Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Phillips Exeter 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 30, 2008 |
 |
This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-priority on the priority scale. |
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-Importance within Schools. | |
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 (– April 2008) |
Contents |
[edit] Restored content
I just restored a large portion of material that was deleted, where the editor felt (in my words) that the material was unreferenced, irrelevant, or advertising copy. In restoring content, I have left out what I agree to be advertising language or highly non-notable info (lists of houses, etc.), but have restored things like lists of academic buildings and dormitories, the summer school program, and mentions of Exeter in print and film, as I believe that many readers of Wikipedia would find it noteworthy. This means, however, that much of the restored material is still lacking in suitable references, so further citing of statements in the article is always welcome. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is still much work to be done. There are still unsourced claims, flowery language, and information that needs to be removed to have a well written encyclopedia article. Remember, Wikipedia is not just a place to dump every piece of information you can find about a subject, it must be relevant to a general overview of a subject. The neutrality tag needs to remain there until these issues are addressed. — OcatecirT 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re-restored content
Material that is cited from the leading historian on Exter, Echols, and written in the exact words of that historian, is hardly "unreference, irrelvent, or advertsing copy". Moreover, people who come to this page want as much accurate and true historical information as possible. There is no reason to remove any relevant information when it is written and cited appropriately- Also, why is the founder of Facebook lumped in with historical figures of America within the intro- that does not make sense, Facebook founder is appropriately listed within the alumni list already, and why should historical information about the badge of the school's most noted fraternity be removed, it is relevant info to that section, and talked about just briefly in an appropriate manner, a page is not devoted to it.
In essence, the restored page is the most well composed and properly cited example of PEA, and no one should alter an expert's words based on their own feelings. There is no excuse to destroy cited material, and then to leave a sloppy page that doesn't have clarity to it and in need of citations. A cycle of destroying a quality cited article with the most available info about the topic, and then leaving a butcherd poor example, with less material available to the viewer, does not make sense.Exeterexpert (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that the wholesale deletion of material by a previous editor was hasty and inappropriate. That was why I restored most of it. My comment about references still stands, however. First, there are still large sections of the article where references have not yet been provided and should be. (For instance, is the successful matriculation of Exeter graduates into the nation's top universities really due to the Harkness table method of teaching? Shouldn't there be a cite for that?) Second, while the Echols reference is clearly a highly detailed wealth of information about the school and should be used wherever possible, it is, after all, published by the Exeter Press. Some additional citation, published by an institution not linked to Exeter, about the national and international standing of the school would be welcome, and I look forward to seeing them. --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I will go through this article with a fine-tooth comb to polish it, make sure of complete historical accuracy, and put in missing citations. Some of the bulk of the facts, are coming from the links at the bottom, but have not been cited within the text, and should be. I will do that. As for Echols, he is not a historian specifically asociated with Exter, thereby there is a level of neutrality to the writing, and the first offical publishing wasn't even under Exter Press, Exeter Press re-published the book, additionally, later on.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Statements like Exeter being a "national institution" is relevent- because it was used in that manner, students from the various states in the Union would all go there, for the purpose of distinguishing themselves- that statemnt is fine, but when people come in and mess with Echols original comment and start putting in things like Exter being " one of the world's greatest schools" it destoys Echols intent and feels more like a statement of vanity and ego. Yes, Exeter is great and will always "objectively" be one of America's, and the world's, finest secondary schools, and anyway the topic is talked about, even most modestly, will always come off as awsome and intimidating in comparison to most high schools in America. Some people will have to deal with that fact on their own, and jelousy is not any of our problem. Also, if some attacks are being made from Andover, people intersted in Andover can do the additional research to polish up that article better, rather than attacking Exeter's in some futile attempt of "out-shinning" PEA. Having said that though, I will also try to discuss the topic with an approach towards neutrality, and not gloss over points like in the first Andover and Exeter football game, Andover was the victor and continues to hold the record over Exter in football games won. I will also maintain a nice overview of the topic, minor sections like the school tie, fraternities, even the badge of the school's most noted fraternity, is all perfectly fine and useful info for their sections they are part off, as long as the info is direct, short, and with the purpose of rounding out the complete picture of what Exeter is, and has been all about. They should stay and