Talk:University of Pennsylvania

Notable people

Based on what information is George Washington listed as an alumnus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.20.76 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He's not an alum. I've removed him. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I was astonished to find that Louis I. Kahn, one of the half dozen most important architects (worldwide) of the 20th century, is not mentioned anywhere in this article, not even among notable alumni. Also, the architecture program in general, one of the nation's most influential (especially during the Holmes Perkins/Louis Kahn period), is also overlooked.

So fix it. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Penn in popular culture

On August 16 a new section was added titled "In popular culture" documenting Penn's appearances in the arts and media. The section includes references to Penn that are found in literary works, TV series and movies. The section was deleted on the grounds that it is "uncited trivia," but was reinserted by the original author. Following the reinsertion and within a few hours three more users contributed to the section by either adding or editing its content. The section was deleted again by the same user on the same grounds, only to be reinserted again by the original author.

As the original author of that section I move to keep it. A section on Penn's appearances in the arts and media is of value for several reasons. First, it reflects the ideas people hold about Penn. For example on several occasions Wharton is mentioned as a powerhouse for professionals that make six figures. Second, it shows that the university is an established institution in people's minds. Third, it documents how the university becomes part of cultural history. Lastly, it highlights the aesthetic value of Penn's campus by showing how artists select Penn landmarks such as the Fine Arts Library or Franklin Field to serve as the setting for their works.

I assume that for these reasons, and possibly more, a "popular culture" section is present in many of Penn's peers articles, including the Wiki pages of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Darthmouth, Caltech, NYU, Wellesley and others.

Also, according to Wikipedia guidelines on university articles a special section on popular culture is allowed:

"In popular culture

"University of X in popular culture" articles are generally not notable and should be integrated into the rest of the article. Most of the time these articles are indiscriminate lists. Although some of these articles exist (Yale in popular culture), their content should be merged into the primary article when appropriate and ultimately nominated for deletion (also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). It may be the case that a particular academic program (film, radio, etc.) is notable with regard to its portrayal in popular culture. In this scenario the pop culture info could be included in the academics section or article rather than creating a separate article for popular culture. If this happens it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources."

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines

The fact that the section does not contain citations is a different issue, and it cannot by itself justify deletion of the section. Many of the internal links point to articles that cross-verify the validity of the section's content. For those cases that cannot be verified by an internal link more proportional measures can be taken, for example the [citation needed] tag. Besides facts that are well known or easily verifiable may not need citations at all. I am not suggesting that adding citations in the section would not enhance it, but rather that the section meets Wikipedia's standards despite the lack of citations.

For the reasons presented here I think that the section should be kept in place. 129.67.119.242 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is not negotiable so the material must be sourced if another editor challenges it.

I believe that most of these "In popular culture" sections are abominations that have no place in encyclopedia articles. Well-written and well-sourced descriptions of selected popular culture appearances and influence would be welcome; these incoherent lists of trivia are not welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. However the editor who deleted the section did not challenge the verifiability of the content, nor its truthfulness. I don't think that anyone would object to removing the cases in the section that are not true or accurate. Before deleting a section altogether it's better to try to enhance it by adding citations if you think they are necessary. This is why the [citation needed] tag was introduced. Second, I also agree that the section's writing style can be enhanced. But -again- instead of deleting content, try making it better. A section that exists in so many institutions (not only universities) is apparently something that many feel is important, possibly for the reasons I mentioned above. This is also why Wikipedia explicitly allows it (see above). So, let's try to keep the content and work on the format. Thanks.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As the "editor who deleted the section", I am challenging its verifiability. That's why I noted that none of the material has a citation when I deleted it in the first place. Furthermore, the very guideline you cited above ("If this happens it should not be a trivia list or section, but rather a collection of analyses regarding the university's role in popular culture using reliable sources.") isn't what you've presented here. There's no analysis at all of Penn's role in popular culture, much less a collection of analyses. You've presented nothing but a list of unencyclopedic, apocryphal appearances, and I'm not sure that has any place at all in this article. Esrever ^(klaT) 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we seem to agree that work needs to be done as to the format, style and wording of the section. Citations would of course be welcome. If you delete the section it will never get better, whereas if you leave it there editors -myself included- will keep enhancing it. As you may have noticed 3 more people contributed in only 5 hours. That is the whole point of a collaborative project. Not every article and section can or will be perfect right away. Besides, most "popular culture" sections are presently bullet lists. Even Oxford's, which is recommended as a featured university article. I am not suggesting that the bullet form is the best way to go, I am merely pointing out that this is widespread practice accepted by wikipedia standards. Thank you again for your comments.

