Talk:University of Heidelberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Heidelberg article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
University of Heidelberg was a good article nominee, but the nomination was withdrawn by the nominating editor due to issues with the article meeting the good article criteria. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated.

Reviewed version: May 17, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Some helps

I made some modifications to help prep the article for its GA review. One list needs to be converted to prose, and the image captions should not have any bold lettering per WP:CAPS. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed the bold pic captions and deleted the greatest part of list since I have no idea how to convert it to prose and there are links to the original lists of the DFG in the references for anyone who wishes such detailed information. Will you do the review? Fred Plotz (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I might be able to in the next couple days, but just in case I can't, there are a couple things you can do right away that might take some time and most other reviewers will catch: (1) your citations are not inline with WP:CITE—specifically WP:Cite web and WP:Cite book—and all will need to be put in the proper format; (2) can you make the References in fiction and popular culture section read like prose instead of a bulleted list?; (3) the only way I could justify having a gallery of certain alumni on a page would be if the alumni are household names—i.e., if most people in Germany would recognize their names—and since I'm not familiar with German culture, you'll have to be the judge of that. You might also consider a less obtrusive gallery box (see Vanderbilt University and Brigham Young University).
Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! Reviewing the article you may find some formulations kind of clumsy. If so, feel free to make some improvements. Thanks a lot in advance for a gentle review ;-) Fred Plotz (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow...nice work! I know how tedious it is to do all that stuff. There are a few references you use more than once—for these, you need to also incorporate WP:REFNAME. It would also be nice to add geographic coordinates to the article, similar to most universities'. If you need an example, check out Marriott School of Management (ref#10 for the refname stuff). --Eustress (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Done! Fred Plotz (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My GA Review of this article

First of all, in the future, when an edit tag like {{inuse}} is at the top of the page, please do not make edits!

Sorry for that. I saved my last edit seconds after you placed the tag, so I didn't notice it. However, sorry.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

I removed quite a bit of POV and advertising language, but more will have to be done (through peer review) if this will ever get to FA. I also removed list of notable universities in the 236 research universities--there are a lot of non-notables on the list too (POV). This remains to be done:

Of course there are some non-notables among the partner universities, but facts are not pov by definition. Stating "...236 partner univeristies among which are..." implicates that the otheres are not as notable as those mentioned. The site of the HRK is not a "random" search engine; searching cooperations by institution the list can easily be accessed. I'd have given a direct link, but that's technically impossible since the web adress doesn't change when accessing the list.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to provide inline citations for facts in the lead, but for a fact like "the oldest university in Germany", that's such a notable and possibly controversial claim that a citation would do well here as well.
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Avoid starting sentences with numbers
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Only put inline citations immediately after punctuation marks (e.g., periods, commas)—never in the middle of phrases (per WP:CITE)--international rankings section
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For the Academic Ranking of World Universities, I would only refer to the most recent ranking, and I'm not sure I'd mention the one Ivy League school (Brown) you beat out that year—doesn't seem incredibly notable if 69 other school did so as well, and Brown is the smallest of the Ivy League schools
I believe interpreting rankings is all about consistency. Different placings in several years are mainly due to changes in methodology, so the different editions are equally valuable. Oh, and it was Brown and Dartmouth in all editions of ARWU. Both are classified to have a "very high research activity" by Carnegie Foundation, so benchmarking with them is not unfair. Brown is obviously larger than Princeton, so size doesn't really matter here.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't abbreviate "approx."
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Exchange rates are flickering day by day. 400 days ago dollar and euro were approx. pair. Now I get a $1,50 for a euro. I therefore think that's no good idea. Since this one is a country-specific article, giving $ estimates is not required as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Currencies.
  • I would internal-link sports, etc. in the Student life section
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.

