Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Colleges of the University of Cambridge

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

Colleges of the University of Cambridge

previous FLC

Renominating this as I've expanded it, illustrated it, referenced it and ensure the numbers are accurate and up to date. The shields have gone since many of them aren't free use and I can't believe a fair use rationale for each one would extend to this article. I'd be interested in other people's opinions on this because if the consensus is that they can then I'll put them back! Thanks in advance for comments, criticism, support or otherwise! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The total columns are out of line
- Done, silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a {{cn}}
- Removed, rephrased, cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The above list does not include several historical colleges which no longer exist." I suggest "The above list does not include several defunct colleges."
- Yuck, defunct? I don't really see the difference in information between those two sentences and I certainly will never be using the word defunct. Ugh. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lol. Fair enough. I'm slightly concerned about the term "historical" - it comes across as OR or needing citation, given that it has a sense of meaning "historically notable". You're also using quite a lot of words to describe something simple - how about sticking with "former" in place of "defunct"? --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you confusing historical with historic? I'll think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hysterical? --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Former. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information about Cavendish is inconsistent in presentation with others - no foundation date, doesn't specify that the college ceased to exist (just its buildings)
- Found additional source for foundation. Not much information exists about the Cavendish... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reflist2?
- Done, but I doubt you'll see any difference if you're using IE7. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me? Using IE? You should know better... Lol! --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support all done. --Dweller (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Primary source of accommodation? So they're just halls of residence where no actual teaching and learning happens?
- That's about the size of it. Faculties and departments do the teaching, colleges do the accommodation and food... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wikilink undergrad and grads for those who aren't familiar with the (British) university system
- Undergrad fine, grad not so good but at least a link to BA or above.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)."[reply]
"for example Churchill has a bias towards the sciences,[9]" Comma!
- Comma added...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No! There's a comma at the end of the sentence! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:28, 28 March, 2008
    - ARGH! Been a long day... fixed..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's ok. I now support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:44, 28 March, 2008

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:54, 28 March, 2008

Comments from Seegoon

Support - all in all, very concise, but here are a few notes.

I don't like the way the first paragraph runs. Consecutive sentences start with "These colleges", "The colleges" and "The colleges". Not pretty!
- Rephrased... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"three admit only women, New Hall, Newnham and Lucy Cavendish" - shouldn't this be a colon, or perhaps a semicolon? This example is repeated twice more in the same paragraph. I might be wrong though, so I'll take that on the chin.
- Repunctuated... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise: "or subjects, for example" - shouldn't this be a semicolon once more?
- Doubtless, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could further explain the theological college note at the end of the table?
- Expanded a touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessary per se, as it might be best displayed on the page of the colleges themselves, respectively - but would it be worth noting any specialist fields of study?
- Hmm. I think this is better on the college pages really... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth remedying the redlinks.
- I've written two article stubs and made a redirect for the Cavendish since there seems to be insufficient material available for me online to generate even a stub...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job as ever. Seegoon (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon, firstly, thanks for your kind words both here and on my talkpage. Secondly, it's Friday night, 7pm and I'm grabbing my coat on the way to the pub... I'll address your concerns as soon as I can. Promise! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom (in case...) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.