Talk:Washington University in St. Louis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Missouri (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Missouri - Washington University in St. Louis (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Missouri - Washington University in St. Louis (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject St. Louis (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

If you are a part of the WUSTL WikiProject, you can add this template to your userpage:

{{User WUSTLproject}}

to display the following userbox on your userpage:

WUBrookr.JPG
This user is a member of the Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject.

This will also add you to: Category:WikiProject Washington University in St. Louis participants

If you attend or have attended Washington University, you can add this template to your userpage:

{{User WUSTL}}
to display the following userbox on your userpage:
WUBrookr.JPG This user attends or attended
Washington University in St. Louis

This will also add your page to: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Washington University in St. Louis


Merge proposal[edit]

I think that the article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be merged into this article because that article is too long and consists almost entirely of unencyclopedic lists. Jolb 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. - thank you Astuishin 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I vote against merging. The article Campus Life at Washington University in St. Louis should be edited for encyclopedic quality. Merging it does not solve the problem mentioned. Additionally, items such as residential colleges, campus clubs, etc. have the potential to become quite numerous and should have their own page called "campus life." --Lmbstl 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This page has potential for a lot of content, precedent exists for pages like it, and the WUSTL article is long enough. Oren0 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Although there is room for improvement most of what is written is either copied from Washington U's web page, or a jumbled list written in first person account. Unless the WUSTl Wikiproject is willing to devote some time to cleaning up the article, it should ne merged. - thank you Astuishin (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The list definitely needs reform.thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we do away with this merge proposal yet? It is better to concentrate on improving mediocre content, instead of transferring the mediocre content to another place. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Per veritatem vis[edit]

I feel that the latin "Per veritatem vis" should be translated "Through truth, strength," as opposed to "Strength through truth." That translation is closer to the literal meaning, and the interjection of "strength" is a powerful poetic device that should not be ignored. There is a precedent for translating Latin in this way: "E pluribus unum" is not translated "One from many," it is translated "From many, one." Jolb 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have thought this as well, however "Strength through truth" is on some of the university documents that reference the Latin motto.thank you/ Astuishin (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it meant through vietnam vis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.146.40 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So big deal just because Danforth has a lot of money he was involved with the worlds fair project a few years back but unlike him i am continuing in my great project to bring back the geat fair it must and can be done today nothing is impossible!

Jay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleventhdr (talkcontribs) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Subtle changes[edit]

modified the number of fraternites on campus as one is currently not recognized by the university.

additionally deleted MR. WU from traditions as the event has only been around for a four years and has seen declining numbers. Would argue that if it gets it own section, so should diwali and LNYF.

changed "all of which sell out within hours", which is a non-truth, to "one of which sells out within hours" which is a fact.128.252.254.7 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Washington University is in University City, Missouri!!![edit]

I uploaded a U.S. Census map to the University City, Missouri which clearly shows that Washington University is outside the city limits of St. Louis. The name of "in St. Louis" is accurate from a county perspective. A discussion on the mailing address/physical address discrepancy would be of interest. Americasroof (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I should probably revise my comment since Wash U is in a not clearly defined checker pattern. In any event, the geography is unique as it would appear to be outside of St. Louis proper. There was probably some accomodation made to include it in the city. Those quirks are always fun to track down. Americasroof (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it was included in the Danforth Campus article about being in unincorporated St. Louis county. We should probably include it in the main article. The location info on this article is misleading. Americasroof (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The university's mailing address is St. Louis Missouril prehaps brookings hall and the area of east of it are in the City while most of the major campus buildings are split between ucity and clayton. thanks Astuishin (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Could be wrong, but I believe one can send mail to anywhere in SL County using "St. Louis, MO" instead of the proper municipality name. Maybe a resident of the County could chime in to confirm? Ropcat (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a geography section to the article explaining the situation. Wash U is an island into itself in St. Louis County. Americasroof (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Main campus is in unincorporated SL county. The South 40 is in Clayton. The Med school and other areas (North campus, etc) are in St. Louis city. Oren0 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what boundaries you all see in those uploaded images, but the article gets some of them wrong. St. Louis County has an interactive map on their website, here

http://gis.stlouisco.com/ and here http://gis.stlouisco.com/search/viewer.htm?Title=St.%20Louis%20County%20Maps, that clearly shows the boundaries of the municipalities involved. They can be superimposed on satellite imagery. It confirms what I already knew from living there for four years, although I wasn't positive of all the exact borders before. (U. City actually extends south of the campus on the west side!)

