Talk:University of New South Wales
|UNSW School of Education was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 24 October 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of New South Wales. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Australia / Sydney / Education||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Universities||(Rated B-class)|
Article summary: marketing claims
Warning note for editors.
Increasingly it seems that certain anonymous users have been rewriting the summary paragraphs of this article to include marketing claims about the university's prestige. This is not consistent with the way in which most other Australian universities are presented on Wikipedia.
There may be a place for claims about elite entry scores, the number of university graduates leading major companies, and the number of students who come from high income families - but it is not in the article summary.
It's more appropriate for an article to lead with a brief characterisation of the university itself, some brief history, any recent developments that are particularly noteworthy, and any headline claims about its world or national standing.
I have previously deleted claims inserted in the summary which have been lifted directly from the university's marketing materials. Others should feel free to do so and monitor the summary for tone, style and balance.
This article will never get from B-class to GA-class while these issues remain unaddressed.
Improving from B-class to GA-class
Hello! I'm interested in improving UNSW's Wikipedia presence. While it would be lovely to see this article reach Featured Article status, it's a case of first things first. What does this article need to be considered a good article? Here are my notes on the good article criteria as it applies here:
- Well written:
- - More readable prose would help here, especially in the sections where each sentence begins with "In 2008...", "In 2004..." etc.
- - Somebody who is more familiar with the manual of style is needed to go over the page in more detail
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- - The article is quite well-referenced, but not all references are in the correct format.
- Broad in its coverage:
- - The article is heavily weighted towards its 'History' section, which I believe goes into too much detail (see summary style). I would suggest a more wide-ranging article including aspects of university culture, student life and the physical development of the campus.
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- - As a University employee, I'm relying heavily on others to help improve this article so as to avoid conflict of interest issues. Many University activities have been heavily debated over the years, and there probably needs to be a discussion about which of these meet the notability requirements for inclusion, and to what level.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- - This is pretty easy to meet. The article rarely sees more than one substantial edit per week. Of course, with developing content some content disputes may come into existence.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- - Some images require better captions
- - Depending on any new content added, it may be necessary to obtain more images. I am on campus daily and can take pictures if required.
Bruce Hall controversy
Is this really necessary as a section of the site? It is no doubt important to some people and an interesting part of the recent governance history but in my view it should be deleted (or reduced to one sentence) and moved to its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- This subsection was once moved to its own page (Bruce Hall controversy), but a discussion at Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_30#Bruce_Hall_controversy determined it wasn't notable enough for its own page, and hence it was moved here. While it was, at the time, a major affair at the University, I am not sure that it has ongoing notability. As a current employee, I can say it doesn't seem to have ongoing impact. It might be worth keeping if it resulted in a notable change in university policy, but I have no knowledge as to whether or not it did. (Also I'm not about to go deleting stuff that might be seen as a conflict of interest!) Tim Bennett (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am more than happy to have it reduced down to a single sentence or removed altogether. I note that wikipedia is not news and it maybe that it thas no place here. It is however a well-referenced incident - so perhaps deemphasisiing. It certainly cannot be eliminated by giving it its own article as proposed above - that would be a step in the wrong direction. --Matilda talk 06:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Given the media coverage over some period of time I htink it inappropriate to remove altogethr but I have cut down the amount of words devoted to the subject and remmoved the sub sub heading --Matilda talk 06:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Scientia at Night.jpg
Maybe something wrong with my net, but everytime i refresh all i see is Scientia at Night.jpg in the gallery section. Anyone wanna fix that up?
Changes to "Ranking and performance" section
Up front I'll disclose I'm a UNSW employee. Some of this information is outdated and other bits are close to WP:BOOSTER. I am proposing a reorganisation of this section:
- Remove second paragraph, beginning "UNSW has ranked well for many years in the Good Universities Guide..." - this information is outdated and selective, omitting lower-rated areas. I propose replacing this information with complete 2011 data in tabular form - see the example here under "Ranking and performance"
- Remove penultimate paragraph, beginning "In 2000, UNSW was ranked by AsiaWeek as 10th in the Asia-Pacific region..." - this is a 10-year-old ranking from a defunct magazine and holds little continuing relevance.
- I can find citations for paragraph four and will do so.
- This section might also read better if organised into a bulleted list.
- As no objections were raised, I have made these changes Tim Bennett (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Star rating for UNSW?
Hi. I have checked the reference no. 29 in relation to the star ratings about UNSW. As a UNSW student; I sort of agree with the information provided - however there is a lack of accuracy and evidence of where those ratings are originated from. That website gives no star rating about UNSW. Flowright138 (talk) (contributions) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned references in University of New South Wales
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of New South Wales's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "timeshighereducation.co.uk":
- From La Trobe University: "World University Rankings 2005: Top 100 Biomedicine Universities". The Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14/05/09.
- From Macquarie University: "THES – QS World University Rankings 2000". THES. Retrieved 8 October 2009.
- From University of British Columbia: World rankings - North America. Times Higher Education. Retrieved on 2014-04-12.
- From University of Melbourne: "World University Rankings 2013-2014". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 2014-01-17.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)