Talk:University of Surrey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article University of Surrey has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

Photos[edit]

Does anyone have any good and appropriate photos of the University? I think this article is noticeably missing some quality photos of the buildings and campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkejazz (talkcontribs) 10:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get some this week and upload them to the Commons. Any buildings or places you were thinking of in particular? I'll try to get some of the Austin Pearce and Duke of Kent buildings at least. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Austin Pearce and Duke of Kent were the buildings I was thinking of too. Maybe the management school too? Thanks. Funkejazz (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've taken photos of AP, DK, management school and Rubix:
I'll leave it up to others to decide if/where they should go in the article and whether the AP and management school photos should replace the ones that are there at the moment. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on edits for GA review process[edit]

Should the Media and Students' Union sections be kept and if so where should they be merged to? I'm wondering if they actually add anything to the article so should they be kept at all? Funkejazz (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Preliminary[edit]

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

Good looking article with a lot of potential. Please rectify the following general issues before I conduct a full-fledged review:

  • Each alumnus and academic needs to be supported by a citation
  • All citations should be in WP:Cite formatt (WP:Cite web in most cases; i.e., with URL, publisher, access date, as well as author and date of article if available)
  • Proposed Surrey Multifaith Centre should be merged into Campus
  • Media and Students' Union need to be expanded upon greatly or merged elsewhere
  • "University" by itself should not be capitalized throughout the article
  • Fix Universities in the United Kingdom template at bottom of article to include Surrey
  • Lead needs to be expanded significantly per WP:LEAD
--Eustress (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review this article. All of these areas are being worked on currently. Funkejazz (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm patient when I see that progress is being made. Historically, however, GANs "on hold" are only so for seven days. If these issues can be addressed within that time frame, then I'd be happy to grant another week or so to work through my subsequent in-depth review. If you don't have time to respond adequately this GAN, the article can be failed an renominated again when ready, but it's really to your advantage for me to be thorough and not let an article "slide", as another editor would just request reassessment of the GA status and demote it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - this process is new to me, but I think the issues above have now been addressed. Best Funkejazz (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work...here we go! (Please respond to each bullet point individually, so I can keep track where you're at and you can ask questions about specific points if needed (I'm not always right).

Review[edit]

A good article has the following attributes:

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Notable academics and alumni should be conveyed in prose and not as a list. You may consider creating a separate list and linking it there (see Cornell University#Alumni, Brigham Young University#Alumni, etc.).
  • If you list undergrads and postgrads in the infobox, no reason to list Students as well.
  • For established date in infobox, just list year (people can read in History about original name)
  • I would rearrange sections to resemble other FAs--at least putting History first, followed by Campus.
  • I still see some capitalized "universities"
  • Run-on sentence: "The university celebrated its 35th anniversary year in May 2002 with a major event in Guildford Cathedral and the gift of the Surrey Scholar sculpture (by Allan Sly FBS), located at the bottom of the town's historic High Street, to the people of Guildford and marking the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen."
  • This has to do with Alumni more than History: "As of 2002 there were over 90,000 graduates of the university, working in all parts of the world."
    • Done by removal. It's an old statistic and sounds a bit to much like marketing speak. Do others agree? Funkejazz (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Awkward: "Between then and 2004 then Surrey and Roehampton..."
  • "SII, DUFE offers Surrey degrees..."
  • "This was presented in person by Tthe Queen..."
  • Need to explain what International partners are, otherwise you're just listing them to establish ethos.
  • Should "Understanding the Real World, a visual history of the University of Surrey" be under References or External links?
    • Done. Moved to external links Funkejazz (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lead still needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD; look at other FAs for help (see WP:WikiProject Universities
  • Too many commas: "The new Manor Park campus, designed as a car-free village, is 1.6 kilometres (1 mi) from the Stag Hill campus,[7] on the other side of the A3 trunk road, near the Research Park."
  • Citations should always follow punctuation marks and not fall in the middle of phrases (see Campus section)
  • (Optional) Consider making the main logo/crest image smaller.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
  • Issues marked elsewhere.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Do you really need to list the Vice-Chancellor and all the Pro-Chancellors in the infobox? I would consider this unnecessary detail.
    • I suggest we take out Pro-chancellors emeritus then? Not sure how relevant or notable they are. Views? Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Done (removed) Funkejazz (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I still think all the Pro-Chancellors should be removed, but I won't let that hold up GA status. --Eustress (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Only list associations in infobox that pertain to university as a whole (e.g., AACSB is for business school only and would go on an article about the business school).
  • Major concern: The article doesn't have balance because it avoids any negative stuff about the university. Any criticism or controversies? How does the university fare in national and global rankings?
    • Good point. If there genuinely isn't any notable negativity or controversy can it still be balanced? I guess rankings might give it balance but I haven't seen a consensus reached on how rankings are introduced into wikipedia as they tend to be very controversial themselves!Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I searched for any controversies regarding USurrey and couldn't find anything, but just keep such information in mind for the future. However, rankings seems to be a standard inclusion in FA university articles. All rankings are have some POV (similar to all Wikipedia editors) but we seek balance through reliable, encyclopedic content. In this case (you might want to find a more updated source) I found a Financial Times overall ranking for British Universities putting USurrey at #29 (http://www.hust.edu.cn/english/link/oversea/abroad/rankBritish%20.html). Perhaps an Academics section, similar to other FAs, could include Rankings, Research, and Educational links. --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Good idea with the academic section. I've pulled some sections together and added rankings to give balance Funkejazz (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Major concern: Article seems to be missing stuff covered in just about every other university article: Athletics? Student life and culture? Student profile?
    • Again notability is the issue here. Athletics and sports are not big in UK institutions in the same way it is in US colleges so there is little interest in student sports outside those taking part on the whole. Student life would be relevant but from what I know about Surrey it would add very little to the article, to the extent that we would then be discussing removing it. Please feel free to disagree with any or all of this. I think in the general interests of improving the article in the framework of what Wikipedia is about these are not sections I think that should be added. Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Seems reasonable. --Eustress (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • This is POV because not supported by citation (and citation is published by USurrey anyway): "For a university of its size and age, Surrey has one of the highest number of staff who..."
    • I couldn't find an independent citation for this so was considering removing it? Any views? Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The university is noted for its research into small satellites..." To maintain NPOV, say something like "The university conducts extensive research on small satellites..."
  • Put "reflecting its commercially-orientated heritage." in quotes, as it would be POV except it is an independent source saying it.
  • (For future reference) I think it's okay for now, but if you ever try to get to FA status, you will need more citations not published by USurrey.
    • Thanks. This is good to know generally. Funkejazz (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, 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 constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
  • Image:UniSManorPark.jpg is overlapped in my browser
    • Sorry, could you explain this please? Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Either your other changes fixed the spacing issue or my browser was temporarily messed up. --Eustress (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one more week until the above issues are resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice work. I'm passing to GA! --Eustress (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Graduate employment ranking - possible COI[edit]

I'd like to add (into the Ranking section?) that the Uni is for a long time England's top at employment of graduates (source e.g.: http://www.dreamfoundation.eu/institutions/institution/107 or http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/18/graduate-employment-by-university-and-subject ?), but I'm not sure if I'm not in a conflict of interest, could some unconflicted editor have a look pls? 131.227.95.253 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Football team?[edit]

UOS has a football team, which I play for, I study in UOS. I play as striker. #universityofsurreyfootballteam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie Sinclair (talkcontribs) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Surrey. 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.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)