Be careful of plagiarism of some of your sources—use quotation marks if not paraphrased. Also, it would be more specific (and less potentially deceiving) if the Notable people section were separated out by faculty and alumni, like most other universities' articles; see Dartmouth College and Duke University; I would also remove the gallery and insert a couple pictures like these articles, while describing briefly their notability in the caption; however, this stuff is not required for GA. The following needs to be fixed:

  • Please resolve the citation tags I added
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How does number of faculty constitute making it "one of Germany's larger universities"—this is POV and not necessarily true
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref#7 (rankings) is a circular reference--Wikipedia should never cite itself
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Good--might consider outsourcing a couple sections to independent articles to make this article shorter (like History and Campuses), but it's all right.
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

This criterion is the largest area of concern:

  • The History, Campuses, and Organization sections (and most of the article) come almost entirely come from a Catholic encyclopedia or the University itself (only section not like this is Rankings section)—39/101 references from UH-produced sites (almost half)—please improve this
  • Statements like "Heidelberg became a center of Liberalism and the movement in favor of German national unity" definitely need another supporting reference independent of the Catholic Church.
  • "the university was widely recognized as a center of democratic thinking" is credited to a UHeidelberg reference (not neutral)
Both points are not controversial, rather common knowledge in Germany. Catholic online is a reliable third party source and since Heidelberg has no religious affiliation, there's no particular reason for the Catholic Church to make Heidelberg look better than it is. However I'm looking for another reference it can be attributed to.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there no controversies or criticisms of the university?
No, since the racists have been thrown out in 1945, and the entire student parliament was arrested in 1975, it is a rather uncontroversial place.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

I'm not sure about the copyright status of a couple pictures. On one, Fred says he's university staff, but his user page says he's a law school student. I'm not an expert with Wikipedia images, so another editor will have to look into this if it goes to FAC. Remember to put no periods at the end of picture captions (see WP:MOS#Captions). I also standardized picture sizes.

I'm a doctoral student and part-time research assistant at the law school. However, I can not authorize any image releases, but the press office can and did so.Fred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove remaining italics from captions.
Y DoneFred Plotz (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one week until the above issues are resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. I spent a lot of time reviewing and making my own edits, so I hope this helps! Please indicate when a issue has been resolved. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominating editor withdrew nomination per concerns below. --Eustress (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hi! Why are the pictures all in different sizes? For example, the picture of Rupert is very large compared to the MPI for Astronomy. Wouldn't it be better if they all had approx. the same size? Or is this again some GA regulation thing? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what happened. I was trying to get them to all be somewhat consistent...any help appreciated. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, why did you not just leave it the way it was? Personally, I think it was better before. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that I made a lot of minor changes—if you would like to tweak picture sizes, propose some changes and we could probably reach an agreement. --Eustress (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Cooperations

Eustress, I partially undid your edit in this section. I included some examples of cooperating universities. As there is no judgement about these example universities whatsoever, it is neutral and no POV. I hope you agree. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't how the GAN process works—you don't revert the reviewer's alterations unless after consensus—I thought I was being kind by only removing the "band wagon" appeal university list, "such as Cornell University, Duke University, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne University, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, Tsinghua University, and Yale University." Now I'm questioning the entire phrase it belonged to, as the reference does not support the text—it's just some random search engine. (http://81.169.169.236/kompass/xml/index_koop_en.htm). My point is, you just searched for a bunch of prestigious universities—out of a list of 236 I'm sure there are a bunch of no-names. Thus, it is POV. Sorry, but I can't budge on this one.
The other revert ("is" vs. "deemed") is okay, but I still think it's best to avoid any potential POV, and it didn't discredit the title at all; I will however make a modification so it makes sense grammatically.
If there are any errors or problems with my review and bold edits, then you have the right to request a second opinion later, but for now I would encourage you to work on the things I pointed out. --Eustress (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA process

