Talk:Athabasca University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Athabasca University was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
September 17, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Canada / Alberta / Education (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

List of programs[edit]

I think the inclusion of the list of programs at the university is non-encyclopediac. I think it would be more appropriate if it included a few sentences comparing its programs to those of other universities, and make mention any unique programs it has. If people want to know about individual programs they should go to the website, which is provided on the page. Benw

I re-introduced the reputation section, while I like the other edits that were made, I feel this section is important, as AU has to talk a bit about its reputation, and most articles on a university, for example, McGill University and University of Toronto do it, just in another manner, this article simply has a reputation headline. --20px Spinboy 02:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Age[edit]

What is your source for the statement that you must be 18 to study there? According to the Maclean's guide, the minimum is 16. Carolynparrishfan 17:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you appear to be either unwilling or unable to support your edit, I have reverted it. Carolynparrishfan 13:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, according to AskAU, the age is 16. --20px Spinboy 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed[edit]

The Good article nomination for Athabasca University has failed, for the following reason:

This article does not meet Good Article crierion. There is not enough substance here. Many headings are only one paragraph, sometimes one sentence. It is riddled with lists, which in and of themselves aren't bad, but are inferior to prose that would put this information in context. The references are not cited properly. Many of the "facts and trivia" are unverified. The headings are in caps for each word. The reputation section is wholly POV. All in all, it needs a lot of work. Esprit15d 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AthabascaUniversity.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:AthabascaUniversity.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada's only exclusively open University. -- really?[edit]

What about BC open university, later renamed to Thompson Rivers University of Open Learning? It's an accredited distance education university with an open enrollment policy. Anyone can take any course they offer. Drouillm 21:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thompson Rivers isn't exclusively distance education. They have in person courses. Me-123567-Me 22:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
"Open" does not refer to distance education courses by definition. It means several things and normally refers to an open enrollment policy that does not have formal academic prerequisites. The Athabasca website as well as a quick google search corroborates this assertion, http://www.athabascau.ca/aboutAU/openuniversity.php. It's inaccurate and possibly simply not true to call Athabasca Canada's only exclusively open University. We should change it.
As an aside, Thompson Rivers is separate from TRUOL. TRUOL exclusively offers distance education courses with the exception of labs that must be completed in a classroom. Athabasca offers labs that must be completed in classrooms as well. If you consider labs to be in person courses then I guess Athabasca isn't exclusively open either!24.86.139.237 02:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (that's me, drouillm I forgot to sign in)
Legally TRUOL is part of Thompson Rivers University. AU is their own university. The assertation comes from them. It's not really for us to debate. The idea of an "Open University" is that they will accept almost anyone, there are no admission requirements. TRU has admission requirements. Me-123567-Me 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA fail[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Since the last time the article was nominated for GA it has definitely improved. Good work on some of the things that were mentioned before. However, some of the same things that plagued the article before remain. Namely, the article's substance is too concentrated in one area: history. There is very little about academics and research (although there were small sections just added today). There is also very little (in comparison) about student life and athletics. The history section could be largely condensed; a long subsection on the first course is probably not necessary. If that much history is important to the article I would suggest condensing it anyway and breaking it off into its own article.

There are still problems with Prose and sections not following the Manual of Style. The quote templates need to have an attributed author, the Differences header should be more descriptive (differences between what?), and image descriptions could be more descriptive (front entrance to what building?). In addition, some sentences seem awkward and have minimal flow (although this could be my American bias). For example, the last few sentences of the header seem to have no relation to each other. And sentences like "A course "World Ecology" was the first course, and was the core of the pilot project" read awkwardly. There were also a number of instances with improper capitalization. "University" should only be capitalized if referring specifically to Athabasca.

References are pretty decent, although (as always) they could be improved. Instead of citing the book reference 15 times you can name the ref tag (see WP:REF) and use it multiple times so that in your references list it only appears once. A couple references (#46, #31, and any that only references the university as the publisher) could include more information such as which office published it or when the work was published. If you can find any authors, that is always helpful. Some claims in the article, however, do need citations (like "Athabasca University is also recognized as one of the fastest growing universities in Canada." in the header).

