Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cornell University/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cornell University[edit]

Self-nom. A few dedicated editors have vastly improved this article. There have been 3 peer reviews, and it is currently a GA. If addressing concerns about POV, please cite specific examples so I can fix them. The article is currently 42 45 KB of prose. -mercuryboardtalk 15:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 44KB of prose as of 24 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style
Object -- egregious image problems. Article is full of images from various websites, with {{NoRightsReserved}}, {{cc-by}}, or some other free license on the image description page, but the source of the image clearly states the image is not freely-licensed, has no license information at all, or doesn't actually contain the image. There are so many that I'm not going to list them all here, but almost every image had to be tagged for deletion. Jkelly 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are only four, wait until I get Sergeev's email. The cornell law library picture problem has been sovled.--Cornell010 22:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, the pictures are secure, as I have contacted Sergeev and he has assented. Now, I just have to get it official through the wikipedia people.--Cornell010 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Picture problems have been solved, and I even solved the hockey picture problem.--Cornell010 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It does look like this is about one step away from everything being fixed. Jkelly 18:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not thrilled with the images. The ones being claimed as "fair use" need a Fair use rationale. And there are too many of them in the "Alumni" section, which causes both crowding and the text to flow strangely.
I'm not in love with the sentence "Additionally, Cornellians are noted for their accomplishments in a variety of fields". Is there any university that doesn't make such a claim? Also, the "Organization" section looks a little disorganised. I suggest that the WP:LEAD could still be expanded a bit; it would be nice if there was at least one sentence about every section we've broken out. The article is otherwise looking really good. I'm not quite willing to support without some more polishing. Jkelly 22:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the lead a bit. What do you propose we do with that Alumni sentence? It serves as an introduction sentence as well as introducing the relevent references for the section. The references are not sorted by category as our section is, so it doesn't make sense to place them anywhere else. I re-examined all the images and updated some. Which images, specifically, still have problems? -mercuryboardtalk 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and what specifically is disorganized about the organization section? (ironic) -mercuryboardtalk 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see another way to organize the organization section (wow weird wording). I guess it is kind of strange to have organization including library and press, but I think it works, however, I agree about the lead, it does need work. To me it seems as though the 2nd-half of the third paragraph is kind of redundant, as we do not need to talk about research spending, as it is has already been established that Cornell is a research university.--User:Cornell010 04:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see some reason for putting Library and Press under Main campus -mercuryboardtalk 05:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that will not work, as the Weill and Qatar Campuses probably have libraries, and they are not part of the main campus. Maybe we could create a seperate section for University Press as it seems more out of place than library.--User:Cornell010 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the lead, I'm much happier with it now. I still think that there is some trouble with image crowding. I'd recommend shifting Sagan right, moving Hughes down to Alumni, and losing the Science Guy and Morrison. I'll just accept that the Organisation section is as organised as it's going to get, but I wouldn't want to see that kind of layout become popular. I'll say Weak support, but please, please don't add any more images! Jkelly 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In reference to your comments: Sagan and Hughes were both professors but neither is an alumnus. Roughly, the four alumni images are respectively related to the fields of government, business, science, and literature. It's just a sampling for illustrative purposes, but I will consider our options in lessening the number of images. -mercuryboardtalk 19:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The "Alumni" section isn't sourced after the first paragraph, and strangely lists positions and accomplishments of alumni without actually naming them, leaving it an exciting puzzle for the reader to figure out, for example, which Cornellian played an influential role in the growth of Black & Decker. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Addressed; objection withdrawn. I'll have to try to make time for a fuller read to decide whether to support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would something like this be a prefered direction? Or what about footnotes?--Xtreambar 01:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the writing style is ideal, but having the information there would certainly be an improvement, yes. Don't forget about sourcing it, too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's the best way to go about the writing. We need a more elegant solution so the prose isn't garbage. Sourcing isn't nearly as difficult as getting these paragraphs written decently. -mercuryboardtalk 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not need very much sourcing in our alumni section as University of Michigan alumni section has only one source. - cornell010
