Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dartmouth College

Dartmouth College

• Previous FAC

A renomination. The FAC listed above was, for some reason, closed after only two comments. The only unaddressed suggestion was citing the sections more thoroughly, which I have done. I've also expanded the "Campus" section and improved the writing. I definitely think this is a great article, and deserves to be promoted.

However, I'm sure there is room for improvement, so feel free to suggest things. A note to admins -- please don't close this discussion prematurely, as was done last time. I intend to address all objections until it is promotion-worthy. Dylan 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Though s/he didn't list them here, User:SandyGeorgia brought up a number of style issues through edit summaries, including WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ITALICS, WP:HYPHEN, a danging <ref> tag, {{cite}} tags lacking "publisher" fields, and style in section headings. I've addressed them all. Regarding the reliability of Jonathan Good's pamphlet as a source, I submit that as a professor of history who has written professionally on this very subject (see the other cited pieces from the Dartmouth College Library Bulletin), a pamphlet by him (which one can clearly see from the scans was published and distributed) can be considered reliable. If anyone has objections to this, let's discuss it. Dylan 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Goodness, I didn't even raise objections; that'll teach me to just edit. Anyway, the issue about Jonathan Good was that there were two different last names I didn't understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, I know what you mean, but I figured you had gotten to the page through this FAC, so I kind of interpreted them as necessary steps for the FAC. Sorry -- I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Dylan 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't want to register a comment here and then have to followup when the fixes were easy; it looks good, and I certainly like the new TOC better. Does Core Values need to be capitalized per WP:MSH (proper noun)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• I initially thought Dartmouth capitalizes the term, but it turns out they don't: [1]. I'll change it in the article. Dylan 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support This is a fantastic improvement to a GA-class article. All the gaps have been tightened and it's been reinforced with a load of new sources. I had a qualm before about the Athletics section, but I see it has been addressed. I've made many contributions to this article, but nowhere near the number Dylan has made. In my opinion, it qualifies for FA status; nice job. - DMCer 04:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - a lot of work to be done. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues:

• 1.) Infobox - Campus, it states: "Rural town, 269 acres (1.1 km²) — almost 50,000 acres (200 km²) total." What does this mean? As I reader, I shouldn't have to decipher a meaning. Is the campus 269 acres in Hanover, but 50,000 acres somewhere else?

• Addressed: [2]. Dylan 10:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• 2.) Infobox - NCAA Division I-AA? I-AA doesn't exist anymore - it's the FCS or Football Championship Series. I shouldn't be catching things like this at this stage.

• Addressed by DMCer: [3]. Dylan 03:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• 3.) Lead - If you had only 7 sentences to describe the most important things about Dartmouth, would one of them include a quote of what Booz Allen Hamilton thinks of Dartmouth? If you answer "yes" to this, clearly the focus of the article is out of whack. Even if you do believe this (which would be kinda crazy, in my opinion), the lead is supposed to summarize the article (i.e. eveything in the lead should be included somewhere else in the article). The lead is not supposed to add any new information.

• Comment I think that is an important lead-in to the history section. It puts Dartmouth's past in perspective and that's part of how the college defines itself today.-DMCer 06:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with DMCer -- it's a good, general setup that establishes both Dartmouth's importance as a whole and the tone of its history. Its inclusion where it is may not follow the letter of the law, but I believe that in this context it is best for the article. Dylan 13:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (something else occurred to me) -- also, the thrust of that sentence is the challenges in Dartmouth's history and the devotion of the alumni, which are discussed later on. I think that introducing a particular fact that illustrates that point is/should be acceptable, even if the fact itself is not repeated later. Dylan 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• I still strongly disagree with you guys. You suggest it is an "important lead-in" and "general setup" - well, that is not the point of the lead. A lead is supposed to summarize an article. See WP:LEAD. At the very least, it should be moved to the history section if want want to mention Booz Allen that badly. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: It might fit better under "Academic reputation." I think I'll move it there. Dylan 10:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 4.) Lead is too short for an article of this length and the focus is odd. There are 7 content oriented sections. Only three (history, academics, alumni) are mentioned in the lead.
• 5.) History - has only one sub-section. What are you dividing if there's only one sub-section? Either should include 2 or more, or none.

• Addressed: [4]. Dylan 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 6.) History - lists are bad. Convert list of presidents to prose or eliminate all together.

• Addressed: [5]. Dylan 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 7.) Academics - Avoid academic boosterism. Phrases like "[it] is one of the most selective educational institutions in the world" tells us absolutely nothing. You could say, "Princeton Review ranked Dartmouth as the Xth most selective school in the nation in 2007" or "Darthmouth's 15.3% acceptance rate was the Xth lowest in the country." Stick to facts and let people interpret it themselves.

