George Washington University was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been 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 Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Cleanup
Mst48 cleaned-up and organized the talk page on October 26, 2006. If there are objections message him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mst48 (talk • contribs) 16:37, October 26, 2007 (UTC)
Summary
"This article seems is like a magazine ad sponsored by gwu."
I can't help but agree. Nowhere in the article is anything slightly negative mentioned about the university, though GWU most notably has made quite a few enemies. The article fails to mention the frequent clashes with Foggy Bottom residents, the high tuition, the housing issues, the alleged depressed state of its undergraduate population, or the horrible reputation of GW's financial aide offices. Without mentioning even a single one of these issues, I can't help but challenge the neutrality of this article. --70.91.82.12921:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC), bcaiko
"Depressed student body"? I know there was a string of suicides a couple years ago, but I haven't heard of anything since. Was there some study done on the subject?[reply]
Name of article
Why isn't the article titled "The George Washington University" with George Washington University being a redirect to it? Sycocowz 22:16, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I was about to accuse you of being a student but seems a bit early, but you are from the DC area... :) I figured only people who attended would know how rabidly they love the "The".
My dad worked there for a long time. :) Sycocowz 00:37, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC
I was about to move it, but started pondering... apart from The Pentagon, how many articles of things like this (a university or institution) have "The" in the name? Or maybe GWU is unique BECAUSE it has the The, and nothing else does.
Okay, never mind - Catholic U is at "The Catholic University of America" so that's a winner. I'll move it, thanks. :) --Golbez 22:30, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty dubious about the the being here. Also about the the in Catholic...I am also from the DC area, and my dad went to law school there, and I'd never heard of any special mania for the the until just now. And, as noted, we tend not to include "The" in article titles except a) for disambiguation and b) in titles of works. This doesn't seem to apply in either case. johnk 06:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The" in the name was somewhat of a running joke when I was there (class of 2000), the school president went kind of rabid with it. --Golbez 07:37, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Are you serious? Surely this is a tempest in a teapot worthy of a debating society running low on topics of discourse. Would that our legislature and political culture would become obsessed with such minutae. Perhaps it would serve to lower the level of partisanship and acrimony that we have now.
Are you sure? even in contexts where basic grammar would call for the use of the definite article? citation to authority to support your assertion?
Oppose. Look at their website. All references – when an abbreviation is not offered – include the 'The'. Noisy | Talk 10:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I take issue with referencing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and its six-week history, created and exclusively edited by (with one exception) a single user. The George Washington University is consistent in using the (capitalized) definite article when referring to itself, and I can't help but think that this was put forth in response to the article's citation in the Mormon debate lower on this page, but none of these factors leads me to support one title over another at this time. ADH (t&m) 10:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I also take issue with quoting this as "policy" - this all seems to be the work of one person. Jooler 11:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support'. The link above (as Neutrality originally posted, and then curiously broke two minutes later) is quite informative: Wikipedia almost always links to George Washington University, not The George Washington University. My remarks below on official names hold: these organizations should not be able to force us to abandon common usage. I recognize that an article title beginning in ‘The’ does not equate to the preposterous capitalization of ‘the’ in the middle of a sentence, but it does encourage the practice. Like ADH, I reject these style guidelines, as they too are the product of individual editors (or, in this case, an individual editor); but I also reject reference to the organization’s own publications as definitive, and Lowellian’s proposal is a good guideline. Technically all universities named ‘University of X’ are ‘The University of X’, but we would not title the articles so. If — if — common usage supports it, we can use ‘the’ before the name in the text of the article, provided that it is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence. Otherwise, we are allowing a private organization with a conflict of interest to dictate how we describe it. The insistence on ‘The’ by GW, OSU, and LDS is marketing and vanity. That I wholly reject. — Ford 13:33, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
Support. No one other than the university and lackeys commonly refer to it with the "The". There are dozens of other universities whose official names and logos include the The, and yet most of the titles do not include the The and most are not commonly referred to as such. This isn't even about "officialness" it's a matter of most commonly used name. I'd have a LOT more sympathy for the LDS change if it's proponents dropped the "officialness" argument and focused on demonstrating that it is commonly known and referred to with the The in its name. older≠wiser 17:11, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - why do people have a problem with 'the definite articile'. Wikipedia isn't organised alphabetically, so it makes no odds. Jooler 18:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Definitely. Proteus(Talk) 18:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
’Oppose - it struck me as well that this only popped up after it was cited in the LDS debate. Many universities use "the" as part of their name (and are even listed under "T" in the phone book). The address for the University of Aberdeen was (and I'm guessing still is) actually The University, Aberdeen, U.K." Guettarda 01:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Trodel 03:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) - Changing a name to keep it from being quoted as precedent is not good policy - plus over 500 links to change ::what a hassle. I don't understand why there is such opposition to naming articles according to the official name. That is the way I read the policy (quoted in entirety here (save new reference mentioned above):
Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name.