80.7.146.239 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As I noted in one of my other edit summaries, just because another article (or even articles) includes a particular feature, that doesn't mean this article must or should include it. Yes, a collaborative project means giving people time to fix things, but adding wholesale unverified information to an article isn't the best approach. Instead, use something like the sandbox or your own personal userspace (which would require registration) to work on those works in project progress. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources. Just adding things in and hoping someone somewhere someday will add the appropriate citations isn't that same thing. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm on this page, I'm actually sort of curious about why you want to include all this information anyway. What does knowing that one of the Huxtables ran in the Penn Relays really have to do with an encyclopedia article about Penn? What does it add to the reader's understanding of what the university is? The same thing goes for scenes from Philadelphia being shot at Fisher Fine Arts—what information does this really provide? As ElKevbo noted, I'm inclined to believe that all such lists are total junk. Now, if you could find a reliable source somewhere that said, "Penn has often been used in film and television as a symbol of WASP privilege [or a stand-in for Ivy League elitism or a setting for racial diversity—whatever]," then that could conceivably enrich the reader's understanding of the article. Esrever ^(klaT) 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why I think such a section is of value are explained above. You obviously don't agree and that is perfectly fine. However, you have to respect that many more people seem to find such a section important enough to include it in many other institutions' pages as well as in Wikipedia's guidelines. While the writing style of the section is not of the highest quality, it is on par with those of other institutions. As to the lack of citations please keep in mind that not everything needs to be cited. There is no appropriate citation for the fact that a fictional character is a Penn graduate, unless you are suggesting to pincite the book or script page. Again, this is in accordance with how other similar sections are written. I understand that you don't see widespread practice as a justification for how to write this article, but before you decide to scrap a whole section -which will do no good- try improving the general practice so that this as well as other similar sections meet your higher standards. Until then the general practice as it stands now remains in force and as long as this section is in accordance to it, I am inclined to think it's fine. Not perfect -just fine. Thank you as always.

129.67.119.240 (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that you cite every single example here. If it's from a TV show, name the episode and the date it aired. If it's from a book, the page number and publication date. There is no "general practice" that "remains in force" on Wikipedia beyond the five pillars. Everything else is guidelines and consensus. Your way doesn't become "the standard" just because other articles use it; my way doesn't become the standard just because I think these sections are total crap. We strive to find middle ground (like at least providing citations for this list, which you've yet to do for a single entry). Esrever ^(klaT) 14:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the guideline that was pointed to earlier shows that the section should remain in place. The problem is, it currently holds references to tv's, movies, etc that were just shot at Penn. To be included, Penn should have had a significant impact on the media being used. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope people don't mind, but I removed some instances with this edit where Penn didn't have a significant impact on the show/movie.

Thanks for your remark. But I would have to kindly disagree on that. Sixteen out of twenty-two references are about characters having studied/taught at Penn or about one of Penn's schools or about Penn as a whole. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And the other 6? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And I think it's fine to include prose material that analyzes Penn's place in pop culture. I just don't think any of the instances cited here currently do that. Esrever ^(klaT) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan thanks for cleaning-up the section. I'm fine with the edits if everyone else is. Prose may take some time. We can start by adding a couple of citations to keep everyone happy. Some of the references (e.g. It's Always Sunny in Philly, Mona Lisa, Transformers) link to other Wikipedia articles that verify the content of this section. I think these references are in low priority. For the rest I'll see what I can do in due time. Feel free to contribute. Thanks.

