Talk:University of Miami

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Hey all, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm declining to list the article at this time, due mostly to problems with WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Contractions are not allowed outside of quotation marks
• Per WP:Lead, the lead section for an article of this size should be 3-4 paragraphs. The current lead IMO does not adequately summarize the article
• It seems to me that "Organization" and "Research" are usually independent of "Academics" in university articles. Is there a reason that this is not the case here? (fixed)
• Only links not included in the main article text should be in "See also" (fixed)
• Is "South Campus" a proper noun (i.e. official name with both words capitalized)? If so, the section heading should reflect that
• Information on the other campuses should come before student housing
  • all housing is on the Coral Gables campus. Racepacket (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Student life and activities" should be shortened to "Student life"
• Given the content of the "Notable alumni" and "Notable faculty" sections, it would be reasonable to combine the two (fixed)
• Per WP:UNIGUIDE, student media should not appear in External links (fixed)
• Large portions of the article are written in colloquial and conversational language, in particular the History section
• "undergrade" -> "undergraduate"
• The article could use a general copy-edit to check for clarity and flow (done)
• All measurements need to have conversions for non-US readers (done)
• Likewise, non-US readers need an explanation for what a VA hospital is, and D.U.I should be spelled out or linked
• Be consistent in using "%" or "percent" (done)
• Avoid short one- to two-sentence paragraphs (fixed)
• "rennovate" -> "renovate"

Accuracy and verifiability

• About half of the cited sources are from the university itself or are affiliated with the university - should have more independent coverage - I agree that this is important but hard to implement. Racepacket (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• The lead and the infobox give two different figures for number of students - which is correct? (fixed)
• From the numbers in the infobox, it would appear that they employ more than 14,000 faculty and full-time staff - the lead says over 13,000, the source says over 10,000. Which is correct?

• I think that the 10,000 may be non-faculty employees. Racepacket (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Citations needed for:

• The University's students represent all 50 states and 148 foreign countries.
• The University of Miami was chartered in 1925 by a group of citizens who believed an institution of higher learning was needed for the development of their young and growing community. The South Florida land boom was at its peak, resources appeared ample, optimism flowed, and expectations were high. Supporters of the institution believed that the community offered unique opportunities to develop inter-American studies, to further creative work in the arts and letters, and to conduct teaching and research programs in tropical studies. copyvio from umiami.edu website. Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the fall of that year, when the first class of 560 students enrolled at the University of Miami, the land boom had collapsed, and hopes for a speedy recovery were dashed by a major hurricane. In the next 15 years the University barely kept afloat. The construction of the first building on campus, now known as the Merrick Building, was put on hold for over two decades due to economic hard times. In the meantime, classes were held at the nearby Anastasia Hotel, with partitions separating classrooms, giving the University the short-lived nickname of "Cardboard College."
• Enrollment increased by more than 4,000 during his tenure, which ended in 1962.
• Historically, UM regulated female student conduct more than men's conduct with a staff under the Dean of Women watching over the women.
• The result was UM's first female commencement speaker, day care, and a Women's Study minor. Following the enactment of Title IX in 1972, and decades of litigation, all organizations, including honorary societies were open to women. The Women's Commission also sought more equitable funding for women's sports.
• The Stanford presidency saw increased emphasis on research, reorganization of administrative structure and construction of new facilities.
• In 1946, UM acquired the former Richmond Naval Air Station, in southwestern Miami, located 12 miles south of the main campus in order to accommodate the post-war increase in students. For two years the South Campus provided housing, dining and recreational facilities and classrooms for about 1100 students, mainly freshmen. From 1948 to present it has been used as a research facility and storage area
• There were nearly 20,000 applications for 2,000 slots in the fall 2008 freshman class. The mean SAT scores and high school GPAs for entering freshmen were the highest ever
• Sixty-six percent of UM students ranked in the top 10% of their high school class.
• UM separates the honorary aspect frequently associated with Board service by having a separate Iron Arrow Honor Society
• Combined holdings of the libraries include over 3.1 million volumes, 15,375 print serial subscriptions, 4 million microforms, and access to more than 42,800 e-journals and 479,000 e-books and databases.
• Over the past three decades, the football program has been named national champion more times (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 2001) than any other Division I program. The football team was named in the AP Top 25 frequently during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s and many players are drafted into the NFL each year.
• The university signed a 25-year contract to play there through 2033.
• When the City of Miami, the stadium's owner, refused to rennovate the Orange Bowl, the University did not renew its lease, and the city tore down the stadium in March 2008.
• Since 1987, however, the Hurricanes have only played the Florida Gators four times on the gridiron (three times during the regular season and once for a bowl game in the 2004 Peach Bowl).