Um, please read on that same page, where it discusses universities specifically as an exception. -- Netoholic@ 04:16, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
I again take issue with quoting this as "policy" - this all seems to be the work of one person and indeed that specific part of the policy was arbitrarily changed very recently. Look at the talk page. - Jooler 11:05, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That standard seems to have worked well for a long time, and had good support before its addition. If you want to change that standard, in a broad sense, then bring it up on the talk page. Until a change to that standard has been accepted by consensus, it is not reasonable to apply it selectively and oppose movement of this article. When a standard has n% support, you do not apply it to only n% of articles. -- Netoholic@ 18:04, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
And in response to the claim of “over 500 links to change”, the number of pages (not counting this one) linking ultimately to this article is one hundred sixty-one, by my count, of which only six are pages linking directly to The George Washington University. One hundred forty-seven are pages linking first to George Washington University and then being redirected. Four link first to GWU or Columbian College and are redirected; and four are the redirects themselves. — Ford 04:26, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Support. Consistency is good and the policy is reasonable, whoever wrote it. I probably wouldn't even think of linking to this with a "the" but just assume an article was missing if the link turned out to be red. / up+land 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Google news search shows that midsentence capitalization of "The" in the name is quite common (although not consistant). They appear unusually zealous about it as an official name. Cool HandLuke 01:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support Initial "The" should only be there in exceptional circumstances. Eclecticology 18:38, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
’Support' As I noted above, I'm from Washington and my father went to law school at GW, and I'd never heard of it as "The George Washington University" until this page. They do seem to be strangely rabid about it, but that just means we should bold "the" at the beginning of the article, not have the article be here. johnk 19:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Support. Otherwise we get into a tiring debate about The George Washington University or the George Washington University. Why is it never TGWU? (That was me Audiovideo on 00:53, 28 Feb 2005 )
Oppose - As a grad student at The George Washington University, I assure you that everyone, when not calling it "GW", uses the "The" everytime. MicahMN | Talk 13:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
’Oppose' - Definitely with the "the"...I added the Alma Mater but didn't mention this: as an inside joke, the school's pep band (which plays the song at the end of every home game) strongly accents the "thee" in the last line as indirect emphasis for the "The" in the school's name. It's The George Washington University. TJ0513 12:12, 2005 Oct 24 (UTC)
I can't believe you guys and the amount of space you have wasted on this frivolous discussion worthy of died in the wool pharisees. Surely there are other facts and issues emanating from your worthy alma mater that deserve discussion and showcasing that could lead this page. What if the Terrapins wasted time worrying about the The in the University of Maryland instead of honing their basketball program or if THE Washington Post ran lost pet stories from page 40 as its headline. Give us a break! For those of you condiring law school, pretentiously engaging in an extended exercise of petty pedantry like this in a legal brief in the manner of usenet/weblog trolls, instead of addressing matters of substance, is considered to show lack of maturity and to be frivolous and forms the basis for monetary sanctions by the Court which the opposing party would demand.Tom Cod
I understand, I really do, that the administration of the George Washington University likes, for whatever, reason, to call it that. But we are most certainly not obligated to slavishly follow the dictates of the subject of an article. The press pretty much universally does not use the "the" (see this Google News search, for instance). Furthermore, there is not a single other university located with the article, even when the article is commonly used. For instance, we do not have The University of Virginia, even though this is how the school would normally be referred to in a sentence. That is to say, one would say "Sabato is a professor at the University of Virginia," but also "Smith is a professor at George Washington University." It is beyond pretentious to include "the" in the article title. john k21:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice also that a search for The George Washington University yields many results which refer to things like "the George Washington University School of Law," or else generally come from either small news sources or press releases. And there are 237 hits for "the George Washington University" as compared to 2460 hits for "George Washington University" without "the". john k 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Also note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Universities. During the previous debate, this convention was quite new, and was generally not seen as authoritative. However, at this point, the advice not to use direct articles in names of universities has stood for about a year and a half, without serious disagreement. Furthermore, articles on other universities with the definite article as an official part of their names, are pretty much always not located with the direct article. We have Ohio State University, not The Ohio State University. Once again, it is pretentious and absurd to leave the article at its current location. john k22:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - GW Law requires its students to write "The George Washington University" on their resumes. That's the name of the school. Without a doubt. I'm going to propose adding 'The' to the The Ohio State University right now, too. The anti-article jihad needs to be reigned in. --Gopple22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing about what GW's official name is. Wikipedia does not, however, have a "Use official names" policy. We use common names, and the university is generally referred to sans article. john k23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant GW's law school requires its students to do that. I'm not sure how that could possibly be enforced... john k00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As noted above, a textbook case of the Wikipedia naming convention that states, "If the definite or indefinite article article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name."AjaxSmack02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
’Oppose'. The school is quite clearly referred to as "The George Washington University." The hospital, too, is referred to as "The George Washington University Hospital." Perhaps it's pedantic or anal, but that is what the school uses to refer to itself, in all of its literature, buildings, etc. I actually live here, and spend a lot of time at GW. ... aa:talk04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainSupport - as the asshole who moved this originally, I will simply sit back and watch. Why the hell not. :) --Golbez04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The definite article should not be used for universities, even if the official name of the university uses the definite article, as indicated on the website links below.
That "convention" is not a consensus opinion. Referring to the arbitrary rule instituted by Lowellian is no more persuasive than if I carved out an exception for The George Washington University and posted on that page. Note that the main rule (and the logic in the entire "convention" article besides Lowellian's arbitrary university exception) requires the use of "The" when groups use it in their official materials (e.g. The Citadel, The Nature Conservancy). My point is that the "naming convention" for Universities, as invented by Lowellian, is arbitrary and out of sync with the rest of the convention. The title should be the official name of the university. If I might point out, the resistance appears to be related to certain people feeling that "The" is too pretentious - that view is POV and irrelevant to the discussion. --Gopple07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This argument - that the convention was not supported by consensus, was fair enough in January 2005, when it had just been created. It has now sat undisputed for over a year, and as such I see no reason to treat it differently from any other naming convention. It is also not out of sync with our general "use common names" position. john k18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - part of the name. Lowellian is an evangelist when it comes to the removal of the definite article and has in the past suggested removing it from articles like The Who and The Beatles. Jooler07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the first thing you say in your comment is an attack against me when I did not even request this move; I think john k did. In any case, Jooler, what you say is simply not true. I have said that it was my personal opinion that I disliked the definite article in those two article names, but I have never actually advocated removing the definite article, and furthermore, I even formalized the convention that says that musical groups like The Beatles and The Who should retain the definite article once others showed me that the convention was already in widespread use. I am more interested in maintaining standard conventions throughout Wikipedia than in pushing any personal view, so stop putting words into my mouth. —Lowellian (reply) 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the arguments have changed from last time, and neither has my opinion. I think that we should respect the organization's wish to identify itself as it wants, and not force our opinion of what 'common usage' is. In trying to define common usage of a phrase, aren't we taking a 'point of view'? Noisy | Talk09:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we're taking a point of view — the neutral point of view. ("As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.") Proteus(Talk)10:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a position? If the should be removed from the title, it should be, and if it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be. If it were at George Washington University, would you also oppose the move, because "moving just to add "the" to the title is unnecessary?" That seems crazy to me. john k18:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might as I generally support the status quo unless good reason for change is presented; however, I support the use of "The" when it is part of the name/trademark of an organization and the organization has taken steps to protect that name. btw, I have read/seen the style pages above and they are style guidelines not wikipedia policies. Trödel•talk15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, to make it in line with other universities and general usage. Note also that the incompetents those making the move and all subsequent editors seem to be unaware of the need to fix the category indexing by including the appropriate sort key, without "The". Gene Nygaard12:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [modified 13:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Support per policy regarding the word the and because (being from the Washington area) I have never heard the university referred to as "The George Washington University"; it is always referred to as "George Washington University" in speech.
