Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 16

Football

Can we add the Title IX considerations of the suspension of the football program to the article instead of blaming low attendance? The cited article gives both reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.211.127 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it. I also requested unprotection so IPs can edit. (Fingers crossed.) Amerique^dialectics 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

Just wondering: how come there is a photo of the "Big C" at Berkeley with a caption about the "C" at UCR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.53.207 (talk • contribs)

There isn't anymore. Someone was writing an article on Cal's Big C, uploaded a file named Image:BigC.jpg, and inadertently overwrote the former image file, which was of UCR's big C. I reverted the file and contacted the uploader, telling him to go in peace and sin no more. --Dynaflow 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

stop deleting mascot history

this is a UCR article, the mascot is a part of UCR pride and spirit. why do you keep deleting it? where should you put it if you delete it? people will want to know what UCR's mascot is, this is the proper article to write about it.

and stop deleting the student newspaper, too. It is a part of UCR. just because there is a link, that is just not enough. otherwise, why do you even bother to write an article about UCR? you can just put a direct link to www.ucr.edu --OCDpatient 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, lets put back the mascot in a sub-article as I had in the Athletics section. College Watch 08:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to create a separate article that links to this one just for mascot history like OCDpatient did, by all means go ahead. But general consensus here seems to be against overly detailed accounts of our furry friend Scotty the bear on the UCR main page. There is some material in the UCR history article you can use if you want it.--Amerique ^dialectics 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article drive?

Its been a long term goal of mine to get this article to WP:FA status. I think doing so would be the best way to maintain neutrality and ensure quality in the long term, and it would be a wiki feather in all our caps if we were to do this collectively. No other UC article has attained even a "good" quality peer review on WP, and considering what this article has been through I would say it more than deserves it.

Of university articles that have attained this status, Michigan State University, though a vastly different institution, seems closest in academic profile to UCR, and I would like to try modeling the format of the UCR article on that article. This would mean a pretty large-scale reorganization and redevelopment of this article from top to bottom, but I am willing to work according to consensus and I think if most of us continued working together like we have recently in identifying problems and solving them, achieving a featured quality article should not be a significant problem this year. Though there is a lot to be done to that end.--Amerique ^dialectics 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome idea, especially because the page has been more or less stable for a while. I think, in its current state, this is the best of all the UC campus articles. (I think all those that have been evaluated are at B-Class.) Is everyone still open to the idea of a UC WikiProject? I suggested that months ago, but I'm lazy, so nothing happened. szyslak (t, c) 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea, but I would support making the article more balanced, such as mentioning the less desirable aspects of the school.Insert-Belltower 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested. A "UC wikiproject" could assist in developing consensus for handling content problems system-wide. (Problem users, of course, would still be handled according to the usual channels.) Of the UC articles, I actually think UCI's is the best one, though it may have been the inspiration for this recent mascot episode we've just had. Anyway, I would join and fully support a UC wikiproject but I would mainly be interested in working on this article for the time being. Best, --Amerique ^dialectics 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Route 60, University Avenue Overpass Pic

I think that this pic is very low yield; all it shows is an overpass with "UC Riverside" printed on it. In my opinion, pics should show the unqiue and key features of the school (eg. Belltower). To me this pic is kind of mundane and I motion to remove it. What do you guys think? Insert-Belltower 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I defer to those more familiar with the campus and its surroundings. The picture does not do much for me but I don't know if it's an important feature or somehow notable. --ElKevbo 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Negative. The overpass is a key feature of the immediate geography forming a "gateway" between the main campus and UV. Also, the Gluck "Gateway" mural is painted beneath it. I wouldn't object to a better one, of course.--Amerique ^dialectics 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The overpass servers more of a "gateway" between UCR and the local commerce. However, I feel that it doesn't highlight the university, the space can be use for the Arts building, the new Alumni building, or perhapses a picture of the main entrance near the overpass. Asian Animal 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Measurements in captions

Are exact units of measurements really needed in certain captions? Examples: bell tower picture caption saying it is 49.1 meters tall, the "C" picture with it's feet/meter measurements, and the Science Library saying it was opened in 1991 when the Rivera picture right above it doesn't have a date.
I would prefer if these captions were a bit simpler without exact measurements, does anyone else see a necessarily a need for them?
...Cosecant 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, exact measurements are unnecessary. I don't care if the bell tower is 49.1 meters tall or 50 meters tall. Asian Animal 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rankings