If you are going to be picky enough to distinguish between "St. Louis" and "St. Louis County," then the proper name of the city is "City of St. Louis." Most of the Danforth Campus is indeed in unincorporated St. Louis County; but none of it's academic parts (as bounded by Skinker, Big Bend, and Forsythe Boulevards, and Forest Park Parkway/Millbrook Boulevard), is in either Clayton or U. City, and some of it is in the City. The mailing address is in the City, according to the post office, because the main administration building (Brookings) fronts on the city. There are several functionary buildings, like Alumni House and the Chancellor's residence, across Forsythe Boulevard in Clayton; as well as some dorms and athletic fields. There are offices, studios, and off-campus housing across Forest Park Parkway, in U. City. Anyway, I adjusted the descriptions in the article as minimally as I could, to match the actual facts. I also felt it the athletics section was severely lacking to not mention the record winning streak in women's basketball, do I added that while was there.JeffJor (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Student Union merge proposal[edit]

I propose a merger of Washington University Student Union into this article. The Washington University Student Union article suffers from WP:Original Research and is generally fails WP:Notability.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a merge. I suggest that the article be improved, not merged. Merging won't solve the problems you identified.--Lmbstl (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Sourcing for the student union is pretty much non-existent. The only way to save any of the content is to merge it with the main article,--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Failing WP:Notability cannot be fixed. I don't understand what is behind this effort to have articles on student unions, but without sources, these articles won't survive. Paddy Simcox (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Before RedShiftPA gutted the article, it had 9 sources. Now it has 3. Someone please explain how deleting referenced material corrects the WP:Original Research issue!
If the article needs improvement, then let's improve it. If it fails notability, then let's discuss which aspects fail. It has only been tagged since this month (not even 2 weeks), and now it has been essentially deleted, so course it will fail notability if it has little to say. If the article deserves deletion, then tag it for consideration. However, removing the majority of the article's material (along with references), creates the situations you have labeled without allowing debate, and I oppose that. The tag itself states: "Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page."
I suggest that the article be restored, and its problem areas given a chance to be discussed and reviewed. --Lmbstl (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources. I don't see any reason why Student Life, among others, would fail WP:RS. Gutting an article without discussion and then re-prodding after the first prod is contested are both out of line behavior as far as I see it. I agree that the previous version of the article was bloated but that's no reason to gut it. Feel free to place {{cn}} tags on anything that doesn't belong. If you believe that it fails WP:N, feel free to bring it up for AfD, but it's unreasonable to remove all of the sources and then claim it's not table. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources User:RedShiftPA removed were all links to wustl.edu internal sites or the organization's own site. Unfortunately, these aren't the sort of sources that are required. If it makes you feel any better, very few people ever look at the article; [1], especially when compared to the main page [2]. Paddy Simcox (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All 9 of the sources you refer to were self published sources. Every single one was published from wither WSU or the Student Union itself. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), self published sources "are largely not acceptable." They may be used sparingly, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article was based entirely on self-published sources. As far as accusing me of "gutting" that article, I got rid of the WP:Original Research and organizational fluff. I only left the justifiable material.
I did tag the article with a PROD, which was contested. Now I am advocating a merge with the main article. This topic is not noteworthy enough for its own article. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In general, an organization has notability "if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources." The Student Union of WSU doesn't have that. Therefore, it should be merged into the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Coverage in Student Life is extensive. Also note coverage in Washington University Magazine and more minor mentions the local media [3] [4] [5]. Note that WP:SPS doesn't mean that publications from the University (such as StudLife or the magazine) can't be used as sources for this any more than we couldn't use the New York Times as a source about New York. It only prohibits us from using the Student Union's own site. Whether or not the Student Union is notable enough to warrant its own article versus being merged into the campus life article is a matter for debate, but SU clearly meets WP:N (PS: It's WU or WUSTL, not WSU) Oren0 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 raises some valid points that should have been discussed already, had debate been allowed. Initially, I said I opposed a merge because merging an article does not necessarily improve its content. Instead of discussing the issue, (or waiting for other comments), Paddy Simcox jumped in and, in essence, stated that it is impossible to improve the article. I don't see how Paddy Simcox's view provided license to skip over debating the issue. If you want to discuss a merge, then let's do so. However, the suggestion that a merge repairs inferior material is nonsense, and no one has addressed that.
Also, we all know that it is generally decent to debate changes so broad as the ones instituted by RedShiftPA. I am not defending the quality of the Student Union article so much as I am contesting the lack of respectability demonstrated in the way it was tagged, scarcely discussed, and then promptly edited, as I described above.
Since RedShiftPA and Paddy Simcox apparently work as a team, I would like to know:
1. How has your methodology been ok so far, in light of DELETING, MAJOR CHANGES, Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, and PRESERVING INFORMATION?
2. What does your team work to accomplish, since you have not worked on other any other WUSTL articles?
Since I assume good faith, I will not jump to the conclusion of sockpuppetry. Thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It should not come as too much of a shock that two people can come to the same conclusion about the lack of reliable sources and the failure of this organization to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. As I mentioned above, the WUSTL main article gets more than 56 times as many page views as the WUSU. More people will get to know the WUSU there than at its stand-alone page, especially since there will be a redirect. Paddy Simcox (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Please read the previous discussion. --Lmbstl (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:ORG
1. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
2. Washington University Student Union has no independent secondary sources. Any mention in the press is incidental
Therefore, it FAILS WP:ORG.
This article would have a hard time passing an AFD, and the best way to save the material is to merge it into the main article. I am glad you're not accusing Mr. Simcox and I of being sockpuppets, because I would hate to accuse you of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. There's nothing wrong deleting original research from a non-notable article. Look, would you rather we send this to an AFD?--RedShiftPA (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I oppose a merge. Briefly looking over the article, it seems to be notable unto itself. Yes it needs some reliable sources, but Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 14:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I keep saying the same things and you're just not listening. I'll walk you through my logic step by step and you let me know which step you disagree with. 1. Student Life easily meets WP:RS. 2. Student Life has written numerous articles primarily featuring SU (see the link above). 500+ search results, and I'm sure many are in depth regarding SU. I could find these if need be. 3. Student Life is independent of both the University and the Student Union, therefore it is a "reliable, independent secondary source" as called for in WP:ORG. 4. Coverage in Student Life therefore is enough to make SU pass WP:ORG. If you disagree, I suggest an AfD. As I stated above, I'm sure that the organization is notable, but I'm not sure that means that it deserves its own article. That being said, dismissing its notability outright and deleting so much content (including sourced content) that the edits border on vandalism is far from good wikiquette. Oren0 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RedShiftPA posted updates to my talk page here: User_talk:Lmbstl#WUSTL_Student_Union I reccommended that he post his comments here, but he is too busy scrambling to get the article deleted. The article has formally been recommended for deletion. I will suggest that it be merged.