• Be very careful to avoid copyright infringement / plagiarism - a few sentences are copied almost verbatim from the university website. For example, compare "In July 1934, the University of Miami was reincorporated and the University of Miami Board of Trustees was established" (article) to "In July 1934, the University of Miami was reincorporated and the University of Miami Board of Trustees was established." (source)
• Web links should have access dates (and publishers whenever possible)
• Check formatting in references - a considerable number have doubled periods
• Refs that are included multiple times should be named using the multiple-ref formatting
• Page numbers should be included for PDFs (done)
• Refs 18, 19, 32, 34, 40, 72 are broken
• Note which refs require login/subscription

Broad

• Why do only two of the satellite campuses have subsections?

• Because the Richmond campus is adjacent to the South Campus although they resulted from different property acquisitions.

• The Research section could be expanded considerably (done)
• The Athletics section is too large in comparison to the rest of the article (done)
  • I agree and will try to consense it in light of separate Miami Hurricanes article. Racepacket (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Problems with lack of encyclopedic tone in sections. For example, "The South Florida land boom was at its peak, resources appeared ample, optimism flowed, and expectations were high" sounds like a story or an ad.
• Should avoid advertising the university - present facts neutrally, avoid generalizations and opinons

• After a lot of work, I think that the excessive boosterism has been trimmed from the article. Racepacket (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stability

• The revert warring seems to have died down considerably since this article was last reviewed, but incivility on the talk page continues.

Images

• The first image is a seal, not a crest, and is thus tagged incorrectly. Additionally, the source link is broken
• Source link is also broken for the logos in the infobox (fixed)
• The second image in the Libraries section would fit better elsewhere
• The source link for the source logo gives a different date for its first use than the article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the review and believe the reliable source issues are still an obstacle to GA at this time. I am requesting a second opinion to get additional perspective. See my other detailed comments below:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This is the fourth GA nomination for this article, and while a lot of progress has been made the article is currently unstable. Please see detailed comments below.|

---

This is the fourth GA nomination for this article, and while a lot of progress has been made the article is currently unstable. Please see detailed comments below.|}}

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   {{subst:#if:There are a number of stylistic issues raised in the previous GAR that have not been addressed, including one/two sentence paragraphs and inconsistent use of “%” and “percent”.
   [addressed - numbers and percent are spelled out only if they start a sentence Reworded to avoid percent figure at a start of sentence.]|There are a number of stylistic issues raised in the previous GAR that have not been addressed, including one/two sentence paragraphs and inconsistent use of “%” and “percent”.
   [addressed - numbers and percent are spelled out only if they start a sentence Reworded to avoid percent figure at a start of sentence.]|}}

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   {{subst:#if:The images in the Athletics section sandwich the text. You may have to delete one of them. (See MOS:IMAGES). The "See also" section is superfluous, as the links either already appear in the article or could easily be incorporated. It should probably be deleted. (See WP:ALSO). And the student paper should not appear in External links. (See WP:UNIGUIDE).
   (done)|The images in the Athletics section sandwich the text. You may have to delete one of them. (See MOS:IMAGES). The "See also" section is superfluous, as the links either already appear in the article or could easily be incorporated. It should probably be deleted. (See WP:ALSO). And the student paper should not appear in External links. (See WP:UNIGUIDE).
   (done)|}}

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   {{subst:#if: The third paragraph of the lead contains statistics that should be referenced (grant dollars, library volumes) and the championship claim should be referenced as well. (See WP:LEADCITE). There are a few other statistics here and there (campus acreage, for example) that should also be referenced.
   (done)| The third paragraph of the lead contains statistics that should be referenced (grant dollars, library volumes) and the championship claim should be referenced as well. (See WP:LEADCITE). There are a few other statistics here and there (campus acreage, for example) that should also be referenced.
   (done)|}}

