Wikipedia:Peer review/Cornell University/archive3

Cornell University[edit]

All of the changes since the last peer review have been fixed, so we're giving this another shot. I'd really like to shoot for FA. Let me know if you think it's ready. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through suggestions located at User:AndyZ/Suggestions.

Fixed. Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

Fixed.Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. Specifically, Image:Cornell emblem.png need(s) proper fair use rationales.
- Isn't the {{logo}} template supposed to provide a boileplate Fair-use rationale? I've always assumed Fair Use claims were needed mostly for the {{fairuse}} and {{Non-free fair use in}} tags... Circeus 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is what I always thought too. FAs UMich and Michigan State don't have additional rationales for their fair use logos. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
Thanks, Andy _t 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt the history section is properly summarizing the very long History of Cornell University.
- It seems as though the land-grant act and Fixed. Willard Straight takeover are the only significant points which didn't make it into the main article. The land-grant status has already been covered elsewhere in the article, and the takeover is an isolated incident which doesn't really need a main article mention. What else ought we summarize? -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.You might want to revise the layout a bit as to avoit two headers directly following each other. This could also be corrected by adding a "buffer" summary. I would consider removing the "Examples of notable projects" header completely, though. These would be assumed to be some of the most notable examples anyway. Circeus 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the research overview into a buffer and added a little segue, but I'm still working on improving the other headers. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there are only 'double headers' on Campuses, Academics, and Student life... three areas which I don't think really need a buffer. They exist to organize the page a little more and keep something like International Programs as a second-priority header. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 02:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From a first glance, it looks okay (I haven't read it in detail). However, I would suggest you look over the article closely and find instances of boosterism. No matter how many citations you use, if you only speak highly of Cornell (which seems difficult not to do so given the university's reputation) the article will fail FAC (at worst) or barely pass it (at best). If there are negatives concerning Cornell, list them as well. Pentawing^Talk 04:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The editors have been very careful about boosterism, and as far as I can see, we're npov. Let me know if you find anything questionable. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 04:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Andy's point about dates: This task is easier with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 10:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice tool, it caught three decade links that I hadn't with a search for [[####]] links. Do you have any other advice for this article? Would you recommend going for FAC? -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's got a ways to go to get to NPOV. Pretty much the entire article focuses on highlighting positive points about the university. Sure it's a very well regarded university, but saying that should be confined to a small section supporting the reasons why it is highly regarded. The rest should just describe instead of highlighting positive aspects. I can't overemphasize how important that is, and must note it's not close so far. UM and MSU probably both still suffer from too much boosterism that is hard to excise, but this article goes much farther. Now that those two articles are out there, you'll have to do better instead of worse. As specific advice excise all "more than..." and just give the number. Also the lead isn't a proper summary of the article per WP:LEAD but don't worry about that until the rest is fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 02:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote another paragraph for the lead, but it could still use some work. Any help or advice is appreciated. Thanks. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent about an hour copyediting the entire page, and I did find tons of pov and bad prose, which I fixed. Please see my changes here. It's improving dramatically but could always use more input. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 04:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording changes are an improvement, but doesn't go far enough. There are still lots of superfluous "more than", "the most..", etc (I know those aren't all easy to fix quickly), and nothing's been done to address the fact that the whole structure is set up to highlight the university's positives. What about negatives? The sports section doesn't note how competitive (or not) Cornell is in most sports. My understanding is they don't win that much in general division 1 play, especially postseasons, championships, etc. Nothing in the article notes criticisms or shortcomings of the school. So in short, you're going in the right direction to reach FA, just keep going. - Taxman ^Talk 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is still essentially the same. - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many references to criticisms of the university throughout the article. There just aren't all that many negatives or controversies worth mentioning. The athletics article is fair- it lists achievements, and any reader would realize that if there are few achievements listed (as there are), then few things have been achieved. What do you expect, something like "aside from the aforementioned successes, Cornell's athletic programs are generally poor?" And I've already eliminated all instances of "more than" and the remaining instances of "the most" are used properly. Please cite specific examples if you find further problems. As a side note, we are currently a FAC, you may want to object there if you feel it is appropriate. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read the article, and it still has substantially all the problems I originally pointed out in my comments on June 4. What do I expect? I expect the article to be NPOV. Not be a listing of achievements, but a description of the facts. Are the athletics programs really generally poor and fail to consistently compete for championships? Then yes, I expect that to be stated. That's neutrally describing the facts of the subject. If instead they are extremely good then you say that. The highlighting of achievements only really does still pervade the article. Just additionally adding in a couple negative facets doesn't fix it either, because that doesn't give the reader the right idea it just presents a polar picture. Just accurately describe the subject of the article. If you can't see the POV problems weaved throughout the article that might be a problem. You may need to recruit someone with the opposite POV to point them out individually for you. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that, I just have to settle for pointing out the general problem. - Taxman ^Talk 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the augmented first paragraph of the Athletics section. Thank you for your continued help. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about this, but there is something disturbing about the images. Perhaps there are too many, or perhaps they should all be on the same side. Or maybe it is because they seem to be different sizes. Just a thought. bobblewik 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned it up a bit. There were a few images that didn't contribute much to the article. -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is getting close to a FA status. However, I think it may get shot down dut to it's size of 71k. The article Germany was opposed for that very reason. I encourage to identify and remove redundent images or details that are not essential... either that or move material into daughter articles. That said, the main structure of this article is very good.--P-Chan 20:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]