usage of the latter variant is more common by about a factor of two. I agree that this is less a clear cut issue than Kiev (BTW used by both Anna Reid and Andrew Wilson) but Peter Mogila still seems preferable for a WP article. - Irpen 18:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Anna Reid. Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine. London, Orion Books; 4th impression (1998, preface 2003) ISBN 0813337925.
    • Andrew Wilson. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. Yale University Press; 2nd edition (2002) ISBN 0300093098.
    If you have some basis for accusing the Canadian scholar Subtelny of pushing Ukrainophile views, I am interested to hear about it. If you're just speculating, it's inappropriate to do so.
    I am not saying that Subtelny, a serious scholar no doubts, deliberately "pushes" Ukrainophile views. All I said is that a historian's deep involevement in the country is likely to affect his positions. This is especially true for the historians who write the history of their own people. This in no way implies that historians deliberately push their views in their work. Irpen
    Here are my results for searches on English-language web pages. I see "Peter Mohyla" consistently used on more web sites. If you leave out the quotation marks in the search, you will no doubt add a strong bias towards the common name "Peter", and possibly to the transliteration of Russian mogila. Of course, being merely a collection of Google searches, you should treat my list as merely "damn lies", and not "statistics":
    —Michael Z. 2005-04-16 21:36 Z
    I made an honest mistake, sorry. I only searched for the last name Mogila/Mohyla coupled with these terms and ommitted the first name entirely. The reason is that 4 versions of his first name (Peter, Petro, Petr and Pyotr) combined with two version of his last name and combined with three religeous terms would give too many possible combinations. Mogila+Orthodox to Mohyla+Orthodox gives 1090 to 680. M+Metropolitan also gives 1630 to 807 in favor of Mogila. Mohyla indeed wins the google test with Christianity over Mogila+Christianity as 4150 to 1410. So, the google test is not clear, I agree. However, the reference books cited above use Peter Mogila. I think, WP should follow suit. BTW, "Peter" is not and English transliterated Russian name which would have beem Pyotr or Petr. And, finally, I don't think that google test is "damn lies". It is a statitistical test, just the margin of error is large. So, it is useful only when the difference is overwhelming which is not the case for this one. Irpen 02:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Predecessor?

    Actually, I fail to see how the 17th-century collegium could be termed a predecessor of the Academy founded in 1992. The last passage should be modified or removed altogether. --Ghirlandajo 08:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

    I thought about having two separate articles but I was not feeling too strong about it, so it ended up like this. You van check the hisotry as well as the history of redirects to see the details. I would not oppose either the development of the last section or having the original KMA as a separate article. --Irpen 08:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Official name

    Kuban Kazak just moved this article from "National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" to "National University of Kiev-Mohyla Academy", citing naming policy for the name in the text.

    This seems inappropriate, and I don't see which policy applies. The previous name used the organization's official English name (official home). Wikipedia's article-naming policy and conventional transliteration do not seem to apply. The naming policy does not speak to what appears in article text. I'm going to move it back, pending a convincing argument to abandon the consensus position previously discussed here. —Michael Z. 2005-12-15 22:05 Z

    A quick search on Google shows 42,800 hits on "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" and only 11,400 hits on "Kiev-Mohyla Academy". It seems to me that Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is more appropriate. -- JamesTeterenko 22:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    I will write on the issue later (my todo list is too much backlogged inside and outside of wp) but please all do not ever move articles without discussion. This has been raised by me earlier with one notorious page mover and the dialog that followed tells about the willingnes to seek for other people's opinions.

    One thing is to change in the text, and even there going into the artilce just to make Mogila for Mohyla changes or vice versa annoys the readers. However, moving is a totally different and more troublesome to undo. Lets not do too much of that. As for going to articles for Kyiv/Kiev or Mogila/Mohyla corrections, may I ask anyone who isn't around for a long time to check my earlier "Games with Names" proposal I raised at Wikipedia:Eastern_European_Wikipedians'_notice_board. One of the responses to it was this. Maybe others would think differently? Thanks, --Irpen 00:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Official name and information from the insider

    I've been studying in this university for the last four years. So I'm an insider. The official name is spelled as "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy". This spelling is used by the administration of the university. Kyiv-Mohyla is positioned as the university with strong national traditions and spelling as Kiev-Mohyla is unacceptable. I think, I'll provide some information for the article later. Also I will monitor the article. --Wavebreaker 12 July 2006