For the record, I do not agree with the implicit objective that the article should be deleted without an opportunity to be improved. --Lmbstl (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Is there any source that includes "The" as part of the name? Everything I've seens says otherwise? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any online sources, however in Federal Court cases the university is represented as The Washington University. Similar to how Yale is incorporated as the The president and fellows of Yale Corporation.thanks Astuishin (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In a different but related issue, an anon seems to think that "in St. Louis" is not part of the name, though all the sources say otherwise. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Mkfisher and anons[edit]

Hey Mkfisher, am I right to assume that the anons 76.26.156.31 and 98.218.1.165 are you? Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is not "the truth" or how "factual" the information is, but the contents Verifiability. I know wash U is well-respected in at least the medical field. Your statement includes several other programs as well. All you have to do for me to stop removing your edits is to find a reliable third party source for this and use an inline citation to support your claims. As far as removing the information about the board of trustees adding the phrase "in St. Louis" to the name this is well souced with the universities own website. Should you continue adding unsourced information and removing well-sourced information I will report you to WP:AIV and you, and your ips will likely be blocked. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe your last edit was Washington University in St. Louis was a mistake, were you trying to revert the same page blanking that I have been reverting? I think I already did it and instead of putting the information back your edit removed it again. Let me know if this is the case. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Change the main picture to a graphic of the shield[edit]

To keep WUSTL in line with its Ivy peers, I think the main picture in the info box should be a graphic of the WUSTL shield rather than a picture of it on a gate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.16.221 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