It seems to me that the rankings brief in terms relative to the other UC's. I think it would more descriptive mention the relative rank of UCR. Insert-Belltower 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that statement is relevant here, the UC page has a nice table breaking down the ranks of all the UCs. I'm reverting it back to the way it was before. Asian Animal 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this was discussed to death a few months ago. My position has not changed - it's not notable. Asian Animal is correct that the info belongs in the UC article and not here. --ElKevbo 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the ranking section, what about if we put a link to the UC page? Insert-Belltower 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not totally opposed to the idea as I think it could be tasteful and appropriate. It's already in the UC category so I'd hate to make the link too prominent. My primary concern would be the reasoning behind adding a link to the UC page in this specific section and not in others where similar comparisons could (and should and are) be made. I would be POV if the comparison were only made in this section or in others where UCR compares particularly well or particularly poorly with other UC institutions. We need to aim for consistency and NPOV. --ElKevbo 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons between UCR and other UCs should only be done in context. Virtually all schools are "good" within one grouping and "bad" within another. Like, the lowest ranked Ivy League schools are "good" among the top 100 in the nation and "bad" in comparison to Harvard/Princeton/Yale. What's really important, if we must play the ranking game, is how a school fares in the grand scheme of things. szyslak (t, c) 23:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your criteria for ranking seems somewhat arbitrary. The "grand scheme of things is inherently vague." No one here is suggesting a good/bad connotation for UC Riverside. All saying is that is the relative rank should be referred to because this article is partially written in the context of the UC system.Insert-Belltower 19:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a link to the UC page in the ranking section. A link to that page already exists, it's at the top of the page saying ucr is a part of the uc Asian Animal 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconding AsianAnimal.--Amerique ^dialectics 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nom. Ready?

I was discussing with Szyslak as to whether this article currently is "good article" nomination worthy. I personally have no idea, but I wouldn't mind nominating it just to receive an outside eval as to how to best improve the article as it stands currently. What do you all think? Should we nominate this article at WP:GAN sometime next week or just keep working at it independently for the time being? Best,--Amerique^dialectics 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do it. Even if we're not worthy we will get feedback on how to make the page worthy. However, we will need a point person to lead the GA push. When this point person has free time, thats when i feel we should make the GA push. I nominate Amerique to lead the GA push! :-D Asian Animal 10:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Insert-Belltower 22:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...I agree. The best page compared to the other UC's. Dylan Schiff 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unable to edit

Is some vandalism going on? I'm not allowed to edit the page. Dylan Schiff 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the UV, in the student life/ student demographics section is labelled as "the university villiage and villiage bookstore." The bookstore isn't there anymore. Could someone who has an account, and some clearance please delete that, and say "Tropics Billiards," or "one of the two starbucks", before that closes down too?

The lead

I think the lead needs work if you folks are looking to get some more formal recognition for the article. The first para (as it is now after my edit) seems fine as historial info, but what then? An ideal lead is three paras that summarise the article in a concise way. Would it be possible to expand the lead to do that? Metamagician3000 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has just edited the lead while ignoring that it is being discussed on the talk page. Metamagician3000 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that edit had a lot of other problems, e.g. the use of heights in metres - quite inappropriate for a US-related article. I reverted. Better to start again than try to salvage anything useful from it. Metamagician3000 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this article, the guy that dramatically changes everything (changes headings, adds metric measurements, puts incorrect information about the mascot) is quite a frequent sock and vandal of the article. He always comes back from time to time. Cosecant 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is right now - so much was happening at once that it got confusing. If necessary, feel free to revert to what you consider a good version while also preserving any good things I have done. E.g. I had a reason to break up the lead into two paras as a start to work on expanding it (which seems necessary if the article is going to start heading towards the grail of the FA process). Also, I wikified some headings that seemed wrong even in the good versions. But I don't want to cause confusion here. Metamagician3000 02:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If the vandalism keeps happening from an anon, I can semi-protect the page for you. Let me know if you need that at any point. Metamagician3000 02:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A s-protect would be good right now, since the vandalism from this particular sock has been increasing lately. It would also be a good time to focus our efforts into editing and fixing without disturbance. I had a few edits I had in mind to the athletics and spirit section but with our anon "friend" in the way, it made it a little more difficult. Thanks. :) Cosecant 06:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[unindent]Done - I sprotected for the next three weeks. That should give regular editors on the article a good period of peace. Metamagician3000 06:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder

The sock puppet edit warrior who makes questionable changes to the lead, adds trivia about the "Highlander" mascot and calls those who disagree with his edits "vandals" is the hardbanned SummerThunder troll. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SummerThunder and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The next time a SummerThunder sock shows up, please make a report on WP:ANI so he can be blocked right away. szyslak (t, c) 07:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For further evidence, see the very similar contributions of OCDpatient (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was identified as a SummerThunder sock some time ago. szyslak (t, c) 07:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Other accounts for this person include 0CD is you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Major 0CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pretty much anything you see that starts with "0CD" is this person.Inter16 02:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New UCR specific Template

I am going to post a draft version, can someone please create a template for this? College Watch 02:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am the creator of the new UC navbox template, as well as its soo-to-be overhauled prototype, the UCSC template, and, as it is someone else's retrofitting of my Santa Cruz design, the underlying structure of the new UC Davis template. If you'd like to collaborate on putting together a new UCR template along those lines, let me know and I'd be happy to help. If you look on the discussion page for the University of California navbox, you can see a version of what the pan-UC navbox would look like in UCR's colors. --Dynaflow 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Whaddya think? -- Dynaflow 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the design of it, but don't like all those red links... Amerique^dialectics 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The current version in template space is easy to edit from in-template links if you want to remove the red links. Alternatively, you could make stub articles to turn the red links blue if you have time. If you'd like me to make any modifications to the navbox in light of the GA drive, just let me know what you want, and I'll put it in. --Dynaflow babble 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've knocked out 2 already since yesterday, CNAS and the CES. I actually don't think there is much to fix for the GA drive, but we'll see. Best, Amerique^dialectics 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Include Highlander Forum - yes or no

This line was added to the external links section recently and then removed because it was "non-university sanctioned:"

• Forum for UCR Students

An editor noticed the justification for removal was inappropriate (article-subject-sanctioned is not a do-or-die criterion for external link acceptance) and reverted the edit. I have re-removed the link and brought it here, as I believe the decision to remove it was justified; the editor removing it just didn't correctly phrase his justification to remove a forum with unstable content and unknowable editorial standards. What are your thoughts? Should it be restored, or should it go? --Dynaflow 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Provided it is not used as a source for anything, I have no problem with it as a link. However, a lot of people do interpret WP:NOT#LINK more rigorously than I do. Amerique^dialectics 20:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Smog/Pollution

Why continue to mention smog or pollution in the same breath as UCR when Los Angeles has a much bigger smog/pollution problem? Yes, I checked the reference and its clear. During that period in time TV and newspapers sensationalized the smog issue and imbeded into the minds of people the image of riverside as a smog laden disaster area. Realistically speaking, this is a gross embellishment. It was not a valid assessment then and it still is not today. It is time to stop perpetuating this myth, reference some statistical data from now on and make it clear that, if anything, LA county has a much bigger smog/pollution issue than does Riverside to help put things into perspective. Bury the hear-say please.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50752

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/rank-counties-risk.tcl?fips_state_code=06

Major cities worldwide have smog problems every bit as bad as Los Angeles county, Riveride county and yes even Orange County.

To be perfectly honest, the mayor at the time was likely phishing for $ in the form of some "disaster relief". I won't get into conspiracy theories though, some people are conscious and some people just are not. I have supported my assertion with statistical data, which is more than any Riverside/smog hear-sayer has ever done.

Hinderaker quoted statistics for how smog, or the appearance of smog, (whether or not LA is smogier, which is irrelevant in this article) affected student enrollment and faculty recruitment at UCR during the 70s. Your information would work best in the Los Angeles County or Inland Empire (California) articles. Amerique^dialectics 19:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

more stub articles?

As a way of making this article less complex I've been thinking of forking off the current "notable research centers" with content and most items under "educational initiatives" into either their own articles or into the current stub placeholders for their respective academic divisions, leaving at most a paragraph or two in this article summarizing whatever was notable. I wouldn't make any significant changes to the content itself, at this point, only the way it is organized. Would this be ok with everyone? (especially in the context of the GA review?) Amerique^dialectics 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

This article is nearly GA, but not quite. It needs a bit of rewriting and reorganization. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

Lead:

• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD (please read carefully). It should be a standalone summary of the article that refers to all of the major sections of the article.