129.67.119.240 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Esrever ^(klaT) 16:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Esrever is right, Wikipedia does not self reference (although in articles that are solely lists is it sometimes unnecessary to include references). In this case, I believe the best course of action would be to follow the links and if the material is cited in the article, to use that citation for this article. I will help find references for some of this, but I would like to suggest that anything left unreferenced in that section 48 hours from now be removed. I have no problem with the information being re-added once there is a source to back it up. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, 48 hours is too short and arbitrary. You are assuming that many editors will work on this and that they will dedicate a lot of their time and that they will see your message now. I know you mean well, but a 48 hour deadline or "we will remove it" sounds like a threat. Further, as I explained before we first need to think what of all these actually needs to be referenced. If all factual allegations in an article had to be referenced, we would need a citation for the fact that Penn is in Philly, that it is a member of the Ivy League, that it is private and so on. This is not the point of citations, as you can also see in Wikipedia's verifiability page: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." And even if a reference was challenged, I would still think that it is more appropriate to put a [citation needed] tag first and then consider removing the material. Thank you.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the additions have been challenged here and here. They all need a source. In fact, I am challenging the verifiability of any of these additions which cannot be supported by a reliable third-party source. 48 hours was just a number I threw out; however, I do think any information left unsourced after a week should be removed. A week is more than enough time. In addition, the information is not removed permanently, it can be re-added when a reliable source is found. If information is tagged with citation needed it can be freely removed, so I will tag them now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't pursue this further; too much energy has been wasted on this for no reason. I just have two final remarks: First, challenging the verifiability of something takes more than "this is unsourced" or "I challenge its verifiability." It means explaining why a statement may be wrong and possibly offering evidence for that. Otherwise, as I explained, everyone could challenge everything, even the fact that Penn is in Philly and you would have to provide a google map citation to convince them. Second, if you want to be consistent in your edits I don't see a reason why you don't do the same with every unsourced reference in other institutions' similar sections (there is a list above, and to be clear though, I am not suggesting you do). Thank you as always for reading this.

129.67.119.242 (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There are geographic coordinates which prove that Penn is in Philadelphia. There are multiple citations which talk about Penn as being in the Ivy League. Frankly, I don't care about the pages for the other schools right now. I am hoping to improve this article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review

User:Ryan Vesey requested that I do a review of the article in the run up to a GA nomination. I'll put some thoughts here that will help the article adhere to the GA Criteria.

History

• The one-sentence paragraph about changing Penn's start day to 1740 seems out of place chronologically. I would incorporate it into the last para before educational innovations section.
• Two one-sentence paras in this section see WP:LAYOUT for thoughts on one-sentence paras.
• Being the first to award a PhD to an african american woman is noteworthy but it doesn't seem to fit w/in the subject of the paragraph. I'm torn a little on this one because it was ground breaking to award a PhD to an african american woman.
• The color hex values are too detailed and go beyond WP:SS. Incorporating the colors into say the athletics section is fine but just the colors.

Campus

• Under Libraries sub section what does FTE stand for? This should be spelled out.
• The university museum sub section has peacock words like "dramatic", which should be removed per WP:WTW in criterion 1b. There are other examples of this for example in student organization sub section the glee club's "best-known" director was Bruce Montgomery. How can this be verified? And is it really necessary to identify the director as the "best-known"?
  • I believe the source now added addresses the reason that he is referred to as best known. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Also no refs in this section

Housing

• No refs in this section.

Academics

• I count two refs in the entire section.
• Check out WP:LIST, from my understanding of this guideline embedded lists should be spelled out in prose whenever possible. We want to avoid articles with list after list after list. I count ten lists in this article, which probably needs to be reduced.

Student Life

• There's a clean up banner in this section, could be a applied to a few other sections. This will have to be addressed prior to GA nomination or it will be quick failed.

Overall

• Ok at this point I'm going to pull up and give some overall impressions for where this article needs to go before it should be nominated at GAC.

• Referencing is poor, the first part of the article is fine but then it gets very hit and miss.
• Reference formatting should be uniform, this isn't necessarily part of the GA Criteria but it isn't hard to make refs uniform and it helps readers make sense of them better. Recommend {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates.
• Lists should be expanded into prose wherever possible.
• Peacock words should be removed.
• Balance: in my cursory reading of the article I found only the "water buffalo incident" as an even remotely negative point to the university. In my experience articles on universities are egregious violators of WP:NPOV, usually because they are written by current students or alumni with a lot of pride in their institution. A university like Penn has to have some negative press out there. Has it been involved in controversies? Were there clashes between students and administration during the 1960's for example? Have there been any protests like against testing on animals since it's a research facility? Any ethics violations by staff or notable criminal activity on campus or perpetrated by students/staff?
• While not technically part of the GA Criteria, the article violates WP:OVERLINK IMO. Terms in common English useage do not need to be linked.
• The lead does not conform with WP:LEAD, lots of sections in the body of the article that are not summarized in the lead.