Support, as noted above. There's little need to forego convention by including an extraneous definite article in the title (which can still be reflected in the lead, as currently) nor to promulgate marketing mojo for an unambiguously named institution. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be named after what the university calls itself. We don't have Madonna's article at Madonna Ciccone. For that matter, we don't have McDonalds at The McDonalds Restaurant. We name articles after what the subject is named. GW could not be any more clearly The GW University. I would suggest that most of you voting here find out whether the article should be named after the university, regardless of whether you think it's correct. ... aa:talk04:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for Wikipedia articles it not "what something calls itself" but how it is mostly commonly known, as the google news search demonstrates. Beyond this, the basic policy with use of "the" in titles is that it is only included if, when included in a sentence, it would be capitalized. I am quite dubious that one would refer to The George Washington University, rather than the George Washington University, or simply George Washington University, which is the name used in the vast majority of press reports. Current naming policy demands that we remove "the" from the title of this article. BTW, why is our article at Wendy's rather than Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers? The later is the name featured on the logo, and so forth. john k05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, many of the hits including the word the are with a lowercase "the", including things such as references to "the George Washington University Colonials" and "the George Washington University campus" and the like. Some of those will be capitalized, some not, but the word the would be used in that context for schools which clearly do not have "The" in their official names, such as "the Harvard campus" or whatever. Gene Nygaard13:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers isn't the official name of the restaurant chain. Wendy's ® is [1]. That would be like naming Harvard University, "Harvard University, Veritas" just because there are words in the logo. Honestly, using the official name is more relevant in an encyclopedia that exists to discuss actual, factual topics, instead of generic stylized listings.--Gopple07:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article naming convention is NOT about the official or legal names of entities. It is about how things are most commonly referred to. As I mentioned in the old vote above, few people other than official GWU mouthpieces and lackeys include the definite article as part of the name. Check Google News for usage by news organizations: 242 hits for "The George Washington University", and many of these use a lower case "the". The few using a capitalized "The" appear to be press releases from the Universtity or affiliated groups that were picked up by other sites. Compare this with 2,760 hits for "George Washington University". We should not let the whims of corporate or academic vanity dictate how articles are titles. older ≠ wiser17:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is...as mentioned above: The Beatles, The Nature Conservancy. From what I can tell, the OCD among you cannot stand to have an entry that actually exists with its actual information instead of arbitrary generic naming conventions. If we're going to do an analysis to determine what *people* call something, how is it that the "The" was removed from Ohio State University? The millions of Americans who watch pro or college football KNOW that that university is always referred to as The Ohio State University? My point here is that the arguments in support of removing the article are inconsistent. The official naming policy of the university serves both the educational function and accuracy goal of Wikipedia.--Gopple19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proof please? I grew up in Ohio and was even somewhat of a Buckeyes fan. Kind of hard to avoid. VERY few people I know would insist upon the "The" as part of the name -- except as a curiosity and acknowledgment of an eccentricity of the University. older ≠ wiser19:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any NFL telecast where the players introduce themselves and where they went to schoool. To a man, they stress the "The" in The Ohio State University. --Gopple16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty rich for the absurd pedants who insist on "The George Washington University" to accuse us of being "the OCD among us". I am asking for the use of a logical name, which is used in >90% of media references to the school, while you are insisting that we kowtow to the school's ridiculously insecure desire to be constantly referred to with a direct article, a fact of which I (who grew up just outside DC and whose father received his JD and LLM from GW) was completely unaware until I found this wikipedia article. The current title is a clear and obvious violation of Wikipedia:Use common names, and is ridiculously pedantic to boot. I don't see how disliking this title makes me "OCD". john k21:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem pretty invested in changing the title from the status quo/official name for having a passing knowledge of the university. This has little to do with kowtowing, and more to do with respecting the name of an institution instead of creating arbitrary rules that have no practical purpose. --Gopple16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
History of the Campus
Basically this is an article to be praised, very good stuff,
however, having gotten my degree from here in history, I am not really happy with the part about the history of the campus.
I had been told that the original campus was on Capitol Hill, that it was located there at the time of the Civil War, and that some building which was part of the campus was used as a hospital then for wounded soldiers. So, could somebody who knows more about this possibly add some info about this ?John5Russell3Finley02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The campus was originally located on Meridian Hill, as mentioned in the article. Various buildings have been scattered around the city, but that would be far too long to mention them all. There was nothing in Capitol Hill that I know of, and the University's history site doesn't mention them. The hospital was on the Meridian Hill campus, and for some reason that wasn't in the article so I added it. --Awiseman17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The original campus was on Meridian Hill, then called College Hill. Nearby Columbia Road was named for Collumbian College. The original campus was between 14th & 15th strets and from Columbia Road to Florida Avenue (formerly Boundary Road). The medical center was at Judiciary Square at the time. No GW/Columbian buildings have ever been on Capitol Hill.
O.K., I can't prove otherwise, though my Dad who claims he had a cousin who graduated from there when it was on Capital Hill said this was so, also perhaps ask Prof.s Peter Hill, Leo Ribufo and Marcus Cunliffe, I think all of them said same when I was in their classes.John5Russell3Finley02:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precise area of GWU?
I'm hoping to eventually create a map somewhat like this for tGWU, but am having trouble pinning down the exact area of the University. Lots of places on the internet (i.e. almost all) have maps that look somewhat like this (EDIT:hmm, Mapquest's linking feature seems on the fritz. here is a similar Google Map), but I'm almost certain those are wrong. I could have sworn the campus extended further south (and east) than that, and the university itself shows buildings beyond those boundaries [2]. I'm not familiar enough with the university to know where it starts and ends though. Can someone familiar with the area either "verbally" describe the boundaries, or post a simple MS paint job to imageshack so I can create a PD satellite outline? --YbborTalk02:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single contiguous campus. Most things in the area bounded by 19th Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, and F Street are GWU classroom, dorm, or administrative buildings, but not all; the university owns several buildings which is uses as sources of revenue rather than as university facilities (e.g. One Washington Circle; there is another campus, at the site of the former Mount Vernon College; and some buildings (e.g. the former Howard Johnson's on Virginia Avenue) are dormitories that aren't really near campus, that the university runs a shuttle service to. --Stlemur23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that area seems a little big to me, but I'll take your word on it. Is it impossible then, to create a map? Google Earth allows you to zoom down well enough to make out buildings in good detail. would it theoretically be possible to make some such map? --YbborTalk23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I actually have a boundary of the campus plan at work (I work for the city), so I can get that. However, there are some buildings outside the official campus plan boundaries, like the Howard Johnson that Stlemur mentioned and others. And there's also this map, but that includes some buildings that are only partially used by GW, like some of the outlying ones. What I can do is make a mockup of just the official plan boundary, and one that would include the other nearby buildings outside the campus plan. I think the latter would be best. I could put Mt. Vernon as an inset or something. --AW00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The George Washington University's Foggy Bottom Campus is generally bound by 24th Street on the West, 19th Street on the East, Pennsylvania Avenue on the North, and F Street on the South.