Content:

• Might more information on each school within the university be included in the article?
• Are there any student publications, such as a student newspaper? Information on those should be included.

Organization:

• The "Citrus Experiment station" section is a bit hard to follow; you might consider a chronological presentation of the information so that the opening of the station doesn't seem so random to the reader.
• "UCR Palm Desert" should be integrated into another section - it is currently too small to stand alone.
• I would move the list of "Administration" to the end of the article. These names don't mean anything to the regular reader and such lists interrupt the flow of the article.
• I would get rid of the faculty demographics list and move the other information in that section to "Rankings".
• There are quite a few one-two sentence subsections. These should either be integrated into other sections or expanded.

The article could use a good copy editor. Here are some examples of sentences/phrases that could be improved:

• On a February day of 1954 - awkward
• According to an 1998 interview with Hinderaker, in 1972 Riverside gained a reputation for severe air pollution when the mayor of Riverside asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the South Coast air basin a smog disaster area, a condition that significantly hampered recruitment of both students and faculty. - awkward; also, "gained a reputation" is a bit vague - was there a smog problem or not?
• With UCR and the surrounding region scheduled for dramatic population growth, a likewise push has been made to increase its popular and academic recognition. - could be worded better
• With UCR being located at the highest elevation of all UCs, the students adopted the name Highlanders in 1954 from a student write-in campaign. - wordy

Images:

• Gluck Gateway Mural - What about including an image of this mural?
• What about placing the Bell Tower image next to the section which describes it?

Small things:

• All of the weblink citations should be changed to inline citations (this is a particular problem in the "Research" section).
• If you want to go for FA at any point, the notes will all have to be formatted correctly, with retrieval dates, etc. See WP:FOOTNOTES.
• You might want to link things like "SAT", "ACT" and "API" in the "Admissions" section.

If you have any questions about this review, feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go for GA again. I kept "reputation for smog" phraseology because smog didn't have an effect on UCR's enrollment until after the news reports made it a national issue, however accurately or inaccurately. Other than that, citations still need to be fixed, but that can wait for WP:FAC. Anyone have any opinions or comments, or care to copyedit this piece, before I resubmit it? Amerique^dialectics 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Would like to add a sub-topic for off-campus housing

Since so many projects have just been finished, I would like to add the names of a few complexes. Might help a few prospective students be more aware about off-campus housing options College Watch 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I won't contest it, but I also don't see the need for it. I wouldn't have an issue with a line stating, basically, "there are many off-campus housing options" but listing various complexes by name seems a bit crufty. Amerique^dialectics 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what your obsession with naming off-campus living is. This is an article about UCR, not about living around UCR. Also, there are literally hundreds of places to live close to campus, and picking a few popular complexes may seem more like advertisement. The intent of this article is to inform visitors about the University, not about housing options, they should go to the appropriate places for that.

Cosecant 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally would agree with you Cosecant, but since UCR enrollment has skyrocketed in the last few years, the need and supply of available new off-campus options deserves note. So many new projects were just built in the last few years that many former graduates (or prospective students) might not even be aware of them. College Watch 19:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a guide for former or prospective students. If there are reliable sources to support a brief assertion that "many off-campus housing options were built in years X-Y" then that would be fine. A listing of them would not be fine with me as that seems more like advertising than a list of notable encyclopedic information. --ElKevbo 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concuring with ElKevbo. I also don't see the point of listing various apartment complexes by name. I would be ok with a single line stating, as I said before, "there are many off-campus housing options," possibly adding "averaging such and such in rent a month" if you can find a reliable ref for that, but off campus housing certainly does not seem particularly notable in itself, certainly not to a degree meriting its own section. Show me a WP article on colleges that regards off campus housing as a particularly critical section and i'd be suprised, but altogether not inclined to let it pass. WP is not a guidebook. Amerique^dialectics 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact that they are almost On-Campus facilities and that UCR occasionally leases the floors warrants some name recognition. College Watch 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, do you read WP policy at all? Show me a ref for any of your assertions and i'll let it go. Amerique^dialectics 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will look for a ref. In addition, the student occupancy rate of these complexes is overwhelmingly UCR, nearly adjacent to the campus, and has such a name recognition with the student body, that names probably should be listed to clarify that they are actually not campus owned. I actually can't think of another California University that has such large private student housing projects on the campus periphery. College Watch 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, every major university in the United States in any sort of densely populated urban area has off-campus housing catering to students, but you don't see them advertizing on WP articles! i really hope you are not trying to make me regret sticking up for you over your recent indef ban for sockpuppeting. Amerique^dialectics 22:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, will only name the housing complexes that UCR actually contracted housing with. Removing Sterling. College Watch 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Permission to remove statement "Traditionally the smallest average enrollment history ..."