• It's evident that more work has been done to the beginning of the article than the middle and end, I would start in the middle and work down.
• What the article has going for it are good images, the refs appear to be credible, the writing is not bad, and it appears as though most of the subjects are covered. This concludes my informal review, once some of the big items have been fixed I'd happily do a more indepth review. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

First, I am not dead set on including the information on Robb, so I don't want this to get blown out of proportion. Wouldn't it be controversial that someone who committed murder was teaching students? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

More questions on popular culture

Where are the guidelines for what should and should not be included in a section on popular culture. For example, Penn is not the subject of Jim Thorpe - All-American, but the opponent. Is this something that should be included? I remember watching the Transformers movie, and while I believe it was shot at Penn, it was ambiguous in the movie as to which Ivy League school he was attending. I think this might be notable because (if IMDB is correct) Penn requested not to be mentioned due to scenes including marijuana usage. Can anyone help find information to back this up? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rowbottom (riot)

For negative history, consider Rowbottom (riot) and the shouts by students to the former president to show part of her anatomy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added this into the article. I am unable to find much about the second part of your post. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More thorough peer review

I've been asked to do a more thorough peer review in preparation for a run at GAC. I'll review with an eye towards the GA criteria but I want to push the article beyond the criteria.

Lead

• You don't usually need refs in the lead unless you are making a particularly controversial statement. See WP:LEAD on this. The thinking here is that since the information is supposed to be repeated in the article, the refs will be found there and it would be unnecessary to put them in the lead. It isn't a hard and fast rule and a ref or two in the lead wouldn't be questioned, 9 different cites w/ a parenthetical note may be a bit much.
• Try to do something with the one-sentence paragraph. It may go well in the first paragraph, it just doesn't look right hanging out at the end of the lead IMO.
• I don't see anything in the lead about athletics, facilities (the campus), notable people and popular culture (we'll talk more about that later). You may want to take a look at University GAs/FAs and see how the leads are written. In such a long article with many diverse subjects the lead becomes a real challenge. It needs to flow, be concise, readable, and yet cover all the diverse subjects in the article. You have your work cut out for you on the lead.

If you give me a couple of weeks I can prepare a section on research, which seems to be one of Penn's most important activities. This can help move one or two sentences from the lead section to free some space for additional info on athletics, notable people etc 80.7.146.239 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it would remove sentences from the lead; however, it is a major part of Penn that is lacking from the article so it would be a great addition. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it.80.7.146.239 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it isn't about removing info from the Lead, if anything info needs to be added. Sounds like you're getting the gist of what I'm talking about.

History

• The sentence is poorly written, "Designed and built by Edmund Woolley, it was the largest building in the city and it was also planned to serve as a charity school." The sentence starts with who designed and built it, then goes to the fact that it was the largest in the city, and then moves into alternative uses for it. There's no focus to the sentence and it is awkwardly worded because it covers so many topics. The GA Criteria say the writing should be "reasonably well written" with the prose being "clear and concise" as well as correct grammar and spelling. IMO the info about the alternative purpose for the building should be cut out and put in the previous sentence about Whitfield.
• "These three schools were part of the same institution and were overseen by the same board of Trustees." Three schools? I thought there were two: University of the State of Pennsylvania and College of Philadelphia. Am I misreading something? Maybe I'm confused. This is the start of the review I have more to do but it will be piecemeal as I have time. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The source of the information states "The three schools were part of the same institution and were overseen by the same board of Trustees." This brings up infinitely more problems due to close paraphrasing, and a misuse of information. The cited source is actually referring to the Academy of Philadelphia, the Charity school, and the College of Philadelphia (information found in the second paragraph of history). I'm going to bring the issue up with Moonriddengirl and see if she can help find more copyvio. If you look at the article history, you will see that I have found copyvio in other places. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Campus

• University city is linked twice, once is enough. Same with Philadelphia.
• A 4,000-ton ice storage facility!! What on Earth do they need that much ice for? Just curious.

