Talk:University of Nottingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Nottinghamshire (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire 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 quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
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.
 
Former good article University of Nottingham was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.

Couple of changes[edit]

I have moved the pic of the downs to the bottom of the page as it was causeing a gap to appear between paragraphs. I have also included the name 'London University' in the info box so people reailise that it was a university prior to 1948.

Article Tone[edit]

Aside from a few controversies at the bottom, this article feels more like something written by Nottingham's PR department than a wikipedia or other encyclopedia article. The article is full of unverifiable value statements and PR-style text. Nottingham is "leading". A recent architect who designed buildings for Nottingham is "great". "Nottingham's research excellence was confirmed". "Family-friendly". "Unique". "a year-round programme of high quality". "prized and unique". "hospitality spaces specifically designed to be flexible enough for a variety of needs.". Obviously, any good article should express the positive aspects of its subject, but this article seems more like propaganda than an encyclopedia article. Other top world university pages are generally written in a more neutral fashion. -- July 5, 2009

reputation tables[edit]

Hi, replaced the tables with infobox. It's much more convenient and cleaner for browsing, data going all the way back to 1994 is not needed for a general encyclopedia. Its also in use in pretty much all good UK uni articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyphoid (talkcontribs) 18:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging of controversy section ?[edit]

All universities have controversies but none make a whole section about it as it can often blow it out of proportion and skewer a long term view of the institution.

I suggest removing the minor controversy over 2001 donation and mergin the nottingham two thing into the history sectionXyphoid (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Yesterday the discussion and image (File:Nott logo.gif) of the old logo was removed from the article, with the reason 'I really don't think an in detail discussion of different logos is required for a general history, welcome to discuss on talk page'. I think the logo should at least be shown and mentioned (although one sentence is probably enough), because:

  • It helps to identify the article, especially to those familiar with the old logo.
  • The rebranding was relatively recent, and although it happened in 2001 the old logo was still in fairly common usage until at least 2006.
  • The evolution of the aspect of the university which is most recognisable to the public is of general interest.
  • It's only one sentence and a small image, so doesn't take up much space.

What does everyone else think? Note that the image is uploaded under fair-use, so we only have another 6 days to make a decision before it gets automatically deleted. Modest Genius talk 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree in keeping it, and agree with reasons stated above. Unlike, for example, a prospectus, an encyclopedia article should be timeless, so if the logo is of interest, all its historical forms are of equal interest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In the absence of any opposition, I'm adding it back. I'm open to suggestions for better text to go with it. Modest Genius talk 14:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As before I would argue that it's not needed. Universities change their logos all the time, do we need a history of all the logos going back to the 19th century ? You wouldn't find it on any other university article b/c it's too specific and not a major event in the history of the university. Not sure about identifying the article. There's a whole crest and the title, also it's half way down the page. I agree it's not a major issue tho. So keep for now, I've moved it to the left for ease of reading. Xyphoid (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Boosterism[edit]

There seem to be far too many references to Oxford and Oxbridge in the lead which comes across as a rather crass attempt at boosterism (I'm a Nottingham alumnus) Francium12 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)