"Its undergraduate college was founded in 1954. While UCR historically comprised one of the smallest enrollments in the UC system, averaging 5000 students for most of its history."

I really don't like this statement for the following reasons:
UC Santa Cruz also had historically low enrollment
UC Merced currently has the lowest enrollment.
Much of the late 80s/90's (Tidal Wave II) UCR had enrollment much greater than 5,000. Mostly around 9,000+ students If anything, this should not be in the intro statement, but in the related article "UC Riverside History"

Feel free to remove it. Amerique^dialectics 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed College Watch 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Road to GA

I think we should establish a task force of prominent contributors so we can achieve 'GA' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.182.24.98 (talk • contribs)

• Sez the anon IP. Maybe you can start by getting a user account. Amerique^dialectics 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Other than a few minor edits that were easier to fix myself, I feel that this article has vastly improved from the earlier GA review of August 8. There's still a copy of minor areas that can be worked on, but these mainly go beyond the GA criteria -- mostly manual of style issues and such with the prose and such. One thing that I think should be worked on are the use of some of the bold text in the administration and east campus sections -- please remove or rephrase -- it looks like a new minor section, and I think it would look better if integrated better into the prose. The 'active construction projects' section should also be written out in prose -- there's little reason to list all of these together, and as a list, it's going to increase the update and maintenance required to keep the article up to date.

Also, the references could use some improvement. While the article is overall well-referenced using inline citations, there are a couple of gaps, mainly in the libraries section regarding the number of volumes, compact discs in the music library and so forth. There's also a couple of other bits and pieces of information that really could use a citation at other random spots in the article, but nothing too major.

The references section should also be properly formatted per WP:CITE. This includes including full author, title, date of publication, publisher, and, if its available on the web, dates that the information was last accessed (e.g. 'Retrieved on: '). This is necessary so that if the link ever becomes a 404 not found, the reference is still useful and the data can be used to track down the reference, should someone want to do so.

That's all I can think of for now. Overall, the article looks good! Congrats to the editors and good luck improving it beyond GA status. Dr. Cash 04:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both Awadewit and Dr. Cash for their thorough and conscientious reviews. I won't have much time in the coming months to work on this further, but will do what I can to improve general style and citation issues as I can. I can't see much else potentially holding this article back from WP:FA... the stub articles could be improved significantly... a section on current research, the stem cell center and health science initiatives in particular, could be added. Athletics could be reorganized... along with Special Collections. The Palm Desert campus section should be expanded... a full account of both it and its adjacent CSU campus probably belongs in its own article. there were other details in administration i was thinking of putting in but they are not too important. thanks to everyone for their support and sorry for taking off on ya'all earlier. Amerique^dialectics 18:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very pleasing. Metamagician3000 14:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ran an automated javascript peer reviewer on the article. Results were:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 6 km, use 6 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 6 km.^[?]
• When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger

There is a UC Riverside page and an University of California, Riverside page. They look similar but are not identical. I don't understand why both pages exist and why one label doesn't just point to the other label. --Mitamarine 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Would an Admin please delete and redirect the "UC Riverside" page to "University of California, Riverside," and protect the redirect? "UC Riverside" is the favored version of some troll who would constantly revert this article to that version. I was unaware of it's existence before now. Amerique^dialectics 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here is another one: University of California Riverside. Would an Admin please redirect and protect, thanks. Amerique^dialectics 16:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticeced that negative information about UCR is not posted on this site, only positive. This seems to me biased, both sides ought to be discussed. For example the lack of parking and the lack of security on campus, with police doing almost nothing. My car was broken in twice and they've done nothing about it. Yet they charge an arm and a leg for parking. When you tell them that, they point out that UCLA charges a lot more for parking. But what they don't know maybe is that UCLA is a lot safer that UCR. I'd rather pay more and be safe than pay less and get screwed. Also, what's going on with the family housing. They are regulating it like a communist regime, impartin justice to whom they want, or to their friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.202.146 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Your car is not notable. This isn't the UCR complaints dept. The only "side" presented here is the one supported by an abundance of reliable sources and other WP policies. I suggest taking your concerns up with the UCR Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs if there is in fact any basis for them. Amerique^dialectics 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper in infobox?

