Talk:Hamline University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Hamline 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.

link formatting[edit]

Some links at the beginning were formated incorrectly. I semi-fixed them, but they have no title, and there are some duplicate links. Cappadocian330.Talk 05:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Student Free speech controversy[edit]

If it is to be said that hamline is noted for suppression of free speech, then there needs to be citation that actually asserts this. The cited article is about a one-time incident, it can be incorporated if it can be done encyclopedically. ReverendG 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This entry keeps getting inserted into the article in various forms. It seems clear that this violates the 'Encyclopedic Content' guideline, as well as likely violating the 'Neutral Point of View' guideline.

Origins of mascot[edit]

I would need to see a citation before I actually believe that the mascot and nickname came from Red Wing Stoneware. The nickname "Pipers" was chosen through a public poll conducted by a St. Paul newspaper long after the school relocated from Red Wing. All of the citations and printed material I have seen - including those from the school newspaper - suggest that "Pipers" is a reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

GA Review[edit]

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

I am quick-failing the GA nomination for this. Almost all of the article is unsourced, so there is no way that it could pass GA at this point. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hamline University/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • External links should not be included in the body of the article, as they are in the Schools and Colleges section. Instead, they should be formatted as references, or included in the External links section at the end of the article.
    • There are a lot of short paragraphs in the article. Any paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
    • The lead section should be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be no original information in it, and so no references, unless they are being used to back up a direct quote.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The references need some serious attention in order for this article to pass to GA status. Here are main problems I saw:
    • Web references should all be formatted the same way. Currently, you have some that use the cite web template and some that do not. Also, all web references need access dates and publishers. The publisher should be the company (or individual) that published the website, not the website home address. For example, current ref #1 should have the publisher listed as "U.S. News & World Report". In your web references, the title of the ref should be formatted as the web link - rather than having the title and then a bare link to the reference.
    • Book references should all be formatted the same way. You seem to be going mainly for a split reference format, which is a good choice for this article. However, for this to be done correctly, what should happen is that you split the current references section into two new sections - "Notes" and "References". In the Notes section, you have your reflist template to list all of your in-text citations. The in-text citations for books will be something like "author, page" or "author, title, page". In the References section, you will have the full information for each book you use.
    • There are several sections that need to be referenced:
    • Red Wing location section, the last sentence of the first paragraph and all of the third paragraph.
    • St. Paul Campus section, most of the second paragraph
    • The Great Depression section, the fifth paragraph
    • Post World War II section, the second paragraph
    • New Academic Publications section, the second paragraph
    • The last sentence of the lead, about the mascot of the Liberal Arts college, is mentioned no-where else in the article, and is not referenced in the lead.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • There are some aspects of the article that I think are missing that need to be included for this article to be complete. I would suggest checking out Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure for the general structure that is suggested for articles of this sort. What I see missing include individual sections on the current campus, any research and endowments, the current academic profile of the school, and especially a student life section.
    • In the Schools and Colleges section, I would suggest expanding this into a short discussion about each of these schools. MOS discourages lists, and especially discourages short sections consistent entirely of a list. This section could be expanded into the current campus and/or current academic profile of the school sections discussed in my point above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

This article has quite a bit of work that needs to be done before it is of GA quality. Due to the issues I have raised above, I have not yet completed a full check of the prose. When I see the above issues being addressed, I will begin the prose check. I am putting this article on hold to allow time to work on the article. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article's GA nomination, due to the lack of work that has happened on the article. I truely think that this article needs a serious restructuring, and the addition of several sections, as recommended by the University Wikiproject. Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead links[edit]

I marked a couple dead links I found. Sometimes you can "resurrect" them using this tool. Good luck in your GAN. --Eustress (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hamline University/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. First, I will give some basic/general suggestions for improvement. After they are completed, I will go into the more specific suggestions (such as minor MoS problems, grammar, pics, etc). Here is the first set:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be about three or four full paragraphs summarizing the whole article.
  • There are some dash problems. See WP:DASH for when to use dashes, endashes, and emdashes. Please be consistent throughout the article.
  • See MOS:BOLD for when bolding is and is not appropriate.
  • Ref #59 is dead and will need to be fixed or replaced.
  • The alumni section needs to be cleaned up and referenced.
  • What's with the random "Men's Basketball[64]" in the middle of the Athletics section? Should that be a subheader?
  • The web citations are improperly formatted. See Template:cite web for information on how to fix this.
  • The vast majority of the sources are from Hamline University. That leads to a point of view problem. I'd like to see some non-primary sources in there, as well.

I'll give the editors of this article seven days to make these initial changes before I give another set of suggestions. Nikki311 01:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In approximately an hour the seven days will be up, but I am going to go ahead and fail this article for lack of response. Please consider addressing these issues before renomination. Thanks. Nikki311 03:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow respone, I haven't had time lately to make any changes to article yet. One of the problems you mentioned was the lack of non-Hamline sources. Getting information that is not from university sources that is also not original research could next to impossible. Hamline University is a small school and does not have historical research done that is not somehow connected to the school itself. Is there another way that this entry could be reviewed so that this problem could be recitfied? --Flashdornfeld (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Midwestern Ivy League[edit]

I removed the reference to Hamline being part of a "Midwestern Ivy League." The sentence was unsourced and, frankly, ridiculous (Hamline, Drake University, and Xavier University but not the University of Chicago and Northwestern University). --Harel Newman (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Some of the history stuff in here is remarkably similar to (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Tier[edit]

Someone tried to claim Hamline University is an overall 4th tier school as ranked by US News. This is incorrect--that ranking only applies to Hamline School of Law. Hamline University comprises the College of Liberal Arts, Hamline Law School, Hamline School of Business, and various Master's programs. Overall, Hamline is ranked 9th in the Midwest in its respective overall category and is a "Tier 1" school.

"oldest" university in Minnesota?[edit]

The University of Minnesota was incorporated in 1851, so while the Hamline website definitely does claim it is the oldest University, that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps because the University of Minnesota was initially a prep school Hamline was the first, but it can't be the oldest. (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The University of Minnesota did not hold classes until 1857 and even then the courses were preparatory not collegiate. Hamline University was chartered in 1854 and held collegiate courses in 1857 (page 8). According to Merril E. Jarchow, who was a professor of history at Carleton college and recieved his Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate from the Univesity of Minnesota, Hamline is definitively the oldest institution of higher learning. See Private Liberal Arts Colleges in Minnesota: Their History and Contributions, Published by the Minnesota Historical Society ISBN 0-87351-081-X Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hamline University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Athletic Section[edit]

The athletic section should be its own page, with team pages for Hockey and Basketball for starters as they are of note. Moonraker0022 (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)