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   {{subst:#if:As noted in the previous GA reviews, the majority of the references are to publications of the university. Of the 126 sources, 72 of them by my count are UM publications. Even granting that articles on universities might rely on self-published sources more than those on other topics, they should still not be a preponderance of the sources. (See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). Of the remainder of the references, 25 or more point to various rankings sites, many of which could also be challenged as WP:RS. The article really needs more third-party references to major publications, books, journal articles, and the like. A university of the statue of UM should have an abundance of coverage in major media over the years. There are also three references to the student paper, which is questionable as a WP:RS. While there is no definitive statement I am aware of on the reliability of student papers, there has been much debate on the topic. You should substitute a stronger source if you can. All references to university-linked publications should include the “publisher=” field in the citation template. It is important information. Please also make sure that all the PDFs reference page numbers. Finally, the links on refs 22,23,24,63,72,81,58,104 show as dead on the automated link check. That should be fixed.
   more non-UM references added. All ref links checked.
   Check 78, 87, and 104. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   
   I have checked what I think was 78 and 87 at the time 17:39 on 5 Feb, and they seem fine, but maybe I have been confused by the automatic renumbering. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)|As noted in the previous GA reviews, the majority of the references are to publications of the university. Of the 126 sources, 72 of them by my count are UM publications. Even granting that articles on universities might rely on self-published sources more than those on other topics, they should still not be a preponderance of the sources. (See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). Of the remainder of the references, 25 or more point to various rankings sites, many of which could also be challenged as WP:RS. The article really needs more third-party references to major publications, books, journal articles, and the like. A university of the statue of UM should have an abundance of coverage in major media over the years. There are also three references to the student paper, which is questionable as a WP:RS. While there is no definitive statement I am aware of on the reliability of student papers, there has been much debate on the topic. You should substitute a stronger source if you can. All references to university-linked publications should include the “publisher=” field in the citation template. It is important information. Please also make sure that all the PDFs reference page numbers. Finally, the links on refs 22,23,24,63,72,81,58,104 show as dead on the automated link check. That should be fixed.
   more non-UM references added. All ref links checked.
   Check 78, 87, and 104. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   
   I have checked what I think was 78 and 87 at the time 17:39 on 5 Feb, and they seem fine, but maybe I have been confused by the automatic renumbering. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)|}}

   C. No original research:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   {{subst:#if:The article seems comprehensive and covers the topics of interest at an appropriate level of detail.|The article seems comprehensive and covers the topics of interest at an appropriate level of detail.|}}

   B. Focused:

   {{subst:#if:The Rankings section seems a bit much, as none of the rankings are in and of themselves notable (say, top ten or even 25 national rankings). It could be reduced dramatically or even omitted. (See WP:BOOSTER). for a good discussion of rankings. The table of undergraduate admissions is also too much detail, as it does not add anything interesting to the article or support a point made elsewhere.
   (Moved business school rankings to a separate article and cut back on Hispanic Business magazine article. Some say that failure to report mediocre rankings violates WP:BOOSTER.) Other rankings trimmed
   The final sentence of the revised paragraph ("In addition to . . .") is unsourced and contains external links. You could try to work some of the info into the previous paragraph or just delete it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   done|The Rankings section seems a bit much, as none of the rankings are in and of themselves notable (say, top ten or even 25 national rankings). It could be reduced dramatically or even omitted. (See WP:BOOSTER). for a good discussion of rankings. The table of undergraduate admissions is also too much detail, as it does not add anything interesting to the article or support a point made elsewhere.
   (Moved business school rankings to a separate article and cut back on Hispanic Business magazine article. Some say that failure to report mediocre rankings violates WP:BOOSTER.) Other rankings trimmed
   The final sentence of the revised paragraph ("In addition to . . .") is unsourced and contains external links. You could try to work some of the info into the previous paragraph or just delete it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   done|}}

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:The rankings section is a bit boosterish, as discussed in 3b.
   Rankings discussion cut back.|The rankings section is a bit boosterish, as discussed in 3b.
   Rankings discussion cut back.|}}

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   {{subst:#if:Numerous reversion issues and copyvio deletions since the GA review began render the article too unstable for GA at this time.|Numerous reversion issues and copyvio deletions since the GA review began render the article too unstable for GA at this time.|}}