Does anybody know why the reflist template won't work right? It is displaying only one column even though its set for two. (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from exploring that template previously, some of it how it displays columns is dependent on your browser and your screen resolution. Right now, I'm using Firefox and running at 1280x1024 and it's displaying three columns. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Multiple columns has been disabled for some browsers. See here for an explanation. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Racial history[edit]

An anon, keeps remove a very neutral and well sourced paragraph on the universities' racial history and adding a whitewashed version that is a little WP:PEACOCK. The anon has been warned. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have happened again, some time ago. I am going to reinsert the paragraph on racial integration, which used to be part of this article. Please discuss here if there are objections. The paragraph being reinserted is as followed:

Washington University ended racial segregation in its undergraduate divisions in 1952, making it the last local institution of higher education to do so. During the mid- and late 1940s, the University was the target of critical editorials in the local African American press, letter-writing campaigns by churches and the local Urban League, and legal briefs by the NAACP intended to strip its tax-exempt status. In spring 1949, a Washington University student group, the Student Committee for the Admission of Negroes (SCAN), began campaigning for full racial integration. The administration continued to hold that full desegregation "would place the University outside of the community," as Vice-Chancellor Leslie Buchan claimed in 1951, and could spark "incidents on campus." However, under mounting internal and external pressure, the Board of Trustees in May 1952 passed a resolution desegregating the school's undergraduate divisions.[1]

Ropcat (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Shield graphic/logotype[edit]

This is an ongoing issue. The recently added shield graphic will most likely be reverted to the previous photo. Some past debate about this overly complicated copyright issue is here in talk archives. --Lmbstl (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again thanks Astuishin (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I really don't want the administration trolling through the article again. Perhaps we can just take it down before they do. thanks Astuishin (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't either, but if they want to restrict the use beyond that of every other univerisity, they should monitor Wikipedia as well. The WUSTL pages need a lot more work done to them that far outweighs the shield mania. I wouldn't wring my hands too much over it. --Lmbstl (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it looks like its been removed again, so I restored the old shield from Francis gate. Astuishin (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If the University continues to restrict the use of its traditional shield, I think a nice photo of Brookings might be superior to the current logo. (In my opinion, the logo looks rather corporate and cheesy.)64.131.34.149 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The University has explicitly allowed the current logo. Doesn't mean we have to keep it, but in my opinion it's better than a picture of Brookings. Shubinator (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not partial to the current logo, Brookings, or a picture of Francis gate. However a note of caution: the university will aggressively defend its image see here. So beware of trying to change the logo. Astuishin (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If they try to restrict it without legal ground, they should be invited to take a hike. If it's legal to use it and it makes the encyclopedia better and more consistent, then it should be done, regardless of the University's position on the issue. Unless they have a legal case (and they don't), then the good of the encyclopedia is more important than their feelings. Faceless Enemy (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

May 17 history edits[edit]

I reverted three edits by an anon (who has done some good work on this page previously) because there were too many NPOV problems with the added content. As much as I hate reverting marginal content instead of improving it, the new material was too dubious and full of peacockery. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to respond here. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that, too. At least a bit of it was copied directly from the cited sources which explains why it sounded so...effusively positive. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a more subtle version. WashU has transitioned from regional to national prominence in the past 60 years. Much of this success has resulted from massive fundraising initiatives, which have, in turn, allowed WashU to increase the quality of its faculty, students, and facilities. This new fundraising capability is noteworthy, especially as it provides a stark contrast to the University’s impoverished beginnings (mentioned in Early History).
Moreover, Chancellors William H. Danforth and Mark S. Wrighton have played very important roles in shaping the post-WWII development of Washington University. Obviously this area needs more work, and any contributions to post-1952 history would be welcome.
Feel free to make changes. However, if you insist on deleting the entire three paragraphs, I would appreciate some rationale beyond NPOV or “peacockery”. As it is, the modern history section fails to mention anything that happened within the last 60 years. 64.131.34.149 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that the page The Amateurs (Washington University in St. Louis) be merged into this page under "Student life", leaving a redirect. The group The Amateurs does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here as stated at WP:GROUP, since it does not seem to have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources.

I also propose that the page After Dark (Washington University in St. Louis) be merged into this page for the same reasons. It did get one-time recognition for performing at the vice presidential debate, but I don't believe that is enough to qualify for inclusion under WP:GROUP.

