Wikipedia:Peer review/Washington & Jefferson College/archive1

Washington & Jefferson College

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate it for GA/FAC at some point in the future, and I'd like to know what parts need to be worked on. I have expanded it significantly, while adding a number of sub-pages as splits for the larger sections. I already know that the lead needs to be expanded, and I'll be doing that in the near future. So let me know what you think. What are the strengths, the weaknesses, the parts that ought to be cut, reduced, or expanded. Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'It is also considered an excellent preparatory school for graduate level studies in general, but especially in chemistry, biology, economics, and history.' Sounds like WP:WEASEL IMHO. It could also use a nice trim; it runs really long even in Chrome. By the way, can you review Manufacturing in Hong Kong? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Thanks for pointing out the obvious problem in the lead, (which is something that I already knew about and noted in the peer review nomination). No, I don't think I'm going to review Manufacturing in Hong Kong, thank you very much. Is there someone else who would like to give this article a proper review?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have expanded the lead.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Always nice to see articles on colleges and universities and being in Pennsylvania is a plus. With an eye toward FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on schools, colleges and universities that may be good models. Ohio Wesleyan University is one that comes to mind, I also really like Avery Coonley School which is more recent (though not on a college or university).
The lead looks much better (I had read the old one). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
The college's seal has three dates (1802, 1806, and 1865). The Infobox says 1781. It is not super clear in the History section what the 1781 is referring to. I would be very explicit in the History as to when things happened, where they were, and what college this was eventually leading up to.
The more I think about it, woud it make sense to split the History into three sections: Washington College, Jefferson College, and then W&J?
- Good idea; I actually split it into 4 sections.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The History is very detailed until about 1871 (6 years after the merger), then the rest of the history is covered in half a paragraph with decades-long gaps. This would be a huge problem at FAC, where comrehensiveness is a criterion. See WP:WIAFA It would also be an issue at WP:GAN where broad coverage is a criterion.
- I expanded that section.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watch WP:OVERLINKing, for example Thaddeus Dod is linked twice in History. Or the current president is linked at least twice in the body of the article.
The MOS says to refer to people by just their last names unless there is some good reason not to do so (two people with the same last name, for example). So drop "joseph" in Joseph Smith taught classical studies in his college, called "The Study" at Buffalo.[5] and drop the reverends in The first members of the board of trustees included Reverends Dod and Smith.[6] It is fine to mention that they were ordained, just not really any reason to use reverend as a title here.
Another issue that would be a problem at FAC is the reliance on material from W&J itself - the vast majority of the references are to things from W&J. As much as possible, use independent third-party sources like newspapers and books. The Coonley school article does a very good job of this, which is why I mentioned it above. Some primary material (from W&J) is OK and probably unavoidable, but try to minimize it and maximize other sources.
- That is definitely a consideration that I had throughout the writing of this article. There are a few reasons why there are lots of those types of sources: 1) the local newspaper of record, Observer-Reporter, is very stingy with web sources 2) the U. Grant Miller Library Digital Archives is full of great information that appears to be very reliable (and many links contain a list of independent sources). I tried to take great pains to only include facts, not admissions puffery, from official sources.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article could use more images - I note there are four color images of buildings on campus on Commons - why not use some of them?
- Yes! I added some.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also make sure that images have correct source and other information - for example the link for File:Old Main W&J 1880s.jpg does not lead to that image (it is of a lab of some sort instead).
- That was an uploading error on my part--I'm checking the rest of them.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid lists like Areas of study - data dumps like that are not very encyclopedic. -- Done
All units have to be given in both English and metric units (English first as it is an American college). See acres in the lead.
- I think I got them all.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid needless repetition - the number of seats in the Olin Fine Arts Center is given twice in the article (once is enough) and the numbers do not quite match. Or as notable as James G. Blaine is, his political career only needs to be mentioned once in the bosy of the article (not twice)
- Yes. I'm just going to remove the "politics" section--I've never been a big fan of it, and it pre-dates the latest re-write.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to do a better job of making clear when things are happening. For example, when did the Field Days start and do they or the other traditions still continue?
In a related vein, avoid use of words like currently or now or today of at all possible - it is better to use "As of 2010..." or "since YEAR" Also make sure to specify when statistics were measured or published, so add years to thingsl ike With 37% of the student body participating in "greek life," fraternities and sororities play an important role in student life at W&J.[140]
WP:HEAD says to avoid repeating a header in a subheader, so in Athletics, the subsections could just be Intercollegiate and Intramural. Done
I think sometimes less is more. Does it really help the reader to understand the college better to know the lyrics to Whichi Coax? Or that In the mid 1850s, the Washington College Young Men's Christian Association chapter held 300 volumes in its library collection.[108]
- Good point. I cut some, and will cut some more.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even before I got the sources listed as references, I noticed that the article has a lot of details on the early years of the college and its predecessor institutions, and a fair amount of coverage of the past 10 plus years, but not a lot on most of the 20th century.
- I think I rectified that with the latest re-write.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]