This article recently passed a GAN, but it still needs a bit of work before I feel confident nominating it as a FAC. I feel well about the historical sections but need someone to nudge me in the right direction regarding the current and sociological aspects of the school. Anything else would be appreciated as well. Thanks. ~ HAL333 17:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on the GA! Here are a few non-comprehensive thoughts:
Is space grant important enough for the lead? I noticed that Pomona was also a space grant institution, but it ultimately seemed to be such a small program that I didn't find it due to mention in the article at all.
The board of trustees is mentioned in a few places but not the "administration and organization" section, where it would seem to be most relevant.
At a quick glance, I don't see any coverage of student demographics. What's the racial/gender/socioeconomic/geographic breakdown of students?
Some coverage of the university's admissions and tuition/financial aid structure is probably warranted.
The "arts" section is a little short to be a section. Could it be placed elsewhere?
Given how much trouble I'm encountering at the Pomona FAC for using a gallery of the campus, I don't imagine the alumni gallery will go over well. And in that case, I'd have to be inclined to agree, especially if it continues to go onto two lines—one individual person is only just barely due for a mention in the context of an entire institution if they're particularly noteworthy, and it's alright to have a photo of one person as a section's visual element, but having pictures of a whole bunch of people leans toward excessive. The question has come up in a few scattered places, e.g. here, and while there hasn't yet been a large RfC on it, my sense is that if there was, there'd be consensus not to have them.
Placing Mississippi Teacher Corps in the see also section seems a bit odd. If it's a significant program, you probably want to discuss it somewhere in the body, and if it's not a significant program, its notability is probably questionable and you might want to AfD it.
The visuals in the student life section seem a little lacking. The robots one is cool and distinctive, so that's fine. But the rail trail one, while visually pleasing, isn't referenced in the article body anywhere, and it connotes "campus" moreso than "student life" to me. Are there any pictures available of student organization or fraternity activities that could be used instead?
Having the reference section be four columns wide is an unusual choice, but it's a discretion thing, so hopefully editors defer to your preference and don't oppose over it haha.
In the external links, there are a bunch of links to very old public domain encyclopedia entries. Are these really helpful? I'd guess the university has changed enough in the past century that they aren't really the best source for readers looking to learn more and are therefore questionable per WP:EL.
This is a picky personal preference thing, but I'm not a big fan of having the founding year in the navbox—navboxes ought to be a collection of links, not a collection of information as in infoboxes, so unless we're linking to the year, I don't think it ought to be included.
Sorry I can't go more in-depth than that right now, but I hope the pointers are helpful! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. This is very helpful. ~ HAL333 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remain opposed to the gratuitous use of the racist nickname "Ole Miss" by Wikipedia editors throughout the article. There are certainly some places where it is unavoidable (e.g., the history section, the athletics section) but it's completely unnecessary in most places where clear and unobjectionable language can easily be employed (e.g., "the University of Mississippi," "the university," "the institution"). ElKevbo (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have clearly stated your preference for continuing to use this racist nickname even when it's completely unnecessary and nothing in our policies and guidelines requires us to do so. (Personal attack removed.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That personal attack is uncalled for. ~ HAL333 14:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely appropriate to explicitly point out and contest when one or more editors are not only insisting on unnecessarily using outdated, racist language in an article but also insisting that this represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. ElKevbo (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too rather insist that ElKevbo refactor his remarks to not accuse others of using "racist" remarks/terms without evidence per WP:Civil. Buffs (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
