Talk:Saint Anselm College/Archive 1

Town and Community

Why is the Town listed as "Manchester", when the college is actually in Goffstown? I realize the mailing address is Manchester, but that is not where the school is located. Also, I would not really dscribe the community as "urban". DLCinMaine 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All taken care of. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1/3rd of campus is in Manchester and the other 2/3rds is in Goffstown —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Role in Presidential Debates in 2007?

Maybe somethin should be added about the role of the college in the 2007 Presidential Debates in June of the American Republican and Democratic parties. VarunRajendran 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's there, but it's not cited. It needs to be cited or it can and/or will be deleted. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i have done so and cited several links outside of anselm.edu

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Their most noted football player is 2003 All NE-10 2nd Teamer Michael Geary Is this sentence vandalism, or is it supposed to be mentioned? And if it is, maybe we should put it in a better paragraph. Stanselmdoc 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're already aware, it should be substantiated per WP:RS and properly placed under something like an "Athletics" subheading of "Student life". Otherwise, it ought to be deleted as unsourced boosterism/non-NPOV. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Mark Sullivan (1977)- Head of Secret Service Hubie McDonough (1989)- NHL player Pamela Patenaude (1983)- Former Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development at Dept. of HUD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summagirl (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

St Anselm's College (disambiguation)

I changed the hatnote on this article to, once again, direct to St. Anselm's College via a {{distinguish}} template. I've marked the disambig page for deletion, which you can read about there. I've also requested that St Anselm's College, Birkenhead be moved to the redirect page in the hatnote, per naming conventions. Please don't alter these without showing good cause to do so. --Aepoutre (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article tagging

The article is currently sourced primarily to the college's own website and has a decidedly promotional tone. Durova³⁹⁰ 05:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have reinstated article tags, which were removed without explanation. Please communicate. It isn't feasible to remove a tag that the article reads like an advertisement while adding an actual advertisement in violation of copyright. Durova³⁹⁰ 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to write this as neutral as I can, please highlight specifics where it is not neutral... if you do this I will be glad to change them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) Let's start with the first paragraph, the bulk of which is decidedly promotional and not sourced to the Princeton Review or the Washington Post, but to the college's own PR. Durova³⁹⁰ 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Princeton Review has described Saint Anselm College as "one of the country's best institutions for undergraduate education", as Saint Anselm's outstanding academic reputation is ranked among the Best 371 Colleges by the Princeton Review.[1] Only about 15 percent of America’s 2,500 four-year colleges and two Canadian colleges are profiled in the book, which is The Princeton Review's flagship annual college guide. The Washington Post recently referred to Saint Anselm College as "the Benedictine college with a box seat on America's most riveting political theater", as the college has played a pivotal role in the New Hampshire Primary [2]

Also for the 3rd party thing, because my college is a small liberal arts college, there are very few articles (ie NO information) pertaining to the college with such specifics as required to write these articles. the only way to get specifics about the college (ie the equitment in Joseph Hall) is through the anselm.edu website, because no 3rd party website has any information on it... I request that the 3rd party source thing be removed from the notification at the top of the article because of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So it's your college? It would be a good idea to start a userpage that discloses the conflict of interest. Other editors may be curious whether you're student, staff, or faculty. Disclosure isn't required, but it's an act of good faith that may help to disarm concerns. Durova³⁹⁰ 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When I say "my college" I mean I am a student there, I'll try to play with a userpage, I don't know if im that technically advanced yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ok, so I've read your comments and have added sources other than anselm.edu address, is there anything else that needs to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Frontloading the introduction with praise is a typical PR technique. Wikipedia's mission isn't to promote any institution; simply to describe it. Durova³⁹⁰ 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ok i have "de-frontloaded" the introduction, moving some of the quotes to appropriate sections (ie the washington post quote about the colleges politics to the new hampshire institute of politics section...

is there anything else that you'd like done? otherwise I think it is pretty fair now, I've looked at some other colleges and they have the same kind of set up

Please write back when I am free to remove the warnings at the top of the screen about neutrality and so on... If more needs to be done please let me know! I'd love to help expand Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - for the admissions section, the information in there now is identical to what every college admissions department says they want. (I just spent a year taking my son to visit colleges, and they all said essentially what's in here.) Instead, what is distinctive about St. A's admissions process? How selective is the college in fact? (I.e. what percentage of applicants are accepted?) Are there other measurable quantities that could be put in here? By the way, I appreciate all the work you've put into this.--Ken Gallager (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Hello, as you can see from the text above, "Durova" had several problems with how the article was written... I have changed a lot and have asked that the warnings be removed and if they are not ready to be removed, I'd like to know what else needs to be done, because after viewing several other college's wikipedia pages, I believe Saint A's wikipedia page is an equal... Thank You

{{helpme}}

Hello, how do I delete images I've uploaded several times? The first times for each image, I forgot to cite the copyright thing (not having seen the bar on the bottom), and now my images are tagged for speedy deletion... can someone help me with this! I don't want the images deleted, they serve the article well

Use the {{hangon}} template right below the speedy deletion template (but do not remove the speedy deletion template), and then explain on the image's talk page why you think it shouldn't be deleted. Also, for future reference, please don't use the helpme template on talk pages; it is meant for use on your own talk page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Tagging

Hello, why has this article been tagged as, "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (January 2010)"

Whomever tagged it like this gave no reason for this... If no one comes forward with a valid reason as to why this page is tagged this way, I will remove the tag. Thank You --Ericci8996 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with NH primary in the lead

Since my attempts to make a few changes reducing the hype quotient in a paragraph of the lead have been reverted as unwarranted, I guess I'll explain some of the reasoning.