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   {{subst:#if:The image file:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg in the Athletics section has a fairly weak Fair Use Rationale for a logo. The logo in the infobox, file:Umiami prime logo.svg, has the correct logo rationale. You should either use the same logo and/or rationale or find an image that has not been used in the article already. The same can be said for file: University of Miami logo.png. The PD claim as a raster image is not very credible here. The logo rationale is more appropriate. (See WP:LOGO). (or just work from the rationale for the infobox logo). The source links on these files do not work. This was mentioned in the last GA review, also.
   athleics logo removed. I am unsure what the protocol is if an accurately identified source no longer provides the image. I have changed the URL to the current location of the seal image.
   Check the logos. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (done)|The image file:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg in the Athletics section has a fairly weak Fair Use Rationale for a logo. The logo in the infobox, file:Umiami prime logo.svg, has the correct logo rationale. You should either use the same logo and/or rationale or find an image that has not been used in the article already. The same can be said for file: University of Miami logo.png. The PD claim as a raster image is not very credible here. The logo rationale is more appropriate. (See WP:LOGO). (or just work from the rationale for the infobox logo). The source links on these files do not work. This was mentioned in the last GA review, also.
   athleics logo removed. I am unsure what the protocol is if an accurately identified source no longer provides the image. I have changed the URL to the current location of the seal image.
   Check the logos. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (done)|}}

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   {{subst:#if:In general, the images are good quality and appropriate. The tables (except as noted) are particularly well done and add interest to the article.|In general, the images are good quality and appropriate. The tables (except as noted) are particularly well done and add interest to the article.|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   {{subst:#if:A lot of work has been done adressing the issues identified in this and the previous GA review. The references are much improved, and aside from formatting issues, are in pretty good shape now. There are other minor issues still open as noted above. Unfortunately, numerous changes over the past few days due to reversions and copyvio deletions makes it impossible to evaluate the remainder of the criteria. The article fails criteria 5, and therefore the GA standard, at this time for that reason.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)|A lot of work has been done adressing the issues identified in this and the previous GA review. The references are much improved, and aside from formatting issues, are in pretty good shape now. There are other minor issues still open as noted above. Unfortunately, numerous changes over the past few days due to reversions and copyvio deletions makes it impossible to evaluate the remainder of the criteria. The article fails criteria 5, and therefore the GA standard, at this time for that reason.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)|}}

At this point, I think Racepacket should just stop sending the article to GA repeatedly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The above comment is not the second opinion that was requested, but rather a comment from a recent UM graduate. I agree that it is important that Wikipedia articles should be objective and that college articles have more WP:BOOSTER problems than other articles. Both before and after GA2, we put a lot of work into removing that bias. I also agree that Wikipedia articles should not have excessive dependence on the website of the subject. However, this article cites to a wide variety of sources including Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the South Florida Business Journal, the Sun Sentinel, a non-fiction book, a graduate dessertation, and official reports that are merely hosted on the UM website. Hence, I would invite a second opinion regarding sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the request of the reviewer, I would like to provide another opinion for the article. I'm inclined to agree that the article still uses too many sources from the university itself. This is usually okay for demographics or details about individual schools within the university. Yes, it is going to be difficult to find additional sourcing, but articles can be found through Google news archives or perhaps a university database. I'd recommend looking to other GA/FA university articles to see how they get their sources to determine if they can be applied to this page as well. About the above comment about continuing to nominate the article, I disagree. Some articles can have difficulty getting through GAN the first time, and there is no need to be discouraged if it fails again (I've had several GANs fail and although it wasn't the greatest feeling, helpful comments can assist in improving the article further). Address the other issues raised by Nasty Housecat, and continue to search for additional sources. Consider asking for assistance of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page, including WikiProject Universities, as there are probably experienced members who can help with gathering sources (especially if it means another GA for the project). If you have any questions or need assistance please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will place the review on hold to let the nominator continue work on revisions. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. We will continue to work on the noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well (I was asked to comment here). Also, many of the footnotes are not properly formatted, and need to be filled out with publication details. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The UM website is now less than half of the citations:

Citation sources^*

Source	Count
miami.edu	62
newspapers	16
books & dissertations	5
other	51
Total	134

^* does not reflect references moved out of the article after 2/4/10

I am sorry to have to say the article is not eligible for GA at this time due to the stability issues noted above. I respect and acknowledge the amount of work that went into improving the article for this review, and do think it is much improved from where it started out. When the article stabilizes again and the copyvio issues are resolved, I hope you will not be too discouraged to try again. Best of luck. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Various explanations