  • Please see the rewritten Alumni section. Although the size has increased, it contains the same number of items. Each now has a name associated with it. Three references for the section are included in the second paragraph. -mercuryboardtalk 16:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your opinion on the parenthetical degrees notation? It seems to clutter the page and make it hard to read, and I wonder if such information is best left to the main article (and it's already in most of the individual biographical articles). -mercuryboardtalk 16:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object It is well written, but I am confused by a few things. By largest library by volume, do you mean it has the largest buildings, ie. that if you filled it with water you could get more gallons in, or do you mean it has more volumes than all but 10 libraries? Also, what is a library unit? Who donated North Campus? Is there any more you can write on the Qatar campus? Thats seems pretty innovative. I'd echo the comments about the people behind the organizations in the Alumni section. Other than that I think this is well written, and when these are corrected, I would support it. Illuminato 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified library, removed North Campus donation factoid. I will look into expanding the Qatar campus section. Originally, that section was a WP:SUMMARY of an article on the Qatar campus, but the consensus was to merge it back into the main article for lack of available information. -mercuryboardtalk 16:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a few sentences to Qatar. It's two full paragraphs now. I can't find anything else worth mentioning. -mercuryboardtalk 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Apart from perhaps questioning the need for pics of four select alumni (I've never liked this practice, as it suggests a ranking of importance), this is a great article. Harro5 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the pictures are not ranked. They go in order with the topics of the alumni section. For example, Ginsburg goes with the Supreme Court Justice, Wolfowitz with U.S. government officials, Bill Nye with the "Science Guy" part, and finally Toni Morrison for the literature part.--134.67.6.11 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is, picking Bill Nye (for example) to show with a picture says, "He is the most notable science guy to graduate from Cornell." Who decided that? Maybe with the other three there is a fair claim, but I disagree with 'showcasing', if you will, four alumni to highlight above all else. Harro5 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're following WP:SUMMARY there and listing some of the more notable Cornellians. We leave a much more expansive list to List of Cornell University people. The images serve to illustrate some of the more visually recognizable people ("oh, I know that face, I didn't know they went here"). I do somewhat agree with your point, though, but in this case I think the good outweighs the bad. In the past, there haven't been any edit wars or controversies over whose picture most deserves to go up, it's just for illustrative and summary purposes. Thank you for your support! -mercuryboardtalk 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thoughts at first glance: impressive, but far too many links, and perhaps some inappropriate linking. You link to Asia from "Asian Studies?" I don't know about that. Per WP:LINK, links should provide context, and they shouldn't be quickly repeated (the housing section seems bad in that regard). Under "Campuses#Main Campus:" laboratory, atheltic, and law school are all linked unnecessarily. "Alumni" in particular is way too blue for my tastes; perhaps cut it to one paragraph since you have that main article? (BTW, I'll be out of town and hence incommunicado for the next few days.)--Monocrat 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up this issue. Note that Law School links to the Cornell Law School. Please see my changes. As for Alumni, it's mentioning a lot of different people, companies, and other things... although it's a lot of links, it makes sense to have so many. It was originally just a couple of paragraphs, but considering the massive size of the subarticle, we should have at least what we have as our WP:SUMMARY. The section is 7kb, the main article is 65kb, sounds about right to me. -mercuryboardtalk 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. You might want to consider delinking some of the references to the constituent colleges. Also, "Organization" > "Academic" > "Campuses" > "Student life" might be more logical and less disruptive progression. "Research" is somewhat shortish; perhaps demote it to a subsection of "Academics." In "Faculty," Nobel laureates should be with all the other accolades, not after administrative troubles; the last paragraph of "International programs" would instead make a very good beginning after some work. I'm not fond of "Organization": I really don't know what the value of "Cornell University Press" is, to be honest: only the first sentence, the first sentence of the second paragraph, and the subsequent sentence (needing a trim) seem to add any value. Discussion of the library should probably be moved to "Academics." In any case, WP:MOSHEAD deprecates using the article's name in section headings, so perhaps "Library" and "Univeristy Press" would do? I'd rather have a single heading for "Colleges and shools," otherwise keeping the table as is. And how many departments are in the school?