Thanks AW, that's a great map! I've included an image at right, with a general idea of how we can caption it. Let me know if you guys want to change the boundaries slightly or something. Do we also want to consider having a map show its general location inside the city as a whole? --YbborTalk02:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would include the empty lot where the Hospital used to be, I think they're building a parking lot there? --Golbez22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not labeled as anything on AW's map, I'm hesitant to include it. What do you guys think? Also, since there's been no objection, I'm going to post the current image to the main page.--YbborTalk13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, I kept forgetting. I may do a little update to that map and add a few things if that's cool. For example, I wouldn't really consider Columbia Plaza (SW of Virginia Ave) as on campus, it's a huge apartment complex and GW rents part of it, and there's a few dorms missing as well, like City Hall and Int'l House. As for the the old hospital site, it's GW owned, but they're planning on putting offices and stuff there, not academic use. So it could go either way. --AW02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the following - the old hospital site (Sq. 54), since it will be mixed-use development owned by GW and some of it will be student housing, Alumni House/President Knapp's House and the IMF annex next door (land owned by GW)on north side of 1900 block of F Street. Also, the Dakota residence hall and the Anniversary Park - both on the south side of F Street, and International House residence hall at 22nd & Virginia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.233.219 (talk • contribs)
There's a difference between 'owned by the university' and 'part of the university'. I would strongly advise against including the IMF building. I would also suggest against including the 2000 Penn mall, but that would require slicing that block in half, and look ugly. --Golbez17:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Everyone seems to have different ideas of what should be included, I want to make sure we all have the ability to make the maps we want. here is the source image I used. The URL is in the adress bar if you want to go there yourself and pan around a little bit. Be sure you use images from the USGS National viewer and not something like Google maps, becasue USGS is public domain. --YbborTalk20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Golbez, the IMF and 2000 Penn aren't used by the University at all, just rented to somebody else. --AW14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2000 Penn was developed as a gateway building for the GW campus. That is why a gate with "The George Washington University" written above in bronze letters is located at the Eye Street front of the complex. The campus gate entrance leads to the shops within and a brick walk linking the complex to University Yard and rest of campus. So it should be included within the campus boundaries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.30.196 (talk • contribs)
File:GWU.jpgThe GW campus map as I see it. Click for a bigger version. It includes new GW buildings and excludes buildings not owned by GW and buildings not used by GW (like the IMF).OK, I finally made the map I've been talking about. The red is the boundary of the GW campus plan zoning area, which is a city specified thing. The orange areas are parts I think should be added, dorms and other buildings that were built after the campus plan boundary. The yellow crosshatched areas are places that aren't GW owned or are not used by GWU, like the IMF and World Bank buildngs. I'm undecided on the old hospital site. I didn't include Columbia Plaza because it's mostly non-student housing, students only live in some places. Basically I think the map should include the red areas plus the orange areas, minus the yellow areas. --AW17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be ignorance on my part, but isn't the easternmost building in the crosshatch - the PEPCO building - still owned by the university, or did they sell that? --Golbez20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me. Can anyone give a realiable source for what's going on with the old hospital? so far we've heard both parking lot and office space, but neither with a source. I would suggest one very small change to the map though AW: this link says that building south of the senior Citizens home isn't GWU either. Might make the boundaries of the map a littkle cleaner too. --YbborTalk19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez, I don't know if it's GW owned or not, but it's not academic anyway. Ybbor, good point, I missed that one. --AW15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But what's that little southward extension area West of the Dakota? It's not on the map. Is it a park? And it sounded like you were against inclduing the old hospital? --YbborTalk20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 1776 G street does have several classrooms - as well as 2021 K street, those should probably be included on the map as well. Additionally, while the old hospital site hasn't yet been decided on, it is impossible to say it's not part of the campus...even if it's just office space. 76.21.212.1211:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody said there will be classroom space in the old hospital building, which is enough for me. I'm not going to include every random office building with classroom space though, there are a lot of them around downtown. --AW13:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to list EVERY building on campus. That would be a whirlwind of confusing information to the average reader who doesn't know anything about the school. Look at Georgetown's page, for example, and you'll see that they avoid such practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.51.147 (talk • contribs)
I've never heard this:
"It is a common statement on campus that GW is also the largest private university in the state of Virginia (since larger schools like the University of Virginia are state-operated)"
Is it really necessary? Seems odd. --Awiseman21:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First paragraph: "The Mount Vernon campus...is...near Georgetown University."
All right I'm not familiar with the location of the Mount Vernon campus but if it's actually around Mount Vernon I wouldn't call it "near Georgetown." GWU is much nearer Georgetown than Mount Vernon is, so such a statement would be strange.–Clpalmore 2:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The statement is correct. The Mount Vernon campus is just a name (from the former Mount Vernon College) and it's not actually near the real Mount Vernon. It's in the Foxhall area of DC, just west of Georgetown. Ddye04:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Largest Landowner
I'm a GW alum, and I'd always heard the thing about GW being 2nd largest landowner. However, I couldn't find a source for it, and I called the media relations people and they didn't believe it was true, even with the other land the U owns, like the IMF and World Bank. So i'm going to take that out --AW16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endowment
Your NACUBO figure is a year older than USNews'. jrousso 2004-2005 as opposed to 2006.
I removed this text as it's clearly from some promotional literature. However, a cleaned up version might be ok, but there isn't separate sections on the various schools. Do you think this should be added? It would lengthen the article a lot - Columbian College, law school, medical school, Elliott School, etc etc. Here's the text:
The Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University is one of the most dynamic professional schools of international affairs in the world. It traces its roots to 1898, when The George Washington University began instruction in international affairs. In 1988 the School was named for Lloyd Elliott, a former president of GW and a major benefactor of the school, and for his wife Betty. Offering in-depth analysis of international economic, political, scientific and cultural issues, the Elliott School trains our students in the theory and practice of international affairs. The School’s curriculum is interdisciplinary. Most Elliott School full-time faculty are jointly appointed in GW departments such as anthropology, communications, international business, economics, geography, history, law, political science, public policy, public administration, public health, and the humanities. The widely respected faculty prepares more than 2,600 (approximately 600 graduate and 2000 undergraduate) students per year for global careers in the public, private and non-profit sectors. Since 1997, the U.S. Department of Education has named GW as a National Resource Center (NRC) in International Studies, one of only 11 in the U.S. and the only one in the Mid-Atlantic region. Administered by the Elliott School, this award recognizes excellence in foreign language instruction and international studies.