are fine. But we should becareful of editors coming in and trying to add every point about a minor section, or even a major section for that matter, and throwing off the continuity of what is meant to be a nice general overview of the topic of Exter. It is impossible to put in every point about a highly accomplished school that has existed for over a century. We should also be careful about "vanity placement" of alumni- I dont't think the founder of Facebook belongs with American historical figures who were responsible for buildings Exeter's reputation- not to say that Facebook isn't a fine accomplishment. So what I will do is add a closing section at the bottom of the page that discusses some of the major achievements of Exeter's most recent alumni- this will be a nice completion to the overview on Exeter and a good tie to the introduction that talks about early noted alumni. The operative word though, is "major", Facebook will be one of them, but we also have to becareful of every recent alumnus that wants their 15 minutes of fame and is adding their name to the list. Major accomplishments, and or alumni, should have some bluelink attached to them to emphasize noteworthiness. In closing, I will invest some time on this article, and you will see alot of "Exeterexpert" entries, but when I'm done, I ask that Wikipedia's administrators look over it so we don't have this cycle all over again of destroying and having to build it back up again- no article will ever be perfect, that is just a fact of life, we can only get it to a great place and then preserve it.Exeterexpert (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Restoration complete
The article has been fully cited, organized, and fact-checked. It now represents an excellent overview of the school. We can't really expect anything more than this for a Wikipedia article. Please maintain it. Thank you.Exeterexpert (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A tradition of excellence?
Uh ... am I the only one who finds this title totally and entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article? Barring objections, I will delete the section and put the "notable allumni" link under a "See also". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.43.2 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:WPSCH#Structure for a guideline on the "Notable alumni" (please don't move them to a See also) section. A motto isn't necessarily inappropriate although the case for it is stronger when supported by third party coverage and encyclopedic discourse about its significance in the article. – Zedla (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry and hoaxes
Hello, Per this sockpuppet report, and this checkuser request, User:Exeterexpert, an editor who has made significant edits to this page, has been confirmed as an abusive sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted. I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review User:Exeterexpert's additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.
They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".
I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Echols ref
Ocatecir, Edward321, and everyone else: If you're going to remove the "ref name=Echols" PLEASE go through and either update all the "harv|Echols..." references which point there OR update/remove statements supported by that reference. – Zedla (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revert: mottos, other information
People can figure out plenty from the info box that is detailed in the article, but the information should still be presented in encyclopedic form. I do agree that this article has some neutrality / point of view issues, but please do not delete chunks of text before discussing it first. I'd be happy to work on revising this, but let's figure out what really needs to removed. --Runnermonkey (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for not discussing. Maybe you can explain the purpose of having the information in encyclopedic form? The translation is already in the info box and explaining what the mottos "reflect" seems to be largely an opportunity for self-congratulation in this context. (Obviously, the motto "Not for self" emphasizes community; obviously, "The end depends on the beginning" emphasizes hard work.) The only explanation I can see as useful is the last one, which explains the Calvinist philosophy. How about we keep that part or expand it, and delete the rest of the stuff about the mottos? Mjl0509 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Information is usually summarized in the info box and later explained in the body of the article (campus, athletics, etc.). I agree that the motto meanings are obvious, but I think for the article to be informative and accessible we should assume the reader will not know what they mean. With that in mind I'm more inclined to leave at least part of it, as you suggested. I don't think a translation is enough. I definitely agree about it sounding a bit PR-ish as it is — possibly straight from Exeter. Perhaps we can rephrase it and clean it up a bit? --Runnermonkey (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd be down with that. Is there some way we can get more at the heart of what the mottoes are about, rather than just what values they reflect? If there's no bigger story behind them than just they reflect selflessness (which is pretty clear from "not for self") and hard work (which is also pretty clear,) I'm not sure we should explain them. I like the part about Calvinism for χαριτι θεου – is there a story of that sort behind either "Non sibi" or "Finis origine pendet"? Actually, this gets to the heart of a question here: the section claims to be about "origins and philosophy," but right now, it's just the founding family and the mottos. If there's some way we could include more information about why the school was founded and under what auspices, the section would be great. Unfortunately, I know precious little about Exeter's founding, but if someone can point me in the right direction, I can try to help with that. Mjl0509 (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
