List all locations when there are multiple, rather than using "and X others". –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I put them in footnotes, does that work? I think the table would get too bloated if they were all listed inline. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC).
Good enough. I'd prefer that they all be listed in the table (maybe using <br /> between locations), but it is certainly better now. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
References to the Encyclopedia of Alabama website are missing the author (I think that the author is listed at the bottom of each page of the EOA. If the name given is not the entry, author, let me know and I'll strike this). –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Dates should probably be added to the EOA refs also (sorry I didn't notice this earlier), but I'm not sure whether the date when the entry was first published or the date when it was last updated would be more appropriate. Thoughts? Once dates are added (or determined to be not needed), I'll support this. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
"There are also 8 four-year and 3 two-year historically black colleges and universities." A bit of inconsistency here regarding whether or not numbers are spelled out. Two are and two aren't. I would spell them all out since they're small, but either way works as long as they are consistent.
WP:ORDINAL point 3 states that "adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats..." —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Refs 1, 10, and 48 have hyphens in their titles that should be converted to en dashes.
Question on this one: since the sources (incorrectly) used a hyphen, should they be kept as-is? —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't find the exact section of the MoS that mentions this, but I'm sure TRM or another regular here knows. We are allowed to make such changes to quotes per MOS:QUOTE, so I have to believe such changes to ref titles are mentioned somewhere. This type of comment has been made many times at FLC, and TRM definitely would have mentioned it if I didn't. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, wasn't sure how strict the rules were on that. Done. —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This came up in Giants2008's comments above; per WP:ORDINAL point 3, "adjacent quantities which are not comparable should usually be in different formats..." —Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"Association for Biblical Higher Education" -> "The Association for Biblical Higher Education" - same in ref 5.
Comment The table almost meets WP:ACCESS just two issues. First the tables need a caption and you need to put an exclamation mark before scope=row instead of a pipe. NapHit (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
(not the nominator) Don't the section headers function as captions of a sort? It would be redundant to have captions shown for users who read the articles normally (showing the table name twice), and I would assume that the same thing would occur for screen reader software, etc. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd also argue that using the header cell style for the school names looks pretty ugly. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For the header style, I found a "class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders"" that un-bolds and un-centers the headers. The shading alone doesn't look bad, IMO. For the captions, I agree, but,
Maybe put the Institutions notes in the bottom of the page in his own Footnote section, above References?, it will look much better that what it looks now.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Support, but with pause. I see no tangible problems, but the lead doesn't feel all that good to me. It just jumps in with a few facts and figures without much of an introduction on that topic. That being said, I can't really think of anything that could be added in to the lead, and other lists have been promoted with a lead in this style, so I won't worry about it. Also, the enrollment should be updated for this year, but in a sense that's busy work. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 17:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Finding current enrollment figures (especially for the smaller schools) is spotty at best. Many of the smaller institutions don't publish it readily (online at least). Also, the US DoE source given is independent, plus having statistics from all the same time and using the same method for counting gives a better comparison. If you know of source that gives all of the enrollments for fall 2011, I'd be happy to switch to it. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.