• Addressed: [6][7]. Dylan 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Much better. However, I still think the second sentence in the Academic reputation section contributes next to nothing - it's just somebody's opinion and 11th is pretty damn good anyways. I'd eliminate the Academic reputation sub-heading and just move the two remaining sentences to the intro portion of Academics. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 8.) Academics - give exact numbers. Don't give vague values when you should be able to get more precise figures. e.g. "little over 1,000 places" (I'm sure admissions says they target a certain small range), "within the low 700s," "about 90%."

• Reply: I've done this when possible, but all the vague numbers you cite are direct reflections of the sources: [8][9] The SAT scores are given as the range of the median 50%. I removed "about" from 90%, but I gather from the site that it is not an exact 90.00% we're talking about. As for the class size, it varies every year due to the yield on the ~2,000 accepted students, anywhere from 1,050 - 1,100; there is no hard-and-fast slot count, so it's impossible to be more precise than it is already. Dylan 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 9.) Don't start sentences with numbers (e.g. "30%" should be "Thirty percent"). Follow other standard writing rules.

• Addressed: [10]. Dylan 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 10.) Errant commas - "30% of the members of the Class of 2011 graduated as valedictorian, and 10% as salutatorian." Why a comma? This suggests the entire article needs to by copyedited.

• Addressed: [11]. After rewriting the necessary sections (per your suggestions), I'll follow through with an intensive copyedit of the entire article. (I did so before nominating it, too, but I guess a few things slipped by). Dylan 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 11.) Other incorrect punctuation - "Integral to the undergraduate college are three graduate schools, Dartmouth Medical School..." Comma the proper punctuation mark? Again, suggests this entire article needs to by copyedited.

• Addressed: [12]. Dylan 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 12.) More grammar problems - You need to take a close look at every sentence before nominating. "In 2007, Dartmouth was ranked eleventh among undergraduate programs at national universities by U.S. News and World Report" At?

• Reply: Doesn't seem like a grammatical problem to me. Yes, "undergraduate programs at national universities." They're "at" the university -- they're a type of college located at a larger institution. Dylan 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I guess I misinterpreted "national universities" in the sentence. Sorry! I was thinking it should be "among undergraduate programs classified as national universities," but that doesn't make much sense in hindsight. My mistake. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 13.) Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-06-23 Sherman Fairchild Physical Sciences Center.JPG is not appearing on my monitor, for some reason after continually refreshing it. A problem with my computer? Probably. Maybe a problem with the size of my monitor. It's not large enough and the unnecessary quote box in the next sentence makes it so it doesn't appear? I could be wrong about this, though, as to the reason it isn't rendering properly. But the quote box is unnecessary.

• Reply: Regarding the image, see my response to #19 -- I think that's a Wikipedia issue. As for the quote box, why is it unnecessary? The sentence inside it is the mission statement, and since that's the title of the section, I would think it should be set off and given its own little part of the page. It seems like if it were to be embedded or something that both its impact would be lost and the flow would be disrupted. (How would one introduce that in prose? "Dartmouth's mission statment is:" ?). Dylan 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• That particular image is still is not appearing on my screen several days later. Is it on yours? I'm thinking it's more than a wikipedia server issue and might have something to do with the layout, but I'm not sure. Speaking of the layout, it'd be nice to rotate the placement of the images more often. Most are right-aligned. Regarding the quote box, I was just going off that I was expecting some amazing statement, and instead it's just a generic statement that every other university in the entire world also has something similar to, in my opinion. "Dartmouth College educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership, through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge." Wow.....This doesn't set it apart from other universities. Why mention it? -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 14.) Mission statement and core values and Honor Code sections should be combined and shortened. Don't have bulleted lists! Is it really necessary to mention every single Dartmouth core value? Most schools have codes like this, so I don't find it particularly interesting.

• Reply: I'm sure you know as well as I do that whether something is "interesting" has no bearing on its inclusion on Wikipedia. We're talking about the guiding, fundamental principles of the institution at hand; how could this not be materially important to understanding the school? The fact that other schools also have mission statements and core values doesn't seem relevant to me. Other schools also have campuses and alumni and presidents, but we discuss them all anyway. Dylan 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reply: Also, the core values as an original document is a bulleted list ([13]). It doesn't seem wise or helpful to convert it to prose. Dylan 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reply: I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I lean towards its removal as well - not because it's "uninteresting", but because the article should be what's important to Dartmouth and about Dartmouth. Does the mission statement, and particularly the core values, actually affect Dartmouth? My response would be "no". It's true - every school has a mission statement and core values, and they all say pretty much the same things (so it's not a unique thing at Dartmouth). They're just part of the propaganda machine. Yes, propaganda can be important to report, but perhaps the question is whether that propaganda has actually affected anyone either outside of Dartmouth or anything major that Dartmouth has done (and wouldn't have been done without those guiding ideas). --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I still think they should be shortened because, as Smith120bh states, these things are not unique to Dartmouth. But, I guess, people could have differing opinions on this matter. -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 15.) Board of Trustees - "Dartmouth is governed by a Board of Trustees. The board includes the College president" -> "Dartmouth is governed by a Board of Trustees that includes the..." Topic sentences like that don't give me confidence in the professional standard of the prose.