I would create a separate entry for the Elliott School and link to it from this page. I agree that this article would get way, way too long if we went into this much depth about each of the schools. I'm eventually planning on writing a medical school entry that I'll link to from this page. As soon as finals are over, I hope. Bjackrian14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed somebody (172.155.230.98) posted a note about GW's tuition being the second-most expensive undergraduate tuition ($36,400 this year) in the US (which is true, it is second only to Landmark College ($37,738)) [4]. This edit was reverted by Bhadani - why? Maybe it wasn't placed appropriately, but I'm surprised this information wasn't already mentioned in the article and think it should be. If there's anything GW should be known for (besides its law school), it's its extremely high tuition. -VJ05:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - you can find the tuition listings for GW here - the chronicle figures are for students entering this year as full-time undergrads - while tuition for past and older continuing students fluctuates (i.e. raises) from year to year, the figures for freshmen are fixed so that they will retain the same yearly tuition as long as they remain full-time students at GW (up to 10 semesters). The list from the chronicle is reproduced here in a comment, and I'll repost it here for good measure:
College 2005-06
tuition
1-year increase
Landmark
$37,738
2.7%
George Washington U.
$36,400
7.0%
U of Richmond
$34,850
31.4%
Sarah Lawrence
$34,042
5.0%
Kenyon
$33,930
5.5%
Vassar
$33,800
7.8%
Trinity
$33,630
5.3%
Bennington
$33,570
8.0%
Simon's Rock College of Bard
$33,364
7.0%
Hamilton (NY)
$33,350
5.2%
Figures represent tuition and required fees for first-time, full-time undergrads.
Looks like this has come up again with another user adding, and another reverting. It might be worth posting what I can find. Forbes of Jan. 19, 2007 Credits tGWU as the most expensive school. However the College Board notes that Landmark College's tuition is $41,275. That's about $2,000 higher than GWU's $39,240. Ideally I'd like to see something Like "GWU currently has the xth highest tuition in the country" But I don't think we'd find a citeable source for that. What does everyone else think we should do? --YbborTalk15:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Landmark is not a fair college to cite when discussing tuition expenses as it is a special needs university. Much of their tuition is actually tax deductible as a medical need [5]. Even if you were to cite Landmark, you need to factor in housing and other expenses. Landmark only charges $7,500 for room AND board per academic year. This is a far cry from the $11,900 for room charged per year from GW [6]
As stated earlier, Wikipedia is not the place for a promotional article about GWU. That GWU charges the highest tuition in the nation is a fact, and from the view of a person not vested or familiar with GWU it is one of the most memorable, notable, and distinguishing pieces of information about the school, hence it should also be in the opening paragraph. I'm putting this back up, if someone wants to add caveats about the tuition and GWU's financial aid they can take this and make it into an entirely new section. If people want propaganda about the university they can go to the school's own website. If someone wants to play with the wording be my guest.34african3408:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)34african34[reply]
Agreed --Also, we do not need to list a breakdown of all GW student costs. Remember, wikipedia is not supposed to an indiscriminate collection of information [[7]]. This is directed at you, Christopherjhan
Advice: On-Campus Housing
If you're going to be paying all that money to go to GWU, you might as well take advantage of their facilities. GW’s dorms are definitely some of the cushiest in the country—the majority of them are converted apartment buildings or hotels, or recently-built facilities. Here's some advice from current students for incoming freshman...
About half of the freshman class will live in Thurston Hall, GW’s largest dorm. Because of its reputation as a “sexually active party dorm,” most students who live in Thurston either love it or hate it, with the majority loving every minute.
"HOVA is really nice because it’s an old Howard Johnson. The rooms were absolutely beautiful—you’re living in total luxury."
“I lived in Mitchell Hall by a fluke freshman year. It’s the only all-single hall on campus, but it’s not at all antisocial.
from College Prowler's campus guidebook; George Washington University: Off the Record
What's the point of this section? Anyway, living on campus sucks, the university patrols and is crazy about busting kids for anything they can, especially alcohol. Awiseman21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have that problem, but I was in Mitchell in 98-00, and for the last year it was a dry dorm. I lived off campus the first two years, so I never experienced the glory/horror of Thurston. --Golbez12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Student Organizations
Folks, is it REALLY necessary to keep adding every speaker and event each group on campus does? These event listings (CRs and CDs in particular) are getting kind of rediculous. Thachize04:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding detailed entries regarding every minor group and organization on campus. We do not need two paragraphs about what the IAS is doing this year, and we do not need long paragraphs about new and relativley small groups (namely, GW Democrats). If you want to put a sentence or two about it in with the mention of CDs, fine. But we do not need a giant fluff piece promoting the group. Thachize 07:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"The giant fluff is only 3 sentences and is properly placed under political orgs. With a membership of close to 1000 - more then the nationally recognized CR’s - and chartered by 3 national organizations, I don't really see the group as "relatively small." Whatever ulterior motives or negative attitude you may have towards the group should not displayed through Wikipedia of all places."
The membership of "close to 1000" only exists as a mailing list and a facebook group, there are no dues paying members. I realize that the group does not require any dues or membership fees (this is how most student groups keep track of membership) but a facebook group and mailing list should not be construded to represent active participants. As I said, I have no problem putting it in with the mention of the CDs. This particular edit was only a few sentences, but previous entries about GW Democrats have been as long as 7 sentences and read as pure promotional material. Take a look at my edit and see what you think. (and for the record, I have no ulterior motives. I have also edited out material from the CRs, IAS, and CDs that was NPOV or just unnecessary. Please do not go around throwing out accusations like that.) Thachize19:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im removing the Puerto Rico Statehood Society. It is NOT a "prominent campus group." It is less than a year old, has a relativly small membership, and the activities mentioned were overblown and for the most part were carried out by a single student (who i suspect wrote that section himself). I also dont know much about the Global AIDS Campaign, so unless they are much bigger than i am thinking they are, they should probably also be removed. The CR's, CD's, and IAS (and maybe STAND) are the main political/international groups on campus. As someone else mentioned, this is not an advertising page and only the main (meaning largest and most active) groups should be mentioned.