Removed "pivotal". Sorry, unless there is no other place in the entire state to hold debates, providing a venue is hardly a pivotal role in the primary.

"Primary" in "New Hampshire primary" is not a proper noun (or at least the editors of the article concerning the event don't treat it as such. No capital "P".

The debate, and thus the college, provides one of many national stages for the candidates; although early, it is hardly unique, and is thus "a" stage, not "the" stage.

Presidential debates are by definition national events. Using the descriptive "national" for a second time within two lines is redundant and arguably poor form.

"Hundreds of" candidates and supporters is ambiguous and unsupported by independent sources. "Since the 1950s" there have been 15 campaigns. Did they average 13+ candidates each, the minimum number to have "[two] hundreds of candidates", or does the number include supporters? Either way it's fairly meaningless except in a promo brochure.

Media attention is attracted by and focused on the debates, not the college. Hence the change from "and has" to "which have".

"Extensive" media coverage seems like a fair description without padding word count by singling out three specific media outlets as though they were more important than their competitors.

Taking polls does not make one a "substantial force" in the primary, nor does hosting campaign events. And again there is the unsubstantiated "hundreds". Fat&Happy (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Anselm College/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to do the review again. If you would like a different reviewer instead, please say so. You will not hurt my feelings. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to have you review again... you know this article so well from your initial review a few weeks ago... Thanks for the dedicated attention you've given this piece. I look forward to uploading more images of campus and making the changes below as my final exams wind down--Ericci8996 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Initial review comments

I've made an initial review, and on the whole I think it looks very good. You have made a lot of very good improvements and addressed the issues from the last review very nicely. Good work.

My few remaining concerns are mostly about referencing. There are a few uncited quotes, some claims that need to be better substantiated, and some paragraphs that lack citations altogether. By way of shorthand, I have placed "citation needed" and "says who" templates in the places where better referencing is needed.

You should also check your references to make sure the formatting is consistent. I see some without publishers. That field is required. Some of your references are bare URLs. You should fix that.

I also made some copyedits along the way, all minor. If you feel I have made a change in error, you should feel free to revert it.

I will have a few more comments and suggestions later, which I also expect to be minor. I am watching this page and will respond to any comments here promptly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other observations:

• You talk about the Abbey Players in the Dana Center section and then give them their own section right below. Can you combine them?

Done --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• You talk about Portraits in Human Greatness in several places, mostly repeating the same information. Again, can you combine them?

Done --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do you need the shield image? It is part of the logo. A before/after layout of the Alumni hall images might be more impactful.

I really do think I need the logo, as I go on for a paragraph describing the logo and interperting the history of it --Ericci8996 (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• In places you refer to events as "recent," "current", or "upcoming." In general, you want to write as if the readers were from some time in the future. Try to date these things as much as you can. "In 2010". "As of 2009". Etc. I made a couple of those changes where I saw them. Check for others.

Mostly done, if you see anymore please change them! Thanks!--Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• You mention the Princeton Review and USN&WR rankings in two places. Can you make it one?

Rearranged, ALL rankings moved to the ranking section--Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Central to a liberal arts college is a liberal arts education" I don't find this in that source. If it is a quote, cite it. If not, you should delete it. It is an opinion. If it is yours, it is original research.

Language removed --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "... what makes Saint Anselm a uniquely Catholic college." Says who?

Language revised --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, how is this review going --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.155.211.12 (talk)

Images

I see you are making progress on the references. When you feel you have addressed all the tags, let me know and I will look at it again. In the meantime, the new images are nice but you may have gone a bit overboard. One can have too much of a good thing. In general:

• The images should have some relation to the section in which they appear, or, at minimum, have relevance to something specifically discussed in the body of the article.
• They should not sandwich the text between two images.
• You should not have any images in the Notes or External links sections at all. Only notes and links go there.