Eustress, thank you for your thorough review of the article. I am going to implement most of your suggestions. However, I am not able to accept having to request a second opinion before being allowed to alter clearly erroneous or misleading edits. I therefore hereby withdraw my GA nomination. Again, thank you for your efforts. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted almost all of my edits (even the color boxes in accordance with WikiProject Universities FAs). This shows problems of ownership rather than a few issues with a GAN review. Reverting any edits without discussion or an edit summary is very poor etiquette. Please going about editing according to these guidelines. --Eustress (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted few of your edits and implemented most of your suggestions:
  • I changed "(...)while now focuses mainly on the natural sciences and medicine." into "while now emphasizing the natural sciences and medicine, the university also maintains highly ranked faculties of humanities and social science" because stating a focus on natural sciences and medicine is misleading. The university has elaborated a conception of the university's future which is called "realizing the potential of a comprehensive university". The university downright aims to avoid a focus on a certain subject area. The humanities and social sciences are both ranked in Europe's top 25, which shows that this focus in non-existent. It certainly emphasizes the natural sciences and medicine financially, but that's in the nature of things.
  • "Subsequently, the institution once again became a hub for independent thinkers, studying humanism and democracy;" That's factually incorrect: The university's professors were major exponents of humanism and democracy in a practical way. They served as masterminds of the democratic revolution of 1848 and many of them were members of the first freely elected German parliament of 1848. The university never had a chair for humanism or democracy, nor did it graduate any students in humanism and democracy. Both are not academic disciplines. I changed the sentence into (...)and became a "stronghold of humanism" and democracy, using quotation marks since it is a direct quotation of the Times of London's THES.
  • I like the quotation marks...good idea. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "On October 19, 1386 the first lecture was held, making Heidelberg is the oldest university in Germany" was changed into "On October 19, 1386 the first lecture was held, making Heidelberg the oldest university in Germany". I'm not an expert in english grammar but it seems better to me.
  • Semantics...okay. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed "It recruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons" into "It decruited a large number of lecturers and expelled many students for political and racist reasons" because your edit changed the meaning of the sentence into a factually incorrect statement.
  • What does "decruited" mean? It doesn't exist in English, so I thought it might have been a typo for "recruited". Please clarify. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
"decruited" is a synonym of "dismissed". Maybe a bit archaic, bit still common in UK
  • I changed the color boxes into the universiy's flag, as for example all the University of London colleges do have their flag on that place. See e.g. University College London - a Good Article
OK, we can take the color boxes, that's no problem.
  • I de-wikilinked Neuenheimer Feld because it is just a small quarter of the city which is practically solely occupied by the New Campus - it is very unlikely that there will ever be written a wikipedia article about it since almost everything to say about it is already stated in this article.
  • Sounds reasonable, but you reference NF multiple times in the article, the only reason I thought it might be notable. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Short explanation: Neuenheimer Feld is basically another name for the New Campus. Just like e.g. Old Nassau and Princeton Campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Plotz (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I re-added the most notable partners as per above
  • I still don't agree with this (as per above), but I'm done fighting it. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All other changes were implementations of your suggestions.
  • Thank you. I only had to revert because everything was mixed together with the apparent reverts.
As already mentioned, I am honestly grateful for your help. The aforementioned issues aside, the article has become much better in the course of your review, especially the lead is definitely another class now. I'm willing to discuss some of these points if you have reasonable objections, but, in general, I would like to kindly request you to revert your revert. I don't have feelings of ownership of this article, rather of well-intentioned paternity, so please assume good faith. Kind regards Fred Plotz (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation of the reverts and other edits. In the future, please provide Edit Summaries; otherwise, it's too tedious to try to figure out which edits were reverts and which were improvements. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Eustress, where was your good etiquette when you initially edited this article? You added clearly false or misleading statements and now we shall not correct them without prior dicussion? As Fred already said, we are grateful for your efforts but please do not expect us to dicuss and respect every mistake you made. If you disagree with any specific point in the recent edits, then please discuss it here... or if you are sure that it is a clear mistake, then correct it immediately. But please do not revert all the edits including all the improvements made therewith. That is not very nice. JimmeyTimmey (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there might be some language-barrier issues here, as my painstaking edits were meant to improve the article (without libel) and make it more understandable so it could pass to GA. Now that there has been an edit war over the article, the article will not be eligible for GA status for some time, as it will fail GA criterion #5. --Eustress (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Were there three reverts yet? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to re-revert now. Is that OK for everybody here? Fred Plotz (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Btw: Some changes I forgot mentioning:
  • I re-added "(..) with more than one third of the universities doctoral students coming from abroad" since I consider this a characteristic feature of the university. Few other universities have a doctoral student body as international as Heidelberg; certainly no German university has. I also re-added "(...) internationally leading education venue for doctoral students", but if anyone can name ten top 100 global universities that graduate 1000 Ph.D.s each year, I will agree that's POV and delete it.
  • I changed "(...) in several disciplines" into "(...) a broad array of diciplines" as that claim is reasonable and rather common on wikipedia.
  • I also re-added "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is in an exceptional position since its faculty buildings are located in Heidelberg's exclusive residential area, overlooking the River Neckar, the ancient town, and the castle." as the faculty is not located at either campus (but close to the New Campus), which is notable, I think. One can say "exclusive residential area" is POV, but indeed the faculty is located in a large chateau and some gorgeous mansions, situated at the "Philosophenweg", a road that's nicknamed "billionairs alley" in southern Germany, so "exclusive residential area" is a rather innocuous description, I guess.
Objections welcome Fred Plotz (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noted People