Removed the section about the Gw Young Democrats; they're an unofficial student organization not recognized by either the Young Democrats of America or The George Washington University. The GW College Democrats is the only organization on campus recognized by both the University and the Democratic Party.
I think we should trim or delete the sections about the College Dems and IAS. I'm sure there are lots of great clubs at GW, but this isn't an advertising page. What do you all think? Awiseman18:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about the other organizations section - what's the determinant for being listed there? It seems like a few large ones are missing, like the GW Hatchet and Model UN. I think the section should either be defined better or done away with completely - otherwise everybody might start adding their own clubs. --Awiseman22:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to shorten some of these entries, such as the various political groups. Objections? As of now they're just big ads, basically. --Awiseman17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These organizations are not unlike orgs found on other American campuses. They are not particualry notable beyond a blurb (and even then I tend to believe that those are non-notable). But I'm willing to compromise ;)
-- Masonpatriot17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that a seperate sub-section should be made for student media (hatchet, daily colonial, wrgw, etc) instead of putting them in with 'other organizations'? Right now that section seems rather random.
"The giant fluff" is only 3 sentences and is properly placed under political orgs. With a membership of close to 1000 - more then the nationally recognized CR’s - and chartered by 3 national organizations, I don't really see the group as "relatively small." Whatever ulterior motives or negative attitude you may have towards the group should not be displayed through Wikipedia of all places."
Not sure how to add a comment about your change to Global Languages. Anyway, please check with the GW Student Activities Center or call them (202) 994-6555. According to them, there are over 7,200 REGISTERED members of Global Languages. That does NOT account for those who attend free classes and do not register. The Global Languages website should be updated, the correct membership should be added. But let's not change facts here. Membership is 7,200. The organization had so many members that it crashed the GW system and that's why online it has not been updated.Template:Theresa-sorry I forgot to sign[reply]
How can Global Languages have 7,200 members when that is nearly 2/3 of the student body? A distinction should also be placed as most other student orgs have dues paying members. As a GWU student I feel that Global Languages has a relatively minor role on campus compared to orgs such as the CRs, CDs and IAS. 24.128.43.246 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of these blurbs about student groups can be cut. For example, we could just say "there are active College Democrats and College Republicans groups on campus, as well as a new Democrat group called the GW Democrats. GW STAND is part of STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition and calls for divestment in Sudan."
We don't need to list each group's accomplishments. --AW15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, haven't heard anything so I'm going to do this. The sections are getting longer, not shorter, currently.
Can we have consensus on what to with the GW democrats? user:161.253.25.226 keeps adding back the same information, over and over:
"They spend their time registering students to vote, advocating pro-choice/safe-sex issues, encouraging environmental responsibility, and organizing campus efforts to bring US troops home from Iraq. Determined to serve the DC community, in May 2006 the GW Dems adopted Thaddeus Stevens Elementary School (the oldest public school in the District of Columbia--opened in 1868). While separate organizations, the GW Democrats assist the College Democrats at GWU whenever possible."
To me this reads like an advertisement and contains several statements that should be sourced, yet the contributor (who's talk page notes is a school computer at GWU, presenting a pretty clear case for Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In fact, I would go so far to say that it is likely being contributed by a member of the GW Dems themselves.) does not cite sources (as I have asked him to do both on his talk page and in the edit summaries).
Furthermore this change would make the GW Dems have the longest entry of all the organizations, and their counter-part, the college Republicans gets only two short sentences. This talk page just two headings above notes the importance of keeping the descriptions short. I would just continue to revert this myself, but I feel that there should be some community consensus on the issue before proceeding. --YbborT23:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the request was denied. Perhpas some a judgement from an administrator could add some finality to the discussion? --YbborT22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone removed the point about the student association fee. Why, exactly? It is a 15$ fee, and it is not removable. If we're going to talk about the SA, we should be talking about one of the most contentious points.128.164.102.7322:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since January 9, 2007 this article has said that the GW dems have 800 members. Then, on June 12th 2007 and July 2nd, 2007, they suddenly had 100 members. As of today they have 1500 members. I doubt their membership fluctuates this rapidly. None of these additions have been sourced, and I can't seem to track down any numbers on their website. The only solution I can think of is to remove all numbers from these organizations unless they can proivde a source, but this doesn't seem a very good option. Does anyone have some definitive evidence (I'm not a GWU student (not yet anyway)), but is there some department where these numbers are tracked, and someone who is a student can get some official word? --YbborTalk21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair, though I think we should make them provide a source. Whatever administrative office regulates student groups might have that. Dunno. --AW21:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Its additional information that might be helpful to a researcher. Does it harm the process? It's certainly not an indiscriminate list because the presidents still have a connection to the University-- every commencement they are brought back and honored on stage. --USAAOkay20:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless self-promotion. Dozens of these lists and personal pages are removed every day for lack of significance. Getting yourself invited to a graduation hardly merits a wikipedia mention. --Gopple02:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I'm an alumnae of the school (who was involved in the student government back in the day) (I'm not listed in the list) but I enjoy reading who's who today. I don't understand what this debate is even about. If there are people who want to see the list, why not just bite the bullet and leave it? --128.164.212.15809:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because wikipedia is "not a random collection of information" or a place for lists of non-notable people. I'm sure the student government website can list the information -- good place for it. --Gopple21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that for the same reason you (USAAOkay) deleted the list of senators, the list of 'recent presidents' and 'vice-presidents' should be deleted. Go ahead and keep the paragraph on the notable folks (gov't folks, Baldwin -- they're actually notable for something besides being an SA president). Is that fair compromise? The list of 'recent presidents' just looks like a vanity add for an otherwise unnotable group. --Gopple01:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I do think, however, that some of the scandals that happened with the SA should be mentioned- there have been a few impeachments of the president as well as one attempt to dissolve the SA by an impeached prez, and another guy who ran for SA president who wasn't actually a student. He later did the same thing at Harvard. To me, that's interesting stuff. --Awiseman20:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Hippo really is a mascot of the school. An inflatable hippo comes to baskeball games, a lot of things are named for the Hippo (like the Hippodrome, the ultimate frisbee team called the Hungry Hungry Hippos, etc). I say leave it in --AW21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An anon keeps removing any mentions of the Hippo. He or she may not like it, but it's a real mascot and appears at most basketball games. It's on the Spirit Programs website as well. This should not be removed. Their website asys "The GW Mascot Squad is made up of 3 mascots who bring to life a small cast of Colonial characters. George, Big George, and Hippo are three of our famous GW Colonials." [8] --AW19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hippo is merely a product of the current (and outgoing) president. It is unofficial and extremely unpopular among alumni. Why not just leave it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.30.196 (talk • contribs)