For this revert

• The Law School is the only other major graduate school that belongs to UM, so I added it to the intro with the Med School and Marine School.
• There is not enough content to split off to make into a separate article on the Business School just because the GA reviewer said that it could be split off. All of the content that was at University of Miami School of Business Administration was from the rankings section from this article, and a single sentence referenced to the Business School's main page.
• None of the links to the Miami Herald or Sun Sentinel articles actually point to the articles that they used to because they've been kicked off to the archives. If readers and editors of this page cannot access the sources used, what point is it to keep them?
• A whole paragraph dedicated to the strike is not necessary considering that there is a mention of the strike two paragraphs earlier.
• I don't know why the Iron Arrow paragraph was removed at all. This just looks like more of Racepacket's bias against its inclusion.
• The Split U is a free image it seems, and its inclusion in the athletics section concerns the fact that it was originally just the athletic logo. I see the sandwiching issue now. Also its free/non-free status is up in the air again.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you had explained before you reverted or at least after the first revert. 1) Law school is on main campus and we were discussing geographically separate operations regardless of their graduate school status. 2) I have revised the University of Miami School of Business Administration article at User:Racepacket/UM and people can edit it. I will move it back to article space later this week. 3) We are removing the see also section. The coverage of the strike was reduced in a quid pro quo for the see also, so it is logical to restore a brief explanation of the strike. I removed the mention of it that was in the same sentence as the Presidential debate. The problem is that the mention creates the impression that the strike was against UM when it was actually against a contractor. I have included three valid references. (By the way, printed newspapers are reliable sources even if they are not currently available on the web.) 4) The first Iron Arrow mention was there to explain its relationship to the Board of Trustees. That is now being disputed by MiamiDolphins3. He no longer views Iron Arrow membership has being a higher honor than being a UM Trustee, so I am removing it from the Trustee section. The second reference in the honorary society paragraph remains. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded the first lede so it discusses other campuses again. The Business School is still not really all that notable for inclusion on its own (again, maybe the Music School's page can be merged). The See also section is still gone, but the strike itself is still mentioned in prose, although not to that much of an extent. Anything else is really giving it too much weight in this article. I don't know what MiamiDolphins3 has to do with the Iron Arrow retention, but it's in the "Student life" section, which should be enough I guess. Also, the references for the strike section DO NOT WORK ANYMORE. The articles have been moved to the Sun Sentinel's and Herald's archives, so they cannot be accessed for free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Except through the wayback machine it seems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) 1) I have examined a number of national research universities. Without exception, each has faculty which teach both undergraduates and graduate students. There is a UM Graduate School, but it does not have a separate faculty, which is the typical approach. The issue of separate campuses have nothing to do with a graduate/undergraduate distinction. Many universities have multiple campuses. Some satellite campuses offer undergraduate instruction and others happen to be for just graduate students. We are here dealing with just the issue of where the campuses are located not where undergraduates or graduate students are taught. 2) I did provide archive links for the three articles covering the strike. 3) Yesterday MiamiDolphins3 objected to the first Iron Arrow reference because he disagrees that it separates the honorary role from the other aspects of Trustee service. Racepacket (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just feel that the School of Law should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, as the University's Med School and RSMAS both receive a mention. I would think a law school would receive such due mention. The strike archive links were not all working until now (for some reason you had one link to the diff it was added).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both MiamiDolphins3 and I believe that Jackson Memorial and the Law School should be mentioned. You're in the minority here, Racepacket.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the medical school because there is more than a medical school on that campus. I will remove the specific reference to the RSMAS to keep things balanced in the lead paragraph. Please see how I broke this up into a different paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket (talk • contribs)

It's the Med School, Jackson Memorial (the only one that has an article), and a bunch of other hospitals on that campus. I don't see why you should remove anything about Miller, RSMAS, or Law from the lead.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I misspoke. I meant more than one hospital. UM bought the former Cedars hospital. I think we have reached a good point. Racepacket (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Research