Run chillers when cooling is cheaper and/or there is excess capacity as a buffer against when demand exceeds instantaneously available supply. Sorta like a modern-day Ice house (building). DMacks (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sheesh you'd think one of the trustees owned stock in ice or something. Just kidding. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are there any other notable buildings? Perhaps old buildings still in use? You have a hodge podge selection of buildings listed in this section, but most of them seem to be relatively recent builds. Are there any buildings in use from the 19th century for example? Is there a map of the campus that could be included? I'm not sure what is in most university GAs so if that's going beyond the scope then disregard.

Academics

• Good discussion about funding issues and bond ratings. That lends balance to the article.
• Wharton is listed as doing Health Management, is that part of the business school?
• 2 refs in the Admissions selectivity sub-section, that needs to be addressed. If you cite a publication like US News and World Report in the article you should have a reference for it.

Rankings

• Same here, really need refs for all the ranking claims.
• Otherwise I think this section is fine. Ok that's it for now more to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Student life

• "The Philomathean Society, founded in 1813,[51] claims to be the United States' oldest continuously-existing collegiate literary society." Does ref 51 support claims in the entire sentence? If so it should be placed at the end of the sentence as the claim of being the oldest should be referenced as potentially controversial.
• "The Mask and Wig Club is the oldest all-male musical comedy troupe in the country." Sentence needs to be referenced for the same reason as above.
• "The University of Pennsylvania Glee Club, founded in 1862, is one of the oldest continually operating collegiate choruses in the United States." Ditto.
• What criteria was used for selecting the organizations featured in this section? I don't think we need every student organization, that would go beyond WP:SS, but perhaps more on what else is available to students.

Athletics

• Watch peacock words like, "Penn's famed coach". This would fall into the words to watch section of crit. 1b, part of the MOS concerns.
• "becoming the NFL's last 60-minute man." I'm not familiar with the 60-minute man term, and I'm pretty versed on American sports vernacular. Can this be linked or explained?
• Many of the sub-sections here have no references. GA criteria don't mandate a ref per section, I think it's a good rule of thumb though. Certainly many of the facts in the sections could be referenced w/o much difficulty, and many of the facts should be referenced (first commercially televised football game, one-time host of the Eagles, site of early Army-Navy games, and the Palestra has hosted more NCAA tournament games than any venue in the country are examples).

Notable people

• References please.
• An image of a notable person would be better than Franklin, who was a founder but not an alumnus.

Would Jon Huntsman or Arlen Specter be good candidates for a pic? They are both well known and relatively uncontroversial political figures.80.7.146.239 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

• This is a tricky one, if it is standard fare in most GAs for university articles then something should be here to satisfy the comprehensive criterion. What I suggest is put together a paragraph of the more notable occurances of Penn in popular culture and call it a day. For example IMO the fact that a Pennsylvania college pennant is in a dorm room of an obscure movie from 1951 is not notable enough for inclusion, while several scenes from the movie Philadelphia were shot in a Penn library would be notable.

Controversies

• This is a great start and addresses my concerns about balance. I think it could be expanded a bit though:

• What was the purpose of the Rowbottom riots? Was it just huliganism or was there some sort of statement being made or was it just done because it was tradition? Were there any notable incidents that occured during these riots or a situation that caused them to be shut down?
• What was the outcome of the petition to stop the weapons research?
• Is there anything more about the resignation of the undergrad dean? What is in the article doesn't appear to be enough to warrant inclusion as a controversy. If his abrupt departure is fishy then why?

I agree that the dean incident does not rise up to controversy status (absent further info). Also, here's another possible item for inclusion: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/us/walkout-at-penn-focuses-on-unionization.html?scp=17&sq=%22university+of+pennsylvania%22+research&st=nyt. If someone wants to take this up, or I will do it in due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.146.239 (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to add more to the dean section. It was incredibly controversial, especially in Penn circles. One of the reasons I say this is that there was a large amount of reporting done on it (they all said roughly the same thing though). Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall

• You're well on your way, the biggest concern is the lack of sources. It's obvious that you're working hard to improve the article. I hope the suggestions above help in that effort. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed content and copyvio