Because it exists and appears at sporting events. If it's really extremely unpopular, then you should be able to find a source saying that. We can't edit Wikipedia based on our own opinions. I don't like the Hippo either, but like it or not it comes to some sporting events. --AW16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squid: actually, the hippo was not present at home baskeball games this past season and is being retired. Go Colonails - Hail to the Buff & Blue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.30.196 (talk • contribs)
I know that you were at home games this season, didn't you notice that the hippo had left the Smitty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.30.196 (talk • contribs)
Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's done for. If they're getting rid of it though, let me know? --AW21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently User:Mst48 made some serious revisions to the page (diff). I then reverted or improved some (but not all) of these changes, providing an edit summary (diff 1, diff 2). Mst48 then did a wholesale revert without any explanation whatsoever. I would like to discuss these changes here, since there appears to be a lack of consensus from all parties as to what should be here. I may seem annoying by going through every minuscule change, but the fact is, this user did a wholesale revert of all my edits, indicating they disagree with every last change, so I feel compelled to explain them all--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub
These article 37 Kilobytes long. It is not a stub. It has a multitude of sources, and many sections. Mst, I ask you to review our guideline on stubs, which states in part. "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information."--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ybbor, I am a new user on Wikipedia so I do not know how this is exactly works. In terms of stubs I see you have a valid point. I did a major revision of the George Washington University page because it does not seem up to par with all of the other university pages that it compares to like Oxford University and Georgetown University. The page was absolutely dissorganized so I used the Wikipedia: University standard and revised it. -Mst48Mst4811:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, Mst's image is not appropriately tagged (see the messages on your talk page for more information). Second I feel that the modern logo represents the University today, and it is how the University currently describes itself. Assuming Mst can provide a non-free content rationale, what does everyone else prefer?--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, between the two, about I believe that the University Seal represents the university the best and I cannot find a picture of one anywhere. I changed it back to the logo you suggested. Thanks. -Mst48Mst4811:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
February 9, 1821 is not a valid format for linking. Note how the link is red. I think we should link it like we do all other dates: February 9, 1821. I haven't the slightest clue why you feel it necessary to revert this change, Mst. Also, please provide a source for this date . I Assumed good faith and didn't remove it, but we really do need a source for that sort of detail.--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GWU has its own metro stop, and I see no reason not to mention that fact. Do you dispute that the Foggy-Bottom-GWU stop isn't a valid means of public transit to GWU?--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foggy Bottom in lead
I don't see the big problem with this change. It was in there before, why remove it? Foggy Bottom is a neighborhood in Washington DC with its own history and location. It doesn't take up too much space, but really does place the University's location in context.--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the map of Foggy Bottom is one of the highlights of this article. It is pretty much the only one of its kind available, and defines the boundaries of the campus that aren't as readily apparent in non-satellite maps or verbal descriptions. The other candidate is a)unlicensed, so we don't know where it came from, or under what conditions it can be used under (mst, see your user talk page for more information) and 2) if we were to feature Kogan Plaza, I don't think this is the best picture. It doesn't show much of the plaza, and the building in the background is as featured as anything else. I think a shot of the area to left of where the photographer is standing would be much more valuable in that regard. In any case, I feel the map captures the Foggy Bottom Campus much more accurately than the off-center shot of Kogan Plaza.--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Foggy Bottom map of the university that I deleted is absolutely, in every single way, innacurate. The Foggy Bottom campus is difficult to put a boundary on because it very much is incorporated into the city. There is a public high school, a public fire department, and millions of single buildings throughout campus that are not included at all in the campus. In the boundaries the map outlines, there is some terrority that does not even belong to the United States in terms of extraterratoriality agreements - for example the Embassy of Bosnia and Hezegovina. My photograph of Kogan Plaza, while it is in a weird way not showing everything, is much more telling than the map because it shows the center of campus in a typical fashion that someone walking to class would see. The brick building behind the cupola is Corcoran Hall, which is the oldest building on campus and the building to the left is Lisner Hall, the main auditorium on campus. -Mst48Mst4811:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the map is generalized. It would be very difficult to understand if every non-GW building were excluded. However, the way it is now includes all the major facilities, dorms and so on. I used the official campus plan boundaries and included other buildings outside of it, such as the Health and Wellness Center, HOVA, and others. --AW15:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the Bosnian Embassy is not included in the bounds. It is at 2109 E Street, which is not inside the boundaries. --AW15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MST - you made a few mistakes above; The "cupola" you are referring to is the Tempieto (little temple in Italian). There is a cupola atop Corcoran Hall. Speaking of Corcoran Hall, it was the first building built by GW on University Yard for the Foggy Bottom campus (1924) but it is not the oldest GW building (which is Woodhull House). And you mean Lisner Auditorium, not Lisner Hall (which is the former library and located at the southern end of University Yard). LoyalColonial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.30.196 (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misspellings
Okay, this may seem stupid that I'm going through this point by point, but you're the one who decided to revert these Mst. "eduational" is not a word. "educational" is. "Collge" is not a word. "College" is.--YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus for these changes? Mst48, can you explain why you made these changes? Especially why you felt the need to revert corrections of misformatting and bad spelling? --YbborTalk16:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ybbor...I am sorry if its a little harsh. While my misspelling and lack of a little information is unfortunate, my whole objective was to make the George Washington article more indicative of the university as a whole. I did not know I was doing a wholesale redit of your work, I just wanted to make it a better article in terms of my viewpoint. I am sorry if that angers you. GWU that has many advantages and dissadvantages, but it is not dissorganized in anyway. Please feel free to change anything, I trust your judgment in making this a professional and great article that better represents such a prestigious institution.
