Talk:University of California, San Diego

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee University of California, San Diego was a 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 8, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
February 25, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
July 16, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes endowment data, but I believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools instead of NACUBO's.Contributor321 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: domesticenginerd (talk · contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. --domesticenginerd 19:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Completed review of article. Improvements made since last GA review. Still needs some work, though. Marked as "fail" but will give a week or so for improvements to be made before closing out officially. --domesticenginerd 03:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • It has been over three weeks since the above: domesticenginerd hasn't edited since July 24, and the nominator, Horserice, hasn't edited since June 29. Under the circumstances, I'm closing the nomination, as no improvements of any significance have been made since the above, and the article has four "citation needed" templates, which is not what you want to see on an article wishing to attain GA status. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)



  1. Well written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) See discussion points 1, 2, and 3. On hold On hold
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See discussion point 1. On hold On hold
    (c) (original research) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Meets criteria. Addressed concerns in GA2. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) See discussion point 4. On hold On hold
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    See discussion point 5. Fail Fail
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    Meets criteria. No major disputes and has a lot of good faith contributions. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Meets criteria. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Meets criteria. Pass Pass


Result Notes
Fail Fail Many strides made since last GA review. Nonetheless, still at standards of a B-class university aricle. Need to work on references, expanding some of the topics, and neutralizing article.


  1. Many references (over 50%) are from UCSD domain.
  2. Citation format is inconsistent.
  3. A few citations needed, particularly for viewbook-esque statements.
  4. Undue weight to diversity of student body. For instance, there is a table of the ethnic enrollment under "Student Life"; however, there is no reference to it in the text. Also, should elaborate further on background of student body (e.g. in-state, out-of-state, international percentage).
  5. Primarily seems like viewbook/advertisement for school. Outside of brief mention of chancellor's salary, does not address any controversies (e.g. 2010 diversity job, 2008 admissions mistake, racism issues [including 2010 fraternity party & 2011 noose], etc.)

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.


As stated in the GA review, there seems to be little to no mention of any of the controversies surrounding the university, not even within the past decade. These include:

  • the Compton Cookout of 2010 and other incidents of racism (such as the noose)
  • the University House remodel and Native American opposition (mentioned on the University of California page
  • the shutdown of the Ché Cafe (which is admittedly already on the Ché's page, but some updates need to make it here)

While not all of these are notable, they deserve at least some mention, particularly the racism.

TritonsRising (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Research section[edit]

According to Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines#Article structure, university articles should have a section describing research activity, classifications, and expenditure. For a university that is ranked in the top 5 in research spending in the nation, it seems wrong to not have such a section. I do not feel that I am qualified to write this section yet, but more experienced Wikipedians should do so--there is no shortage of topic literature. --TritonsRising (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of California, San Diego. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)