Talk:University of Virginia fraternities and sororities

University of Virginia fraternities and sororities has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 18, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
August 29, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 24, 2015.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that houses of many University of Virginia fraternities were styled after residences of the Old South, including Monticello, Farmington, and Carr's Hill?

Current status: Good article

University of Virginia fraternities and sororities received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 May 2015 by reviewer Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs).

Fraternities and Sororities Mid‑importance

	University of Virginia fraternities and sororities is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Virginia: University of Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject University of Virginia (assessed as High-importance).

Easters Photo?[edit]

I'd love to have a photo of Easters included in the article. If anyone has an idea of a free-use photo that could be uploaded, feel free to let me know. This is probably the most well-known photo, but unfortunately I don't believe it's in the public domain. Puppysnot (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Virginia Greek life/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Agtx (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Not perfect, but very close. Writing is overall good, tone is right, and it is generally concise. The main UVA article uses UVA instead of UVa. This should match. There are two "1970s" sections in the History section, which is a little odd. The sororities section says "1970s and 1980s" but then doesn't talk about anything related to the '80s. Can those two sections be combined in some way, if we're doing this chronologically as opposed to by topic? -- All resolved
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Solid here. The style is right, the layout is good, and the way that the table of organizations has been incorporated is, I think, the best way to do it. That avoids going into unnecessary detail on each organization.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference list looks good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Although many of the sources are primary sources, I'm not sure where else we'd get a lot of this information. I'd say, therefore, that the quality of the in-line sources is sufficient.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are some areas that are missing sources. The lede of University_of_Virginia_Greek_life#Service_fraternities.2C_professional_fraternities_and_honor_societies is entirely unsourced claims ("thriving social atmospheres") and needs to be rewritten. The last paragraph of "early 1900s" is missing inline cites, and contains claims that the 1981 book can't support ("still in place today"). The second paragraph in the 2000s section has the same problem. -- All resolved
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Does not appear to be missing coverage on any key areas.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Although the table listing every Greek organization is lengthy, I think it's well-sourced and the best way to present this information.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Does not appear to have any neutrality problems. Treatment of the Rolling Stone controversy is good.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images looks good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and add to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Agtx, thanks for reviewing this for me! I just finished addressing all of your comments. I'll list them below:

I changed all instances of UVa to UVA.
I consolidated the two 1970s sections under a new "Late 1900s" section.
I shortened the lead of the Professional and Honor Fraternities section, removed unsource-able claims and added a reference describing the nature of professional and honor societies
I more explicitly cited the early 1900s paragraph, including a couple new sources
I more explicitly cited the 2000s paragraph, including a couple new sources

With these improvements I hope the article will be able to pass GA review. Let me know if there are any other issues.Puppysnot (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agtx, any other comments or concerns? I want to make sure I'm able to address them before the 7-day window is up. Thanks! Puppysnot (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone article[edit]

Regarding the fraudulent story in Rolling Stone magazine, entitled "A Rape on Campus" and authored by Sabrina Erdely. I don't think the Controversies paragraph explains the outcome strongly enough. As I recall, Phi Psi earned an enormous settlement from the school and/or the magazine (and possibly the author of the story and the student who defamed the fraternity), which should be clarified front and center as the point of the scandal.

UPDATED INFO: Nicole Eramo, the former UVA Associate Dean who was defamed in the story won a $7.5M settlement from Rolling Stone, and the fraternity, which sought redress for "the wanton destruction caused to Phi Kappa Psi by Rolling Stone's intentional, reckless, and unethical behavior", settled their lawsuit for $1.65M. It doesn't appear the fraternity sued the administration, nor the alleged victim/student, even while they may have had grounds.

Kind of like the fraudulent Duke Lacrosse rape story, the lesson here is the magazine's, the reporter's, and the national media's rush to judgement and willingness to accept that such behavior occurred without a single pause to question the narrative... The administration didn't help the fraternity, rather, it distanced itself and let them hang in the wind. The 'reporter' was admonished later for perpetrating the worst case of journalistic malpractice that year. The Columbia Journalism Review called the story "this year's media-fail sweepstakes".^[1]. It was journalistic malpractice and feckless virtue signaling to the mob by the magazine and by the administration. --At least those are the reasons cited whereby the fraternity won their defamation lawsuits. Anyone with more accurate knowledge of this wish to take a run at improving the section?

These references may help: ^[2]^[3]^[4] See standalone Wikipedia article: A Rape on Campus Original post: Jax MN (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC), Section updated: Jax MN (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Uberti, David (December 22, 2014). "The worst journalism of 2014". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved December 23, 2014.
^ Hollywood Reporter wrap-up after third lawsuit settles in favor of Phi Kappa Psi and its members, accessed 10 Dec 2020.
^ "Greatest Blow in the publication's storied half-century history, accessed 10 Dec 2020.
^ Characterization that this fraud was a Group Defamation upheld on appeal by 2nd Circuit Court, accessed 10 Dec 2020.

[cjrworst-1] Uberti, David (December 22, 2014). "The worst journalism of 2014". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved December 23, 2014.

[2] Hollywood Reporter wrap-up after third lawsuit settles in favor of Phi Kappa Psi and its members, accessed 10 Dec 2020.

[3] "Greatest Blow in the publication's storied half-century history, accessed 10 Dec 2020.

[4] Characterization that this fraud was a Group Defamation upheld on appeal by 2nd Circuit Court, accessed 10 Dec 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]