Talk:Southern Adventist University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Southern Adventist University is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles][Project Page][Project Talk][Assessment][Template Usage]
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Adventist (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Good article Southern Adventist University has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
November 12, 2011 Good article nominee Listed

1942 image[edit]

Two really nice additions Mathsci, thanks! What do you think about using the 1942 image full size and using that neat panoramic wrap-around template? – Lionel (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dwight-Nelson.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Dwight-Nelson.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not surprisingly the pic was nominated by... an IP!!! – Lionel (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I've put a speedy delete on it, it's obviously a copyright violation, pulled from http://www.andrews.edu/mhcconference/presenters.html. IP or not, it needs deleted. If this uploader is really the copyright holder than OTRS is required, and it would be EXTREEEMELY unlikely that he is. Sorry, it needs deleted. — raekyt 05:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southern Adventist University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 21:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: six found, 2 repaired, four tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    During Wright's administration, Southern Junior College became accredited as a four-year institution.. Could we have some explanation of "a four-year institution". The term is unfamiliar to me and likely others. *same a four-year college, as opposed to a two year "junior" college. changed. ) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    "a four-year college" still needs explanation. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)X mark.svg Not done
    wikilinked Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. This could be better phrased, I don't think that church organized that or any other date! Yes check.svg Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Actually X mark.svg Not done, No change has been made!
    fixed Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Still not done - why do you keep saying something has been addressed when it hasn't? (Since we AGF, there must be more complexity to the issue than is first obvious. More discussion on the matter seems appropriate. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
    The addition of "was" is better. It was a grammar issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    The Graysville Seventh-day Adventist Church organized September 8, 1888. makes no sense as it stands. Organized what? I don't think they organized the date? If you can't understand that this is poor grammar, then it is unlikely this article will achive GA status within the next few years. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Jezhotwells, you seem to be hostile to the development of this article. Impatient at the least. Could you please explain this apparent hostility. Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    No hostility, just pointing areas where grammar and meaning unclear. If you don't want articles reviewed then don't submit for review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    As the superintendent for the church's work in the South, Kilgore repeatedly advocated for a school. "advocated the establishment of" - not "advocated for" Yes check.svg Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Kilgore invited George W. Colcord (1843–1902),[20] founder of Milton Academy (the forerunner of Walla Walla College), to come to Graysville and establish a school. Colcord arrived in 1891. Milton Academy and Walla Walla University should be wikilinked to provide context (Milton Academy of Massachusetts is not the same Academy. The Milton Academy in the article has no WP article.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, lets explain the location, importance, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) X mark.svg Not done location was need to allow for student manual labor. Manual labor was considered part of the Adventist way of educating its youth. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    You need to provide this context in the article, not in the review! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    It is provided in the quote, take another look. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Trimmed so it's more readable; doesn't appear to need additional context--2nd opinion welcome.– Lionel (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    We don't need all that bolding in the first section of History, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting Yes check.svg Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    District #2 Superintendent, We don't use abbreviations in Wikipedia (What if that was how it was called? Do we still not use the abbreviation? Yes check.svg Done DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    No, see WP:Mos#Abbreviations Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    Done?– Lionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    ''The community was soon renamed, "Collegedale" and the school, "Southern Junior College". THe quiotes are unnecessary. Likewise The term "training" school had become associated with "reform" schools while at the same time the "junior college" designation had become a popular one. Yes check.svg Done by Donald
    In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, $113,000. How where these assets accrued? X mark.svg Not doneDonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
    In 1916, the schools' assets totaled $32,000; two years later, due to a the construction of needed buildings on campus, the school's assests totaled $113,000. Apart from being illiterate, there is no explanation here.
    If buildings are built, assets acrue. Do we need a statement which says that so and so donated so that the supplies could be purchased. This building program explains the increase in assets. What are you looking for? Apart from being illiterate??? Again this seems to be a hostile statement on the part of our reviewer. Aren't we on the same side here? What gives with the mean spirited review? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    We are looking for a clear explanation. If you put in a phrase such as "In 1916, the school's property holdings had a value of $32,000. ", it would help.
    Done?Lionel (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    In 1918, three students were taking the post-high school classes; students totalled 175. Ungrammatical. Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    ''The college built the girls' dorm first. "dormitory" not "dorm".Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, this needs copy-editing to remove unnecessary quotes and abbreviations. Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Not very keen on the lists, most, with the exception of the list of principals, could be converted into prose.
    Yes check.svg Done Assumed the alumni list is OK – Lionel (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    The lead could do with some slight expansion to more thoroughly provide an executive summary of the article as per WP:LEAD Yes check.svg DoneLionel (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Four dead links, two tagged since September, two tagged in November.
    Looks DoneLionel (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply.
    Sources appear to be WP:RS
    Statements are adequately cited, but the dead links need addressing. Yes check.svg Done (not by me) – Lionel (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    No evidence of WP:OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Broad enough, without trivia
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    NPOV
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable, the semi-protection appears to have stopped the edit-warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed, suitable non FUR rationale and captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    It appears that the nominators are incapable of understanding the GA criteria or understanding comments on the prose or lack of meanings in it. Frequently points are claimed to have been addressed when in fact they have not. Corrections have been made sloppily without any attention to detail. Consequently I am failing this nomination now. Find someone to copy-edit who can write good plain English and when that is done take it to peer review before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    Following an email from one of the nominators, I have re-instated the review. I will look at it again on Friday evening and make a decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    That's great! Thanks Jezhotwells. – Lionel (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, the article is much improved, happy to list. In future, please consider getting an independent copy-editor and taking to peer review before nominating for GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks for the excellent advice, and your patience Jez. I think it has been a learning experience for Donald Ken and myself.– Lionel (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgent--Citations[edit]