I recently noticed the changes in infobox, and I saw that the link to the Highlander newspaper site is out of date and grossly incomplete. Is there anything verifying this is indeed the website for the Highlander newspaper? I personally think it's pretty bad for a newspaper site to misspell "calendar" on their frontpage.

Cosecant 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't check, but it's always possible that the link takes you to the pressing room (you know a pun is bad if you feel the need to flag it as one). In seriousness, external links should probably be kept out of infoboxes, except for use in fields that are meant specifically for ELs (e.g., "Website"). All other links in the infobox should lead to points within Wikipedia. Is there a Wikipedia article on the Highlander floating around somewhere? --Dynaflow babble 02:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's link outside Wikipedia, that's why I questioned it. There is no Wikipedia page for the Highlander newspaper. Cosecant 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the EL to the EL section and kept a mention of the paper in the infobox in plaintext. If the capsule description I wrote for it is inadequate, feel free to make it better. --Dynaflow babble 04:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I question if the link should be in UCR article at all. It serves little relevance to UCR since the site is out of date and it does not even have much actual content on it. It seems more like a test page for newspaper layout because it doesn't have any articles besides the ones as presented on the main page. Cosecant 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing the link. I originally found it on http://www.ucr.edu/students.html, under "News and Events," replacing the link to the previous student news website, but now both sites seem to have been removed from there as well. Amerique^dialectics 13:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is kind of interesting, http://www.ucr.edu/transition/ links to this article page and to the UCR history article. Considering the sources that went into writing them, there probably isn't a more comprehensive synthesis of UCR information publicly available, especially with the history article, as there are no books or scholarly articles addressing the subject. Maybe this is the UCR front office. I should probably put in an application there!;-) Amerique^dialectics 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Going for WP:FAC?

What do you guys think about going for FA anytime soon? I've been putting this off because I've participated in some FAs and seen how the process works, and I wanted the article tight before going in there. While the article mainly seems ok to me, there may be a lot of little inconsistencies with the WP:MOS. But, MOS issues are about the only thing I think this article can get hit on, and they can be easily corrected when pointed out. Still, I don't have time to do this immediately, but I was thinking in the near future sometime before Christmas. In the meantime, I'd like to add a finances/fundraising section, but sources on this are hard to find. Also, Athletics still could be expanded, and Libraries and Collections organized better. (The stub articles, too, could be worked on, but one thing at a time.) Amerique^dialectics 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Help me out on this and I promise I'll work on your university articles next. Amerique^dialectics 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject University of California

Several editors are organizing a WikiProject to better organize articles related to the University of California. A preliminary draft is available here. You are invited to participate in the discussion at Talk:University of California#Developing Wikiproject University of California. szyslak 21:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does the UC Davis say it started in 1905 as the UC Farm of UC Berkeley in the right hand corner and UC Riverside leave that the UC Citurus Experiment (also chartered in 1905) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.251.202 (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyeditor's thoughts

I've gone as far as I can with my copyediting, and I'll sign off in a few minutes on the LoCE banner. I see two big things and one little thing that need to be fixed, as follows:

• The middle of the History section has a problem with logic in the sentences: "UCR's first chancellor, Herman Theodore Spieth, oversaw the beginnings of the school's transition to a full university and its expansion to a capacity of 5,000 students. By the time UCR’s second chancellor, Ivan Hinderaker, was inaugurated on September 29, 1964, the free speech movement had begun in Berkeley. Hinderaker's negotiation skills are credited with keeping student protests peaceful in Riverside, although faculty resistance to the new mission of the university led to an impression of UCR as "not 'with it' " in terms of the rest of the system. This impression was compounded when Riverside's Mayor Lewis asked Governor Ronald Reagan to declare the south coast air basin a disaster area in 1973." I don't see any connection between the free speech movement and the transition to a full university, and the free speech movement seems not to have affected enrollment at UCR. It would probably clarify things to delete mention of it altogether and to drop the phrase "not with it," which seems connected linguistically to the 1960s and, by association, the free speech movement. But the two have no logical connection, as far as I can see, and this makes the Hinderaker section doubly confusing. It's also confusing to leap from "not with it" to the bad air declaration. The reader has to work too hard to connect everything to the main thread: the effects of several events on UCR enrollment.