There appears to still be original research and/or non-neutral point of view throughout the article. Uncited sentences like "The university is especially popular with students who are...", "The university has become a leader in distance education", and others should be reworded or cited with sources actually give a point of view. There doesn't appear to be any criticisms of the university in the article (or anything that could potentially appear negative). Because of this, certain sections look like boosterism.

Although the images you have are very good (and free :) ), adding more images would be beneficial. Look on some of the public domain image search engines and you'll be surprised what you find!

In general the article is well on its way, it just needs to be more broad and include more info about academics, rankings, research, budgeting, athletics, and student life. For some great examples of university pages, check out University articles rated as 'Good Articles'. If you have any questions feel free to contact me! -- Noetic Sage 02:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Origins section[edit]

Wikipedia:Footnotes is silent on how often in-line citations should be used, so since most of the origins section is from the same source, I simply cited at the end of each paragraph. Me-123567-Me 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

I oppose a merge. Many other Universities have articles on their various faculties, I don't see why this one can't as well. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  • It is currently a three-line stub with no sources. If it's expandable, a separate article is fine; if not, it's better understood in the context of the university article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Athabasca University Centre for Distance Education[edit]

I still oppose a merge. Many other Uni's all have articles on their various faculties. This one is no different. Me-123567-Me (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merge. The merge tag has been on that page since July 2008 and nothing substantial has been added since. It was already redirected once before (and undone without explanation). The only objection is from the page creator. Clearly, a merge is in order. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ADMISSION[edit]

is it possible for me to get admission in this school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.224.41 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Uarcticlogo.gif[edit]

The image File:Uarcticlogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

Why is a "minor" issue of plagiarism by one of its students listed as a controversy here? It is not a controversy dealing with the university, but with the person. If the issue is important enough, it should be in the article for Ralph Klein, not here.Stearnsbrian (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Athabasca University Students' Union[edit]

Someone "merged" this in with the main article a while ago without discussion. The summary was "non notable" but how is this article any less notable than, for example, University of Calgary Students' Union? What is the standard? What needs to be done to the article to satisfy the merging author's untold standard? --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Find sources: "Athabasca University Students' Union" – books · scholar · JSTOR · free images reveals that the Union fails WP:ORG. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Tell me how Brock University Students' Union and Calgary meet it, so that I can bring the articles you re-directed up to standard. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
        • I have been neglectful in nominating student unions for merger/deletion of late. The consensus is that any topic, in order to have an article, has to have secondary sources that analyse it (that is, mere "mentions" don't count). These sources can be found (or not) in the News Books Scholar searches I gave above. If you search the WP:AFD archives, you will see that these student unions' articles often don't fare very well. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Perhaps instead of merging, you could work to improve the articles. What you're doing is pretty negative. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
            • If the topic was something you had no interest in, and it was as unencyclopedic as this one, you might see things differently. Every university has a student union, and every university has a Wikipedia article, yet not every student union has a wikipedia article. There is a reason for this; lack of secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 13:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are over 1000 references on Google. [1] Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up[edit]

Issues to address

  • Promotional undertone
  • Peacock, weasel words.
  • Stop falsifying the references!

-Reconsider! 12:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've listed this on WP:30. I haven't seen any falsified references as you call it, I'd like an example, please. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Athabasca University and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: In light of Me-123567-Me's response, I presume this dispute only involves Reconsider the static's third bullet point, above. (I'll just note in passing that I think that, at least in regard to the current version of the article, first, the evidence for Reconsider's first point is ambiguous and, second, that I can't find on a quick scan through the article any peacock terms that jump out at me; if they're there, perhaps Reconsider will consider tagging them with {{Weasel-inline}}.) As for the third point, I'm not sure whether Reconsider's referring to this edit and this edit, or something else. I'll wait to see if Reconsider wants to say anything more about it before deciding whether or not to opine on that matter. I'll keep this page on my watchlist until 22:00 UTC on March 19 and readdress the issue if any clarification or discussion comes forth.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan. I value your feedback, and it seems like a good solution. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File:AU books 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:AU books 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AU books 2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)