• Addressed: [14]. Dylan 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 16.) Campus and landholdings - waaay too many short stubby sections. Do we really need an entire section about the Dickey Center for International Understanding? Scientific research facilities is only 3 sentences long.

• Addressed: [15]. You're right, this was sort of a mish-mash of only certain campus facilities (and the Dickey Center isn't even a physical building, it's an institution). I've revised this into a review of all of Dartmouth's physical spaces, which makes it both more comprehensive and more accurate. Dylan 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Much better, but, to be honest, still not my favorite section. I guess I am just not a fan of having 7 consecutive sections with one or two short paragraphs (except athletic facilities which has 3). But combining just to combine is not wise either...-Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 17.) Athletic facilities - too many details and again a bulleted list! Convert to prose.

• Addressed: [16]. Dylan 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• 18.) Athletics - don't wikilink common words (e.g tennis). See Only make links that are relevant to the context. Nickname, symbol, and mascot needs more citations.

• Addressed: [17]. Dylan 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 19.) Image:Dartmouth College campus 2007-06-23 Robinson Hall.JPG doesn't appear on my computer again. Now I'm thinking there's something wrong with my computer or the server or something. When I click the link it does open it up, though.

• Reply: Yeah, I think it's a server thing. Wikipedia was running a banner a few days ago about how some images aren't showing up. "Robinson Hall" has been spotty for me as well, as with "Flag icon of the United States." It's not particular to this article. Dylan 12:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• 20.) Traditions - bulleted list again.

• Addressed: [18]. Dylan 03:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• 21.) Alumni - This is nowhere near an FA-quality section. Short list of alumni. Please expand majorly. See current FAs for how to do it.

• Addressed: [19]. Dylan 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Great improvements! -Bluedog423^Talk 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 22.) Seal - waaay too many details. Quotes? Unnecessary.

• Addressed: [20]. I've felt similarly for a long time -- this was merged in as the decision from an AfD of Dartmouth College Seal. I've deleted it entirely as not having any bearing on the subject -- preserved at User:Kane5187/Dartmouth College. Dylan 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I don't think it should be removed entirely. I agree, and have felt for a long time, that it should be cut down significantly, but I think it is important enough to have something about it in there. Also, perhaps a small section on this would be the place to mention the debate over the translation of "vox clamantis in deserto", and some things like that. Anyways, I think it's an important part of the Dartmouth propaganda, and does have a lot of history attached to it - certainly, it's at least as important as the mission statement and core values. --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Agreed; it had some important historical facts in it. I think parts of the seal section should be included, or perhaps summarize it and give the seal its own separate article (which might not be necessary, this one sure isn't [21]). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMCer (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I still feel like it was given very undue weight. How about creating a section about the symbol, the seal, the mascot, the nickname, the alma mater? I can't think of a good title, but I think all those things are tied together by the same element -- official and unofficial representations of the College. Dylan 10:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Dylan - yep, that's basically what I was trying to suggest. I wish there were something good we could do with all the information in that Dartmouth Seal section - it's really well-written, well-cited, and great research - but it is just too much detail to really do much with a lot of it. DMCer - the section was a result of AfD on the standalone article that it used to be - I don't think it can be made into its own article again. But yes, I think summarize it down, and make a section for perhaps "Insignia and other representations" or "Hallmarks of Dartmouth" or something like that. I can't think of a good title either... --_└ ^Smith120bh/_TALK ^┐ 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is good, I'm not saying it's not, but it has a long way to go to be FA quality. You have to ask yourself, if I had only 2,000 words to describe everything there is to know about Dartmouth, what would I say? If something is slightly unnecessary, delete it. Too many details about random things. Organizational problems, in general. The TOC looks very messy and there are many short stubby sections, particularly under Campus and landholdings. This was a review without really reading the article and its prose. I'm sure there are many prose issues and other content issues. These problems are just noted from a cursory glance at the article. Good luck! -Bluedog423^Talk 02:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow! That's a lot of work to be done. Thanks for the suggestions, I will begin addressing them. Dylan 10:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

• 1.) History - "founded the nearby Noyes Academy 1835" - please copyedit the whole article

• Addressed: [22]. DMCer 01:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 2.) In Popular Culture - "alma mater for a number of fictional characters, including [...] two leading characters of the 2007 film Superbad." Can you consider a school somebody's alma mater if they haven't even attended it yet? They're high school seniors in the movie. Minor quibble, but was just curious.

• Addressed: [23]. DMCer 07:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• 3.) It would be nice to create a
  for all the Dartmouth-associated articles.

  • 4.) Dead links. Go through all the references and make sure they're all active links. 25 is a dead link and I have only clicked 3 of the links. -Bluedog423^Talk

  • That's... gonna be a problem. The Dartmouth is a heavily-used source in this and other Dartmouth-related articles, but when they redid their website this year, they quit providing an archive beyond 2006. Wayback Machine doesn't have anything on it. ...what can be done about that? Dylan 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)