--Monocrat 21:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that linking to each college is an important way to build the web and allow easy access for more information on each of the colleges. I would also like to hear from other people on the opinion of the section order. Good find on Faculty, this had slipped by as we recently added the presidential mentions. Also a good catch on International programs. Both have been fixed. Cornell University Library and Cornell University Press are proper names, I don't know about the policy on this situation. Originally, the press had its own article, but it had no information beyond what's in this section, so it now forwards here. It's an important article/section nonetheless, see all the links from university press. I think the distinction is important between undergraduate and graduate/professional schools, and further it should be made clear which are endowed and which are contract. Please elaborate on any changes you propose in this area. Each college has anywhere from a few (Architecture, Art, and Planning) to dozens (Arts and Sciences) of separate departments, which are each listed on the appropriate college articles. -mercuryboardtalk 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the Press information could be trimmed and just put elsewhere, moreso after looking at other university press articles. But that's a minor issue, as are the headings employing "Cornell University." I agree that the distinctions you note are important, and I like how the table handles them, but what I'd like to see is a single subsection heading "Colleges and schools," and then the table with regular column-headings. There's no need to have two subsection headings on the same line. If you were to move the Press info and "Library", then there'd be no need for a subsection at all. In any case, I'm leaning towards supporting this, but I have to give it a thorough read when I get back Sunday.--Monocrat 21:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly substantial changes to address your concerns. -mercuryboardtalk 22:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Breaking indentation.)--Monocrat 18:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—2a. Here are examples from the top.
    • "immediately after the Industrial Revolution"—makes that phenomenone sound rather sudden. In which year did it occur?
    • "seven undergraduate colleges and an additional seven graduate divisions, each defining its own academic programs"—why mark the PG divisions? "seven undergraduate colleges and seven graduate divisions" is nice and neat. It would be very unusual if they didn't each define their own programs: do you need to point this out?
    • "has undertaken an interest"—?
    • "Cornell counts over 230,000 living alumni and is affiliated in total with 40 Nobel laureates." Most US style manuals prefer "more than". The second clause is verbose: "affiliated" means what here? What does "in total" mean? Don't you mean that the alumni include 40 Nobel laureates?
    • "during the 2004-2005 fiscal year"—when exactly is the US fiscal year? The months vary from country to country. Consider writing "2004–05", which is easier to read and neater.
    • "Cornell University was created on 27 April 1865, by a bill of the New York State Senate which named the university as the state's land grant institution." Remove the comma. Was it the bill or the Senate that did the naming? A land-grant institution might be unclear to most readers. Link?

I won't go on; the density of problems at the top suggests that a thorough copy-edit is required to satisfy the Criterion. I'd have thought the topic demanded not just "compelling", but "brilliant" prose; after all, it's a brilliant institution, isn't it? Tony 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Doubt it ;). Money =/= quality in my opinion. — Deckiller 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. How great can they be? They let me in. :-p—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed your examples, should be clearer now. As for defining their own academic programs, the sentence is reflecting Cornell's decentralized structure. I'll do a larger copyedit tomorrow, but let me know if you come across anything specific. -mercuryboardtalk 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I won't have time, I'm afraid—work commitments. I'll return in a few days and have a look. Try to bring on board one or two WPians who are unfamiliar with the text. Tony 03:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further changes. -mercuryboardtalk 21:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many more changes. When you get back, please take a look. -mercuryboardtalk 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just noticed that the picture of the Cornell newspaper, is unreadable when zoomed in, so it is essentially just a pic of unreabible text with the words "The Cornell Sun" at the top. You probably want to replace it with a pic with more encyclopedic value. Maybe the Glee Club? Wilderness retreats? You folks should know.--P-Chan 04:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. POV problems. I am giving examples. In the lead:
    • These ideals—a radical departure at the time—are captured in Cornell's motto, an 1865 Ezra Cornell quotation: "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study."
    • Research is a fundamental element of the university's mission; Cornell spent $561.3 million on research and development in a diverse group of fields during the July 2004 to June 2005 fiscal year.
  • Also they exist throughout the prose. Examples include:
    • In the 2000s, Cornell has been aggressively expanding its international programs.
    • Cornell is highly decentralized, with its colleges and schools exercising wide autonomy.