    [edit] List of NaUKMA Faculties and Grant MacEwan College

    Does this list really has to include this sentence: "The Academy teaches several courses in English, and also opperates profitable business teaching English to the general public, in partnership with Grant MacEwan College of Edmonton, Canada.[3]" The author did not reply my comment on this on his user page, so I am posting here again since my deletion of this sentence was undone. My argument for the deletion is that NaUKMA has numerous international collaborations more important than a course of English language. If it is still that important, one should make another section called "International collaborations" or something like that and post this information there. Silin2005 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NaUKMA sym.jpg

    Image:NaUKMA sym.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

    OK, fair use rationale for Image:NaUKMA sym.jpg is in place already. Silin2005 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA: failed

    This is a very strong article, but it needs a thorough copyedit, as the prose is confusing and awkward throughout. I've noted some specific problems below; that list is not exclusive, but should give you an idea. Content-wise it seems very strong: well-illustrated, well-cited, and well-organized. Get it a solid copyedit (or two) from a native English speaker, maybe from the League of Copyeditors, and fix the lead as noted just below. Dylan (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

    • "...is one of the country's leading universities." This needs to change for a couple of reasons.
      • First, the POV involved in that statement: "leading" is a vague reference to quality and is both nebulous and inherently a point-of-view assessment rather than a fact. Should be at the least rephrased to "Has been called by X person or in X publication the leading university in Ukraine...", although better yet, it would be replaced with more specific reasons why it's the "leading" university (student test scores, size, number of research grants awarded, etc.).
      • Second, it doesn't tell us anything about the subject other than that it's a university. Most of the university FAs start off with a string of adjectives that really explain the fundamental definition of the subject, which is exactly what you should do with the first sentence: "is a (private/public) (coeducational/men's/women's) (research/undergraduate/post-graduate/whatever) university located in Kyiv, Ukraine." You don't have to use exactly those characteristics or put them in that order, but the first sentence should be an opportunity to unload all those basic facts about the university. Check out Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Duke of Omnium.
    • Citations should be placed after the nearest punctuation mark, like commas and periods.
    • "Considering its historical predecessor..." - this sentence sounds very broken; I think what you're trying to say is "Counting its predecessor institution's founding date as its own..."
    • "in the ancient Podil neighborhood of Kyiv and claims to continue its academic tradition." Whose academic tradition? The neighborhood's? Is it common knowledge that this neighborhood has an academic tradition?
    • Incorrect or awkward wording:
      • "Later in 1701 Russian tsar has also approved of this status..." - "Had" or "did" rather than "has"; "the" before "Russian tsar"?
    • Missing punctuation, particularly separating dependent from independent clauses:
      • "The university was generally highly acclaimed in the Eastern Europe teaching students from..."" - comma after "Europe"
      • "Due to the comprehensive education and knowledge of European languages alumni of the academy often continued their studies..." - comma after "languages"
    • "Academic year is divided in three trimesters." - Should probably be "The academic year is divided into three trimesters."
    • "tuition languages" sounds weird or at least old-fashioned; perhaps not incorrect, but certainly not current in modern English.

    [edit] Copyedit

    A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
    Add comments

    Copyedited by Lazulilasher (talk) – 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

    Note that this request has been here since the last time the entry was nominated about a month ago (mid December, 2007). Since then, a number of editors have dropped by to copy-edit.--Riurik(discuss) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] 2nd Failed GA

    I agree with Kane5187 that this is a very strong article with potential. However, I don't feel ready to pass this as a good article for a few reasons:

    • Overall, the article seems to stray from a NPOV. Some specific examples:
      • "After its reestablishment NaUKMA has worked to regain its importance. Alumni are employed by leading companies and government institutions and many graduates continue their studies abroad."
      • "NaUKMA holds the highest accreditation level given by Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine"
      • The Reputation section almost reads like an advertisement.
    • Also, quite a few of the sentences seem choppy and/or poorly organized:
      • "Sport events and activities at NaUKMA are coordinated by the Department of Athletics. Sports courses are compulsory to students in their first and second years."
      • "The curricula of collegiums are based on assisting future students with the NaUKMA entrance test standards. This is in order to foster a system of continuous school-to-university education."

    Before re-nominating this article, I would recommend a thorough proofreading and rewriting where necessary, as well as the removal of some non-NPOV sentences. Pcbene (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

    I addressed the issues listed here to my best capacity. Could anyone take a look and say whether there are still some points that contradict the good article criteria? Silin2005 (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Just a comment on the above points. I can agree on the "choppy" sentences issue, which is resolvable. But the article does not stray away from NPOV, when it says that Naukma holds the highest accreditation level given by MESU - just for the record, it does. Stating that fact is not violating NPOV.--Riurik(discuss) 05:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)