Articles covering a national ranked reserach university have about 5 inches of research coverage. See for example Cornell_University#Research and Massachusetts Institute of Technology#Research, even though these universities have separate articles covering individual academic units. The WP:UNI guidelines specify a separate section of the main article, "Research — This section may be included as a subsection of academic profile, but there needs to be information regarding research expenditures, government support and significant grants (land grant or space grant status, in the U.S. for example), the scale of the physical research plant, and notable research programs." I disagree with you moving content out of this section into the individual articles. I would not object to you also developing content in the articles of the individual schools, but as written you are creating the impress that there is very little noteworthy research being conducted at the University of Miami. Please explain why you are repeatedly deleting material from the Research section. e.g., [1] Racepacket (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Medical School and Rosenstiel School are technically independent research facilities, while still teaching schools as part of the University of Miami. The content on this article should really focus on the research performed at the main University of Miami campus, I would think. The content can be moved back if consensus believes it should be on both pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I told you months ago why I removed that one sentence about the "Harvey" mannequin. It does not tell anyone anything about the school and it's just a random piece of referenced trivia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be repetitive, but if you look at the Cornell and MIT research sections, they cover the entire university. Both Cornell and MIT have satellite campuses, as does University of Miami, but the research section is comprehensive for all campuses. All of the academic units of UM can be included regardless of where the research is performed. Please assist me in beefing up the Research section, as outlined in the WP:UNI guidelines. I would think that a research university such as UM would have at least 5 inches of research coverage discussing items with national significance. For example, I came across "Harvey" while working at the University of Illinois Medical School, and Harvey was in wide-spread use nation-wide in Medical Schools at the time. Can't we develop a series of innovations that have given UM a national research reputation? Racepacket (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We should not mention 'everything that UM has contributed to the world of science, the arts, medicine, etc. It just seems like an unencyclopedic trivia section with references. The "Harvey" thing is just that. And there is a short paragraph on the research of both the Med and Marine Schools on the article now, and certainly one that does not consist of nearly 2k worth of text on 3 references about the research performed at Little Salt Spring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that 5 or 6 concrete examples of things developed at UM which have impact beyond the campus would be valuable. If you don't like "Harvey" come up with some other examples. Racepacket (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Harvey" thing is entirely superfluous. I am sure there are more things about UMiami that you can find to put on the page other than the random sentence about a medical dummy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have ever been a patient in a teaching hospital, you would be greatful knowing that the students were practicing on Harvey rather than on you. Any other ideas? Racepacket (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that the research section should be a simple bullet list of these interdisciplinary programs and specialized centers. The article should explain what they are or what they do. Also, the section should include the annual expenditures on research so that readers will understand the magnitude of the programs. (Other metrics, such as number of researchers, number of patent applications, etc could also be used to describe them.) If a center is a joint program with another university, we should so state. Racepacket (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  That wouldn't be a problem if you hadn't paraphrased or copy-pasted information from other websites it seems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article is being revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text that has been identified as copying or closely paraphrasing previously published sources is being removed. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the February 11 edits, change the meaning of the article, perhaps unintentionally. Racepacket (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Certainly if these are edits made in cleaning up copyright problems, you are welcome to repair any inadvertent alterations in meaning so long as you do so in your own words or with brief, clearly marked excerpts in accordance with WP:NFC. I should be finished with the review of this article soon; I'm afraid I was distracted by another issue today, but will try to put it top on my list to pick up tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Y Done Review is complete. I have manually checked each involved edit — removing or revising any problematic content that remained — and run the final product through a mechanical detector. The mechanical detector hit on [2], but there's little doubt this is a case of reverse infringement. The University of Miami was not included on that website in its sole archived version, of February 26 2008, at which point the content is already substantially present in this article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Housing

Racepacket has raised issues about the content I added to the article regarding the on-campus housing accomodations. Other than tagging the content as being a POV section and stating that the section gives "undue weight to undergraduate housing", he does not go into any more detail as to why the section does not have a neutral point of view. In addition, content regarding six fraternities with houses on campus was removed entirely and moved off to the student life section where the content is not even remotely similar.

I would like to give Racepacket an opportunity to explain why:

• The section does not have a neutral point of view,
• The section gives undue weight to undergraduate housing when no graduate housing exists,
• The fraternity houses should not be mentioned under student housing, and
• The fraternities with houses should not be listed.

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I did respond below your comment on my talk page.
1) Regarding fraternities, there are 31 fraternities and sororities, and there is no reason to name the six that have their own houses. You state that the six houses are not owned by the University, so even though they are within a couple of blocks of the campus, e.g., map it is not clear to me that they are "on campus." If they are not on campus, they do not belong in the campus section. Absent more information, I would just add a clause to the 31 fraternities sentence in the "Student life" section saying that 6 of them have separate houses.

2) The section gives undue weight to undergraduate housing compared to other elements of the campus. I would not object to a sentence explaining that UM sold its married student housing or that it abolished its separate athlete dorms. (This could be in either the "History" section, the "Housing" subsection or the "Student life" section. Most readers don't care about the convenience store or laundry details. The reference does not support the motive for a separate convenience store in University Village. The article also needs to balance housing versus all other elements of the University. A majority of the students live outside the dorms.