• I've already mentioned this to User:Amerique, but it won't hurt to mention it again. The link checker here finds six broken links in this article. They will need to be fixed or replaced.

• Some of the photos captions such as the one for Bourns Hall would be more interesting with a few more details.

On the other hand, most of this article reads smoothly and seems well-supported. Best of luck with your pursuit of FA. Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So what needs to be done to make this article FA?

Along with UC Irvine, I'll put some into effort into this one hoping it'll reach FA status. Problem is, since I'm completely new here with the discussion pages being full of disputes, I'm at a loss of what needs to be done or addressed. More citations? More content? Better looking? Bribing FA reviewers? --BirdKr (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the above:-) Actually, citations and content are pretty much addressed (except for those deadlinks, which I'll get to). I've been delaying on doing much work on this for FA because basically I've been occupied elsewhere, but towards the end of this week I should have more time for it. Last time it was basically hit for WP:MOS problems, most of which were addressed, and since then it's had a thorough copy editing and should be more or less ready to go once the broken urls and logic problems Finetooth identified are fixed. FA criteria are here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria. Amerique^dialectics 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS seems like Wikipedia's Elements of Style: Lots of obvious statements yet few not so in-between that you have to read them all >_< --BirdKr (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we need two representations of the mascot on this page? I'm for getting rid of the larger one under athletics. Can anyone who is reading this in Riverside post a pic of the SRC or any of the athletic fields? A pic of the pipe band would also be great. Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to the contact person of UCR's Pipe Band to get permission to use those images in: http://www.pipeband.ucr.edu/. Hopefully s/he'll agree and get those images (I specified two images) posted up. --BirdKr (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

I looked up the PDF on the endowments, but I could not find 95 million listed in the PDF, the closest number with Riverside I could spot was 95 thousand on page 3 of the source listed. Can anyone refer me to the page that 95 million is listed? Unless it's a typo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.205.76 (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it. At the title page, it says in ($000) which basically means "in thoursands". So 95,000 is basically 95,000,000 which is $95 million. --BirdKr (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! University of California, Riverside is a Featured Article!

I'd like to extend my congratulations the editors who have extensively edited this article to push for Featured Article status. You've all earned it. Since the article is now (temporarily) protected, I'll send a request to have an audio version of this article shortly or consider sending a request to the Spoken WikiProject to have one made. Good job you guys! *pats-on-the-back all the way around* - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks James. It was a long road all around. The next FAs should be easier. Hopefully the article can be unprotected at some point. Assuming no edit wars significantly degrade this article between now and then, will probably save the drive to put this on the main page for February 14'th of next year. Amerique^dialectics 13:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! I haven't been involved in editing the article to bring it up to FA status but I was around for some of the earlier challenges faced by those who edit this article. The progress made since then is amazing. Excellent work! --ElKevbo (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Very well-written article on an excellent institution!!! Congratulations. 70.253.81.232 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The UCR article was featured on Wikipedia's main page on 02/21/2009. There were close to 17K page hits on the article on that day, from a daily average of around 300, according to:

http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/University_of_California%2C_Riverside

I've uploaded screen caps of the main page to Picasa under a Creative Commons license here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/wikiamerique/UCRFeaturedOnWikipediaMainPage02212009?feat=directlink

Best regards to all affiliated with UCR. Amerique^dialectics 19:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Britches?

["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britches_(monkey)"] No section on this part of UCR history? Not even a link? Hmmm.... I guess that means it never happened and UCR has a perfect history, then. A bad part of UCR's history or not, I think this should be included as this page covers UCR and is not an advertisement for UCR. If it happened, then it happened. It doesn't mean that all UCR research is evil (just this one project, that I know of) or that the University encourages such experiments (doesn't mean that UCR has a sordid culture), but is simply a part of UCR's history. 206.174.221.192 (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Curious omission

The shooting of Khalid Abdul Muhammad was probably the biggest headline-making news "event" to occur on the UCR campus during its whole 50-year history, yet oddly it's not mentioned or alluded to in any way on either this article or History of the University of California, Riverside... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)