Let's fix the citations: "Publisher details, titles and authors are missing from many cites. Consistency should apply." We need to use the {{cite}} template with necessary parameters for all citations.– Lionel (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, "consistency" means the way the cites appear on the article page, not whether they were all done using "cite templates". There's more than one way to skin a cat. --Kenatipo speak! 03:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I just thought using cite would be easier.– Lionel (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm like Donald -- I'm not experienced enough with them to use them efficiently, so, each one would take me a long time! --Kenatipo speak! 15:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consistency in citations: Retrieved date format[edit]

We're using 2 styles: November 10, 2011 and 2011-11-10. Let's vote on which one to use, then I will volunteer to make them all the same style. --Kenatipo speak! 16:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I have been using the November 10, 2011 style. To avoid lots of going back and changing, I suggest we keep to that. That being said, I'm okay either way if there are stronger opinions on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
My preference is 2011-11-10 but I don't really care: as long as it's consistent. – Lionel (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved dates in Bibliography[edit]

Biblio sections don't usually have "Retrieved dates". They look ugly. Can I remove them? --Kenatipo speak! 16:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That is fine with me. However, the Biblio section is not set up with HarvNb. I am not very proficient with HarvNb though I like the style. I think we should, perhaps, remove the Biblio section and deal with 'cite' formats. This is going to take several hours either way. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep the Biblio section but rename it "Sources" and delete the extraneous info, like page numbers and retrieved dates. --Kenatipo speak! 20:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Kenatipo is right on target. – Lionel (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Have changed section name to Sources and removed retrieved dates. Not sure how to proceed with page numbers. Are we talking about the number of total pages in the work or the pages which provide specific documentation? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography and HarvNb vs Cite Book, Journal, Web, etc[edit]

Hi,

I have standardized some citations to Cite Book, Journal, Web etc. Some of the citations not in my format style seem close enough to be accepted as such (any thoughts?). In my opinion, the big difference is with the Bibliography and the not in use HarvNb coexisting with the Cite format. Any thoughts? Do the two styles pose a problem? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells is looking for "Publisher details, titles and authors are missing." The citations should be consistent, but let's not worry about it too much. Afterall, we have to save something for the FAC!!!!! Hahahah! – Lionel (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)