University of Cambridge was nominated as a good article in the category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
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.
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.
It states in the article that Darwin "was a Cambridge man" - true but he was not educated in biology at Cambridge. It is a little misleading to imply that he was a "Cambridge Biologist" when his course of studies at the university had no such content. His final examinations included Homer, Virgil, aspects of theology and moral philosophy and mathematics. The text should make it clear that his education in biology was informal and was not part of his official studies whilst at Cambridge. Urselius (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Third oldest, fourth oldest, "one of the oldest"
Anyone else care to take a look at the recent edits? I think "one of the oldest" is daft, but seek consensus and all that... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I considered your view to be so self-evident I reverted the changes before I noticed you had opened a discussion here. Sorry. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I think there are far too many items in the list, I cannot see any given reason for each item's removal. cmɢʟee୯ ͡° ̮د ͡° ੭ 18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, every item should have a reliable secondary source indicating its significance. That obviously isn't the case here right now, and further trimming should be done for items for which such sources cannot be found. The reference and work in which it appears should be significant. Again, more trimming is likely needed in this regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky is taught at Cambridge and described there as world-renowned. This should be mentioned in the article on Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Many 'world renowned' people are 'taught at Cambridge'. It's what the place does. Other than receiving an honorary degree, and delivering a lecture in 1970, did Chomsky spend any significant time at the University of Cambridge or have any other strong connection? If not, then there is no reason to mention him in this article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The wording that says in the Foundation of colleges: As early as the 1520s, Lutheranism and what was to become more broadly known as the Protestant Reformation were making their presence felt in the intellectual discourse of the university.
Can someone with knowledge about this clear this up?
i still think charles babbage deserves to have his picture among the other "famous alumni". he is the father of the computer. without the analytic engine, we would be screwed. why hasn't anyone corrected this travesty? it is both frustrating and disappointing to see such a glaring omission. I3roly (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The illustrations on the University of Cambridge page cannot (without turning it into an image gallery) show every notable person who was at the University and is mentioned in the article.
Babbage started at Trinity in October 1810 and transferred to Peterhouse in 1812. He did not graduate with honours but instead received a degree without examination in 1814. He was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics from 1828 to 1839, but never gave a lecture. For the rest of his life (and probably for much of time during these periods also) he was elsewhere, mostly in London.
This is not to diminish Babbage as an important mathematician and brilliant polymath. Clearly he was at Cambridge, and, as it says in the article already, ‘designed the world’s first computing system’, but there are many other famous and outstanding people who spent their lives at Cambridge, and who are much more closely associated with the University. Rutherford, Hershel, Eddington, Dirac, Rayleigh, Thompson, Bragg, Crick, Chadwick, Cockcroft, Walton, Sanger and so on, all spent substantial parts of their careers at Cambridge. They are mentioned, but none is shown.
As to the Analytical Engine, it is arguable how influential it was on subsequent developments, as most of Babbage’s innovations were unknown and had to be re-invented. It has never been built, so to that extent, we are still ‘without it’. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)