Talk:Northern Arizona University
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Northern Arizona University article.|
|WikiProject Universities||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Arizona||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
This entry reads like a press release about NAU. The idea of a Wikipedia article is to inform the reader about the school, using facts about the school's history, significance (i.e. rankings) and stats. The idea is not advertise the school to possible undergraduates. "The university's mission is to provide an outstanding undergraduate residential education strengthened by research..." That EVERY school's "mission." This lacks all credibility and is exhausting.
Furthermore, can we delete all the dormitory stuff? Sorry, the "On-campus living" section. It's longer than the whole athletics section and student media section combined. It needs to be cut down; it's way too long and clearly just lifted from the housing department's literature.
If we're going to describe every place a student can live, why not each walkway. How 'bout describing each individual classroom or all the wonderful landscaping on the campus? It's garbage. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It did, you can find that from google. http://www4.nau.edu/pair/UniversityPlanning/2007-2009_Master_List.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's imperative to give as much information as possible on a University, assuming many people who are viewing the page are doing so in preparation to come to NAU in the first place. As such, information on living on the campus should be included, and the source in which the information was taken is arguably best if pulled from University literature. The notion that the Athletics section should be elongated is fair, but the ratio of students that participate in campus Athletics versus living in campus housing is 50:1 easily. Kitaro001 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is biased and does sound like recruiting literature. Just because this sort of writing is prevalent in articles about universities doesn't mean it's tolerable. It's also inaccurate. The "on-campus living" section has left out several of the newer dorms and the prices are out of date for both the residence halls and tuition. And this is minor nit-picking, but I've been an RA in Allen Hall for two years and can personally assure you that there is no piano in Allen. At least once a year we get a complaint about it --Sparky_Valentine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky Valentine (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I eliminated some language that brings the article into a better NPOV; please comment if you feel so inclined. Also, I believe the consensus is to significantly reduce the amount of information in the residence halls sections, which some see as unnecessary. What information should be kept, and what should be discarded? Discuss away! :) Kitaro001 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Since no one felt the urge to contribute to the discussion concerning the residence halls, I took the liberty of modeling this section after other Arizona university articles. I believe the article should be more representative of the university as a whole, not have large sections detailing useless info on the residence halls. If you disagree, please opine. AriTotle (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The first posting by "unsigned" should be taken as from a person who probably can't even be accepted into Podunk U. His posting should not be taken as legitimate criticism. I don't see how the Wikipedia editor could conclude that an article about a university, from the viewpoint of that university, could have questions of "neutrality". The article is about a university, ferchrissake. NAU can say it's the greatest university in the world. Who cares...except "unsigned". There is no controversy here. Dangnad (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
High Altitude Training Center
NAU High Altitude Training is Closed and so, that part of the article has been removed to reflect that. We do want to only provide useful info right...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It may be closed, but it was done so due to budget restrictions. That tid bit if information was included in the article. As such, it should be included in the article because it is part of the University's history. And that it may one day reopen. Until the building shuts down permanently, which I do not have any inclining it will, it belongs where it is, under Athletics. I am not opposed to moving it to History, or some other part of the article, but it WILL remain in one way or another. AriTotle (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Redesign of All NAU websites
All sites have been redesigned. I'm placing a
|This article uses citations that link to broken or outdated sources.|
tag on this page until most of the citations get updated with new links.
08:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC) -bryanlsherwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanlsherwood (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I went ahead and updated some of the content and references, but work still needs to be done. Bryanlsherwood (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)