3) The section reads like an ad for the housing department. Are there any negatives or controveries? I know there was controversy over abolishing the separate athlete dorm. I found independent newspaper articles covering the decision to abolish the athlete dorm, are there other non-UM sources covering housing? Racepacket (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The six fraternity houses are considered "housing" and are mentioned in the website referenced. Each set of housing accomodations gets a total of two sentences of coverage, I would not call that undue weight. I did not encounter anything about a separate athlete dorm during a cursory search of the UM website for information regarding the current student housing arrangements. I've removed statements concerning the convenience store, added content concerning graduates being allowed in University Village, and made it more clear concerning the six frat houses which are described as "on campus". Do I say anything positive about the residential colleges? No, they are just being described. I would call that "neutral" and I would appreciate other people's input before the two of us continue conversing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent edits. Again, the basic problem with the immediately above paragraph is that it parses the UM website. In general, the UM website is written by low-level PR-oriented staff members. Official reports, dissertations, and other high-level documents (even if they happen to be posted on the UM website) is much more authoritative. When a reporter from the Miami Herald or the defunct Miami News writes a story on the closing of the athlete dorm and the sale of the married student housing apartments, one expects that to be a more authoritative source. (e.g.,Mell, Randall (October 17, 1990). "UM to Eliminate Its Athletic Dorms" (subscription required). Sun Sentinel: p. 1C. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sun_sentinel/access/87829891.html?dids=87829891:87829891&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+17%2C+1990&author=RANDALL+MELL%2C+Staff+Writer&pub=South+Florida+Sun+-+Sentinel&desc=UM+TO+ELIMINATE+ITS+ATHLETIC+DORMS&pqatl=google. Retrieved 2010-02-10. "Next fall, incoming freshman athletes will draw for residential college rooms" ) If a faculty committee were to issue a report on the status of housing at UM and what needs to be done to improve it, that would have more credibility than the UM website, particularly the "prospective students" webpages. There is an old saying about "lies, big lies, and webpages written for prospective students and faculty...." Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The statements made in the article only concern the most basic facts about the current residential colleges and other living areas. There are no statements being made concerning former athlete housing or anything else that would require substantial reliable sources outside of primary ones.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Two suggested edits

In the residential section, I do not believe the individual names associated with the buildings should be linked. It would be appropriate to link them if there are references elsewhere to them as individuals, but not as buildings. Also, I think the summary listings of alumni and faculty are so subjective as to their inclusions and exclusions that it would simply be better to include the links to the respective pages (as was the case before the most recent edit). MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comment. However, it appears that in a number of other university articles, there is a link to the person in whose honor the building is named. Perhaps it would be more clear if just the name were wikilinked: [[Irving Ives|Ives]] Hall It is a point of controversy within WikiProject University as to whether each dorm/residential college deserves its own article. I can see how the wikilinks may lead the reader to think that the link will take them to a separate article on the building rather than on the honoree. I personally do not support a separate article on each dorm, unless the dorm is on the National Register of Historic Places. Either way, the reader may wonder why a building was named after someone and the significance of the name. Racepacket (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alumni & faculty lists

MiamiDolphins3 keeps removing these, claiming the selection to be subjective and not necessary for the page. The content was specifically added to expand the section, which he keeps reverting. I keep telling him to bring it up here, which he did, but Racepacket has ignored the commentary anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea behind developing the separate pages was to avoid the subjectivity associated with inclusion/exclusion on the main page. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear as to which commentary I have ignored. We should decide as a group whether we want to just have the two references to the two pages or to summarize their content in prose. I agree with MiamiDolphins3 that we need to have criteria for which ones we include, because it makes no sense to have a long list if we have any list. The other approach would be to summarize the list pages by topic:

UM has a number of alumni notable in the fields of arts and entertainment, business, law, politics and science. Alumni athletes have been prominent in golf, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the Women's National Basketball Association, the National Football League, tennis, swimming, track and sports administration. Alumni have also competed in the Olympics.