I have placed tags for copyvio/close paraphrasing and possible factual inaccuracies on this article. Throughout the editing of this article I have found numerous instances of close paraphrasing. In addition, most, if not all, sources need to be checked and verified and references must be added to unsourced content. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the copyvio tag, but not with the disputed content, hence the removal. The relevant wiki page states that "Some articles on Wikipedia may contain significant factual inaccuracies, i.e. information that is verifiably wrong. Articles for which much of the factual accuracy is actively disputed should have a [Disputed] warning place at the top." Though Penn's wikipage lacks sources, "much of the factual accuracy is [not] actively disputed." Previous edits and the talk page do not suggest disputed over the factual accuracy of the content. 80.7.146.239 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I added the tag after finding some information that was verified as being factually innacurate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you identify a couple of sections with close paraphrasing, so that we can remove the tag once at least these have been edited? Thanks. 80.7.146.239 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Right now I have left a note at Moonriddengirl's talk page. She specializes in copyvio so she should be able to help. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to help out here. :) But the single most helpful thing you can do for that, Ryan, is point out one or two sources that you have already identified. That will help me zero in on problem areas. We used to have a tool that would automatically scan articles and compare them to other sources, but unfortunately due to a change in Yahoo's terms it no longer functions. :/ Can you point out a specific problem you already detected? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Currently, I have removed copyvio in the demographics and the history section (coming from refs two and twelve as of the revision right now. I used plagiarism.net (a free version of turnitin.com) and only ran the first paragraph of the history section through. I don't know how many wikipedia mirrors there are, but some of the results have over 1000 matches. I have been finding plagiarism throughout many of the articles related to UPenn, last time at University Television-13, so I may have assumed there was more copyvio than what actually existed. I ran the article through a copyvio check against Penn's history page here, but I think there's only one or two sentences that could be changed. I also checked the article against the facts and figures page here. There's a decent amount of similar text here, but I don't think it meets the limits of human creativity. Maybe it was just those two isolated instances, but I wanted to make sure it got checked out. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If Moonriddengirl is done, is suggest now is a good time to remove the tag from the top of the page.80.7.146.239 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Table in Research, innovations and discoveries section

In the original version of "Research, innovations and discoveries" section I had included the following table. The rationale was that the section was long and contained a lot of information possibly driving away some readers. The table was a quick summary of the main highlights of that section. It was deleted by user:Esrever who thought the table cluttered up the article. To avoid a cat and mouse game of posting-deleting, if anyone wants to share his/her views on this, so that we can see how other people feel about this, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

University of Pennsylvania Major Innovations and Discoveries

Year	Image	Description	Associated People
1852		The Law School publishes the first law journal in the country under the name "The American Law Register" still in existence today as the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.	George Sharswood
1946		The first general purpose electronic computer, ENIAC, is manufactured by Penn engineers at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering	John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert
1951		The Dialysis machine was invented out of a pressure cooker It is used worldwide today to purify blood of patients who suffer kidney failures.	William Inouye
1960s		Cognitive therapy, one of the main cognitive behavioral therapies, seeks to identify and change dysfunctional thinking and behavior.	Aaron T. Beck
1960s		The Wharton Econometric Forecasting Model used to forecast fluctuations including national product, exports, investments, and consumption, and to study the effect on them of changes in taxation, public expenditure, oil price, etc..	Lawrence Klein
1969		The Rubella vaccine was developed by Joseph Stokes, chair of the Department of Pediatrics from 1939 to 1963.	Joseph Stokes
1969		Research conducted at Penn was instrumental in the development of the Hepatitis B vaccine (patent numbers 3,636,191 and 3,872,225).	Baruch Blumberg and Irving Millman
1975		Retin-A, the drug used to treat acne and superficial wrinkles was developed at Penn's dermatology department.	Albert Kligman
1990s		Gene research at Penn has led to the discovery of the genes for fragile X syndrome, Kennedy's disease, Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease.	Kenneth H. Fischbeck

129.67.119.240 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My view is the same as it was with my comment on your talk page. The section, with the table, should be created in a new article Research at the University of Pennsylvania. The entire section should then be rewritten, shortened to about 4 paragraphs and contain a link at the top stating

Main article: Research at the University of Pennsylvania

. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Esrever ^(klaT) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I started the page at User:Ryan Vesey/Research at the University of Pennsylvania, can someone please fix and fill out the citation templates? Every source should have a minimum of a title, url, and publisher. I probably won't be doing much with it, see the note on my talk page for an explanation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a separate page, but I think we should double the content first and then summarize it. For s summary to make sense it needs to be at least 1/3 of the original article. I will be doing some additional research but it will probably take me some time. 129.67.119.240 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)