  • Also, is this really required:It is a common misconception that Cornell's contract colleges are public institutions. What's the problem in just stating the facts. The editors are requested to look into these problems as well as similar problems throughout the article. For a clearer understanding behind my objections, I suggest going through WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:WTA. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed your issues. Bunchofgrapes and I just gave it another thorough copyedit. Some comments. I would remove 'radical departure at the time,' but it's important that we establish context. At the time, universities were very specialized in their teachings, and Cornell was indeed radical in proposing a broad education. Do you have any elegant NPOV solution for this? My other concern is your question of 'fundamental.' See Fundamentally at WTA. It suggests acceptable use here, as it underpins a subject (rather than makes a generalization). -mercuryboardtalk 19:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "unconventional" achieve the same effect in NPOV manner. Personally I am no fan of using fundamental, and prefer to use "central" instead. I wouldn't object to it now. I will have another look at article soon. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed your final two issues. –mercuryboardtalk 18:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support. Satisfactory improvements. Try to reduce the size of alumni section. Agreed that there are a lot of notable alumni, but I feel the section needs to be reduced a bit, though not an issue to oppose. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak object — close to supporting, but the article appears somewhat long. Would it be possible to merge some of the sections or trim the prose? Also, the last sentence in "History" cites six references after the word "Singapore". Now, don't get me wrong, it is not a crime to feature this many citations since they enhance the verifibility, but is each and every one required? I believe that the most major sources should be kept with the others being removed. Just to confirm, I am being somewhat picky, but even if these issues cannot be completely addressed, I would be willing to switch my vote to support. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Ambuj Saxena mentioned, I would also suggest a quick run-through at avoiding peacock terms. Here is an example: For the undergraduate class of 2010, the admissions rate was 24.7%, an all-time university low: an all-time university low? What is "all-time" supposed to mean in this sense? Additionally, this sentence doesn't quite make sense (or at least to me): The 11th largest academic library in the United States by number of volumes held, the Cornell University Library (CUL) is organized into twenty divisions. While I understand what it is hinting, I think it needs to be reworded. I reworded the last portion myself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could a reference be placed next to this sentence (perhaps one from the later sentences?): In addition to its three campuses, Cornell University owns and operates many facilities around the world. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All issues addressed. I don't believe the length is inappropriate for the scope of the article. -mercuryboardtalk 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The following statements do not appear to be supported by the reference after them:
The Cornell Daily Sun is the oldest continuously independent college daily newspaper in the United States, having published since September 1880. In 1912, it became the first collegiate member of the Associated Press.. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've substituted it with a much more clear and verbose reference. -mercuryboardtalk 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently 1 weak support, 1 weak object, 2 support, 2 object. Still only six opinions. Whoever hasn't re-visited the article in a few days, please review our extensive edits (over 50 in the past 24 hours alone). New comments and suggestions are always appreciated. -mercuryboardtalk 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quick side-note: all this rapid editing is copyediting and similar, not the sort of thing that affects its overall stability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems fine to me. I see no major prose issues, but then again, as long as I can understand something, I'm happy. Some people may feel this doesn't meet the well-written standard, but I do. — Deckiller 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; a biased vote since I've done a lot of copyediting now, but at the same time the copyediting has convinced me that the article is both comprehensive and structurally sound. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
Cornell ranks among the world's top universities: That's not a useful statement. The reference quotes 500 top universities. How many is top?
The size, of course. There is a lot of (interesting) detail, but can't some of it go to sub-sections? (e.g. the percentage of students that enrolled through early admissions - is that even important?) - Cribananda 01:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence exists to establish a context for the 'Rankings' section. The percent of students enrolled early is a very commonly reported statistic among college resources... students interested in applying to Cornell would want to know that, as would anybody following trends in college admissions. —mercuryboardtalk 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm copy-editing right now; plenty to fix. Tony 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC) For example: possesses a view; pledged $750M for construction (but did they follow through with the money?); outside OF, and the repeated use of "x is LOCATED in y". I should not be able to find silly things like these at this stage. Tony 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cornell_University/archive1&oldid=1138458078"