Racepacket (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That does not cover the faculty, for which MiamiDolphins3 also feels is subjective. A list of names chosen from the group at large may be "subjective" but it provides the reader with more information than just saying the specific fields the people are involved with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The alumni and faculty pages are well done and well organized. My point is that the summary list is so subjective as to who is and is not included/excluded, that we'd be better off with the page as it was, directing to the more comprehensive listings on the two links. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not beneficial just to have two blank sections (or one blank section) pointing to two other articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I am not talking about changing the two separate list pages. I am agreeing that we need a criteria for summarizing those pages in the main article. How about taking the ten alumni with the most ghits or the ten faculty with the most ghits? I am also willing to go with MiamiDolphins3's approach of having a section entitled Notable people with the two cross references, but no other text. Racepacket (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus to either a) use the paragraph quoted above, b) use the top 10 ghits, or c) leave it blank? Racepacket (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave it blank. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Racepacket (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for reverting without discussion but leaving the section blank is not an option. Sorry! --ElKevbo (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:Summary requires a summary and, in this particular case, it is counterproductive because it is highly subjective. Better to let the stand alone linked pages speak for themselves. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Two to one is not a consensus, and ElKevbo here makes it 2-2.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the alumni section to remove names and any semblance of "subjectivity" that MiamiDolphins3 believes there is. I cannot find a way to rewrite the faculty section that does not sound like utter bullshit. I cannot say "the faculty of UM has had leading names in the subjects of..." because that could go for any University or college. Other than Dirac and Emiliani (two big names in their field and the only ones I know of as a scientist) and Van Vliet (she was one of my professors and I saw her on the list) everyone was chosen at random. I skipped over Gruber, someone else I know of, and tried my best to pick other people from other schools and fields.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can live with this variety of examples. Let's move on. Racepacket (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Well done.

   B. MoS compliance:

   No issues.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   All references need publishers. (done) There a few dead links. (done)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Comprehensive coverage of the University.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrally presented.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Previous edit wars and copyvio issues seem to be resolved.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are ok.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are appropriate and informative.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well written and researched. Much improved from the previous GA attempt. Nice work. With attention to two very minor items, should Easily meets the GA standard. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments: These items should be fixed before GA can be passed. You should be able to do this quickly. If it will take more than a day or two, I can put the article on hold to give you more time.

• "The University of Miami was ranked in the top tier..." That's not what the article says. It was ranked as a National University, but 50th is not really top tier. (good catch - done)
• Many references are still missing publishers. These should be included. (done)
• Please fix dead links at 43, 79, and 125. (done)

Follow Up Comments:

• Please check the following references for publishers or broken templates: 26,39,42,49,85,88,94,131,139,165. (done)
• Check spelling and abbreviations on 104 and 161. (done)
• Also check that the date format is consistent throughout. You mostly use "1001-01-01, but I noticed that you occasionally use "January 1, 1001". They should all be the same.

• All of the access dates are in 1001-01-01 format. The date of publication is in whatever format appeared in the source, including "Spring 2008" etc. I will look again. Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the dates used in the references should be consistent. See WP:DATE#Format consistency. Probably not strictly a GA criteria, but people do get gigged for it. It would be a good thing to fix. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (done)

• 125 still shows as broken on checklinks.

• This is very strange. When I click on fn 125, it displays correctly. Could you please double-check it? Racepacket (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It works for me too. Checklinks shows it as broken. Strange, but not an article problem. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions: These are suggestions for improvement, but not required.

• The image at the bottom of the infobox is usually a photo of the building. Why include two logos there? Why use the seal up top when the logo is so recognizable?
  • WP:UNI guidelines
• Link LEED higher up, were first used?
  • Fixed
• Link Genomics, Toxicology, Interferometry?
• Fall Freshman Statistics Table -- too much detail? Does it belong in the Academics section?
• Organization -- Is this of interest to the general reader? Sounds just like every other university in the country.
  • WP:UNI guidelines
• There are a number of places where you use multiple references for the same fact. While not incorrect, it makes harder reading. Unless the fact is extraordinary and highly disputed, why not just pick the best one and roll with it?
  • In some cases, it offers both a UM and non-UM source. In other cases, it is a compromise among the editing team.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence lists a number of nicknames for the school joined by the conjunction "and." It was "or" until August 29. I changed this back to "or," but User:Ryulong changed it back to "and." Please take a look at the first sentences of the following articles:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
• University of Michigan
• University of Virginia
• University of Utah

Of course, I would prefer to delete all of the nicknames from the lead sentence of the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Merrick's gift

Was it $4 million or $5 million? People are changing it without sources. diff. I can't find a source now. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I found http://www.hmsf.org/rc/guides/1958-003.htm Racepacket (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Forbes and the WM rankings are listed in "overall" rankings. These are specialized rankings, and should be moved to the list of "other" rankings. 129.171.233.74 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)