I would like to write a bit about alumni and faculty (see article). What do you think? JimmeyTimmey (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should leave it well enough alone. I know it is kind of attractive to try to enlarge the section but we spent weeks going back and forth with it, and the outcome was rather poor. The discussion fills an archive. I think the section was good; small, yet quite impressive. Anyone can see the list for further information. Fred Plotz (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: I've imported the section to my new Sandbox here. Now we can work on it and see if something publishable comes out in the end, without continously changing the article. I hope you're d'accord; also see discussion there. Fred Plotz (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some recent changes

  • deleted sentence "while now emphasizing the natural sciences and medicine, the university also maintains highly ranked faculties of humanities and social science" as it doesn't add any value.
  • replaced "in a broad array of disciplines" by "some 100 disciplines"
  • changed "internationally leading" back into "international"
  • Added "(...)at Master's level(...)" to Faculties section for clarification
  • Changed (...)among which are such renowned names as(...) into "Some of the most notable include (...)" as it sounds more neutral. But, to be frank, I feel insisting in that sentence is getting more and more ridiculous, so if that's your sole concern, I give my blessing to its deletion.
  • changed "continued to lose in brilliance and prestige" into "continued to lose in prestige"
  • changed "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is in an exceptional position since its faculty buildings are located in Heidelberg's exclusive residential area, overlooking the River Neckar, the ancient town, and the castle." into "The Faculty of Physics and Astronomy is not located at either campus, but on the Philosophers' Walk, separated from the Old Town by River Neckar, and some two kilometers away from the New Campus."
  • Deleted "outranks Ivies" stuff.
  • Added reference "Cser, Andreas (2007). Kleine Geschichte der Stadt Heidelberg und ihrer Universität. Karlsruhe: Verlag G. Braun. ISBN 978-3-7650-8337-2. " to support some historical facts.

I think most GAN issues should thereby be resolved. Fred Plotz (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: Indeed 39/109 sources are hosted by UH affiliated institutions, i.e., 35,8 %, however only uncontroversial and neutral facts are supported by such (e.g. some historical matters; organization; locations of buildings on campuses; subjects offered; some admission figures; athletics and student groups; etc.). Also, please note that some UH sources in turn cite external sources which are not or no longer available on the web, so that they can't be cited directy. Thanks Fred Plotz (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One may also compare the body of source material of featured university articles such as Cornell University or Georgetown University. I think this article compares favourably to many in this respect. Fred Plotz (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)