I have already added a few sentences about the groups to the Student Life section.

I am sure that both of these groups are worthy, but it's very rare for a college a capella group to qualify for a separate Wikipedia article of its own. If anyone objects to the merger/redirect of these articles, this is the place to say so and explain why. If you can, please improve the listed articles by adding references from INDEPENDENT (not just college related) sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  • NOTE: The following note was placed on my talk page which I am copying here as a !vote to Oppose the merger of The Amateurs. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. I am new to editing on wikipedia, so hopefully you can help me out.

The article seems to be a stand-alone article to me; I don't see why you think it should be deleted (merged). I find the consistency of Wikipedia to be a lot more helpful for learning about different subjects and groups than trying to track down information from many different websites, so it seems natural that notable college a cappella groups be included on Wikipedia.

The page was just recently created, and I see that reliable sources need to be incorporated as citations/references. What type of sources should be added? News stories/articles? Album reviews? Please let me know what you think. I am glad to work with you, so this article meets Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you! ~10mcleod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10mcleod (talkcontribs) 02:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Are these two student groups out of the 10 or 20 various wustl a cappella groups (and out of hundreds of other student groups) really _that_ important to merit begin mentioned on the main wustl wikipedia page in more than a passing note (which they already are)? If they really both need to be on wikipedia, create a "List of WashU a capella groups" page and put them there with all the rest, or even better, add them to the Campus Life at Washington University wiki article. 71.91.221.14 (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am torn about this proposal. I don't think it belongs on the main page of the university. This article is too detailed. It could get a sentence on the main page or maybe a paragraph. I think the real debate is whether this group should have its only wikipedia entry and not if this detailed description, including album info, should clutter up an article about Washington University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbrycex (talkcontribs) 12:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

These articles should not be merged into the main article as they are too detailed. The articles should instead be moved to Campus life at Washington University in St. Louis. Astuishin (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Statistics[edit]

A number of the statistics referenced are lacking citations, particularly those pertaining to admittance rates. I have no idea if the university even releases percentages for individual schools, but under 10% for all the schools mentioned seems a little dubious, considering that the overall undergraduate admittance rate is somewhere closer to 15%. Anon 5584 (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon 5584 (talkcontribs) 08:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove unsourced, dubious material. ElKevbo (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Though thorough and fairly well written, this article is not ready for Good Article status at this time, as it has some very old citation needed tags that need to be addressed (six dating to 2007). Other statements like "The paper was first founded in 1878, making it one of the oldest student newspapers in the country" will also need citation.

In addition, secondary sources will be needed for promotional statements like "Twenty-two Nobel laureates have been affiliated with Washington University, nine having done the major part of their pioneering research at the university", rather than using the university itself as a source. It also needs copyediting for sentences like "Known as SU for short, Student Union sponsors large-scale campus programs including WILD (a semesterly concert in the quad), free copies of the New York Times, USA Today, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch through The Collegiate Readership Program; it contributes to the Assembly Series, a weekly lecture series produced by the University; it also funds the campus television station, WUTV and the radio station, KWUR"; I'm fixing that one myself, but it's an example of the work that needs to be done.

Finally, I'd also suggest that this article be checked for its neutrality. It contains a lot of language that sounds like a university brochure--emphasizing the school's academic achievements, proud history, etc.--without containing any criticism of university, community issues, controversies, infighting, or other incidents of any kind. It's possible that Wash U has an unblemishedly positive record, of course, but that would be unusual.

I'd encourage interested editors to address some or all of the above issues and then consider renominating. Let me know if I can help in any way, and good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

school rankings[edit]

i noticed that in the table listing the school's rankings by different websites, only one of them is sourced. i will go and look for sources, but if i cannot find them, i will remove the information. let me know if you have any questions. GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

i added sources to the rankings, and had to fix one of them because it was one ranking off. i did have to remove the architecture ranking completely though -- this article claimed it to be ranked 4th by design intelligence, but the rankings [6] show otherwise. let me know if you have any questions.GoGatorMeds (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Amy M. Pfeiffenberger, "Democracy at Home: The Struggle to Desegregate Washington University in the Postwar Era," Gateway-Heritage (Missouri Historical Society), vol. 10, no. 3 (Winter 1989), pp. 17-24.