Photography Use and Mst48 Changes
All of the photography that I have added comes from Flickr and I have checked are all under the creative commons license that Flickr has. The edits on this page are making it a really good article. All of the facts (dates, names, etc.) that I have added can be checked under the University Archives [9]. Thanks for the attention to make the article better, I wont make anymore edits. I do have to say it looks much better and more organized than before, I hope that doesn't offend anyone. LoyalColonial - I am actually a student at the university, I am just using common misnomers that students use in daily life - not the formal titles that only administrators and employees use. Mst48 5:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]]
Ok, in that case, you need to mark them as such when you upload them. Otherwise they will be deleted. --AW16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree--this does not appear to be neutral. The Academics>Admissions section describing its GWU's prestige even cites a directory of [20] CollegeConfidential.com, a web forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.188.71.242 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article: failed
Sorry, but this article doesn't meet GA criteria. I edited it as I went through, adding comments and {{fact}} tags where appropriate. Let me expand my recommendations here:
Attribution. This was the main problem. I kept seeing blanket statements, generalizations, or cause-and-effect statements (e.g. "Because of the location in Washington, D.C. of the Foggy Bottom campus, the university also has access to a great deal of resources.") that sound like they reflect campus knowledge rather than cited sources. Everything needs to be cited -- every fact, and particularly every assertion of cause, or notability, or generalization (e.g. "Colonials have been very influential in American politics..."). I added {{fact}} tags when appropriate to illustrate these cases -- there were a lot of them.
Avoid academic boosterism. I found a lot of "prestigious," "renowned," "famous," etc. type qualifiers. The fact that GWU has its own article speaks enough for notability; just rely on the facts rather than empty qualifiers.
Writing problems. There were some basic grammatical or typographical problems; I fixed what I could, but for what I couldn't, I added commented-out pointers. There was a sentence fragment, a lot of missing punctuation, and some un-encylopedia-like informal voice in the article, too. Statements that interject the author's opinions like "It should be noted" should be avoided; try to phrase it in another way.
Manual of Style problems. Most of these I fixed (at least the ones I saw) as I went through, but for your own information:
Citation style is inconstent; generally the <ref> tag was used (good), but at other times, the URL was just stuck between brackets ([en.wikipedia.org]). Use the <ref> consistently.
Formatting of <ref>s was often incorrect. Two things: (1) the tag should not be separated from the punctuation at the end of the sentence by a space (e.g. Like this.[1] Not like this. [1]) In addition to the spacing, a I saw a lot of double punctuation, both before and after the tag (Like this. [1].).
Years, if not accompanied by a date, should not be wikilinked (e.g. September 1, 2007 but not "September 2007" or "in 1869.")
ElKevbo correctly pointed out on my talk page that this actually isn't in WP:DATE. Even so, it's definitely the predominant style used, probably as an application of WP:CONTEXT. Saying "There was a controversy in 2007" doesn't really help the reader, because the article on 2007 isn't going to have anything about the controversy. Since it isn't a guideline or policy, do what you like, I guess, but I think the standard (if only tacit) is not to link unless there's a reason why doing so would increase the reader's comprehension. Dylan04:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need more than one subsection to have the subsections. I think there was only one instance of this, with "Freemasonry" being the only subsection of "Founding." I just deleted the header, and the information under "Freemasonry" became another paragraph in the "Founding" section.
Don't add an external link in the middle of the text if the subject doesn't have an article (e.g. "All student organizations are run through the Student Association (SA).")
Other general thoughts:
The lead is pretty short; its coverage is okay, in terms of the WP:LEAD instructions to summarize the article, but it ought to be expanded.
It was only explained at the very end that the mascot/team name is the "Colonials," but the name was used much earlier than that in "Student life." Things like that should be explained; remember, you're writing for an international audience that may not be familiar with the university at all.
The "Controversies" section of "Student life" seems to give an awful lot of weight to the Islamofascism thing, I imagine because it happened just this past month. This is an article summarizing the 200-year breadth of an institution; this controversy is unlikely to merit more than a sentence in that context (if that). Try to keep a big-picture view of how heavily (or whether) to cover subjects like that.
In the same vein, a way to both improve the article and make it easier to manage the big-picture idea is to introduce each subsection with its general importance to the university. For "controversies," I would expect something on GW's history of campus controversies, how it's been a marking characteristic of university for many years. If it isn't, then why is it a section? You did quite a good job of this in "Student organizations and government," which clearly communicated that the major student organizations were political or activist groups due to student culture and the location in D.C.; only problem was, a lot of it isn't cited.
Example: I see pretty heavy weight given to basketball; that's fine if it's GW flagship athletic program, but make that clear with a [cited] statement to introduce it as such.
Another: "Greek life" -- listing the houses may be appropriate, but what's more important is backing up the "large Greek community and Greek history on campus" part. You should be talking about its influence, how long it's been around, how popular it is (e.g. how many eligible students are members).
I noticed College Confidential cited once. I think it was the only instance of that sort of thing, but an online forum is definitely not a reliable source.
The "Admissions" section veers very quickly away from the subject of admissions and into just a profile of the school in general - how many students, faculty, etc. That stuff should be moved to between the "Academics" and "Admissions" sections (some university articles make it a subsection in its own right, usually called "Profile"). In exchange, "Admissions" should cover things like entry statistics -- applications, acceptance rate, median SAT scores, etc., U.S. News & World Report ranking, and any major trends in admission.
"Notable alumni, faculty, and degrees" doesn't necessarily need sub-sectionizing (it's not problematic the way it is, but it just seems like it could as easily covered as a single section). There's also a lot of editiorializing in it -- "[so-and-so] have also made their mark on the George Washington University culture and character", etc.
I realize that's a lot to chew on, but believe me, if you can address these things, you'll be in great shape for GA and probably FA not long after. If you work all these things in and want to send this back for another GA review, feel free to contact me personally to give it another glance so that you don't have to wait for a month for someone to pick it up. Dylan03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The referencing and academic boosterism are good points, and are easy to fix - it's easy to find references and take out boosterism for the most part. --AW16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing
As the Good Article evaluator noticed, there's a lot of academic boosterism and unreferenced sections. I've done some, let's get to work and make this a Good Article! --AW17:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I wanted all along when I started this. We are pretty close, I don't know how to add and cite pictures at all. Many of the facts come for the GWU website. Mst48 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For anybody else who wants to help, it's pretty easy. Basically what I do is google what it is that says "citation needed." For example, the part about Karl Hobbs being animated was easy - "Karl Hobbs animated" in Google and you get a lot. Then I choose some reliable sources (news articles for example) and put <ref>the article's URL</ref>. As for images, that's more complicated, you have to find images that are either public domain or under a Creative Commons license. Flickr is a good source for those sorts of images. You can't just find a picture on a website and use it unfortunately, unless you have permission or they have released it. --AW (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy section readded
The whole controversy section was deleted. I sense an attempt to whitewash the fake YAF posters incident. So I put it back in. It is properly, and well-sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoundofBaskersville (talk • contribs) 18:01, November 16, 2007 (UTC)