I see you have created a gallery on Commons. Good idea. Any images that are not relevant and usable here can go there.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the gallery, it may be helpful to review WP:IG. The wealth of images is already starting to overwhelm the article. The gallery belongs on Commons, and you might want to review the images in the article and select only those that add encyclopedic value. Also look at this guideline. Perhaps the dorm room, the trash bins, the classroom, the cafe, the darkened stage, and the nondescript box are sufficiently generic that the article could stand on its own without them. Resist the temptation to make the article an image repository. That's not what Wikipedia is for; that's what Commons is for. The article is otherwise approaching the GA standard. Illustrated appropriately, I believe it would pass. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And the Commons link goes in External links. You already have one there. That is the only one you should have. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, I know it's supposed to go there, but I really think it is more convenient for the average user, who may not actually scroll all the way down to the end of the page, to have the link under campus, as the images are primarily of campus.

Will leaving it up where it is prevent GA status?

Also, how far am I right now from GA status?

Thanks! --Ericci8996 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

See the checklist below. You have not addressed all the citation issues yet and the references need cleaning up. If those things get done, I think this will be a Good Article.

And yes, the layout guidelines say you have to move the Commons link.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

After refs are fixed and everything below on checklist is fixed, will not moving the commons thing hold up GA status?

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well-written

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some of the images sandwich the text or drop into the following section. Should be fixed. There is information in the lead not found in the article (e.g., "third oldest..."). This should be fixed as well.

   1. Hi! I've added the third oldest into the rest of the article... which images are not fitting for you? On my computer screen there are no impages that sandwich the text or drop into the following section.

1. Is it factually accurate and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiab--Ericci8996 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)le]]?

   A. References to sources:

#:: Some references are bare URLs or lack publishers and accessdates, particularly in the Notable people section.

1. 1. ALL Fixed :)

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   All of "citation needed" and other tags must be addressed. There are several totally unreferenced paragraphs, especially in the History section. These need appropriate citations.

   2. History section fully cited (as I found a thesis about the history of the college in the library)...

   C. No original research:

   No original research.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   A comprehensive article.

   B. Focused:

   Stays on topic.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral presentation.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Lots of edits, but all in response to review comments.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Image permissions okay.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very nicely illustrated.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The remaining referencing and other issues need to be resolved but otherwise it is close to standard. A well-researched and very nicely illustrated article that meets the GA standard.

Please check again that all references are correctly formatted with publishers, accessdates, and all other required information. There are more than a few that are still incomplete.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a little unsure on which references are not correct. I need some help in this. Can you help me? Please point out the ones which need to be edited and what needs to be added.

I really hope this is GA soon! :) Ericci8996 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see 107, 114, 115, 118, 120, 122, 125, 128, 129, 132 and 141 all missing publishers, accessdates, or something else. 188 has been challenged as not notable on the talk page. I tend to agree. You might want to delete that one.

The McKeon thesis is a great find but is not cited correctly. Use the {{cite thesis}} template. You don't need to link it if there is no link to the actual document.

For 31 and 32, you have to give the name of the newspaper. (It is a student publication, correct?)

I hope I've been clear on what you need to do to meet the GA standard. Once those things are done, it will be my pleasure to pass it.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, You have been a great help... I need some help though

On citations 114, 120 and several others, I have "access date" in the citation itself, after I save it, it will not show Ericci8996 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is accessdate, no spaces. It's easy to misspell too. Check that and it should work. I fixed 120, for example --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, All seems to be in order!

Please tell me if there is ANYTHING else I need to do to get this to GA :) Ericci8996 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The references look okay now. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. Nice work! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

THANKS! Couldn't have done it without you guys Ericci8996 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources as references

What the schools says about itself is only reliable regarding uncontested facts. To say that the school is "unique" in some way needs a reliable source, as does anything WP:PEACOCKy. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

General Questions

Hello, I have a few questions as I am still relatively new to all this

1) Warren Bamford – 1980 was labeled "list membership disputed" under the reference I gave. The reference listed clearly states in his biography that he is a graduate.

2) For the Hilltop student newspaper, the only online source is the facebook group which has hundreds of members. I know it is not the most reliable source because it is facebook... but it is the only source I can provide.

3) For the two citation requests under the Environmental responsibility section, there are no documents on the college website or any other media outlet detailing the new recycling efforts. The college has not yet released the PR for the green graduation, but since I am one of the students planning it I can promise you it’s real.

Thank You!!!

--Ericci8996 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Bamford tag.

The facebook group is not a reliable source. If that is the only source, you have to remove the statement until you find a better one.

If there are no reliable sources on the environmental section, you must remove the statements until sources can be found.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, as far as the Bamford tag goes... The section title is "Notable people and alumni". The eligibility question is not whether Bamford is an alumnus, which is obvious to anyone reading the FBI press release; it's whether he's notable. Director of the FBI – yes. Maybe even Assistant Director. But "Special Agent in Charge of the Boston office of the FBI"? Really? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Fair point. No hard and fast rules, of course, but perhaps this one does not pass the threshold? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Peer review next?

Congratulations on taking this article to GA status. It took a lot of work and it is quite an accomplishment. It is a very big step from here to Featured Article, and it usually requires quite a bit of work to take an article to that much higher standard. If you are interested in an eventual FAC, you first step should be to list the article at WP:PR for a peer review and take the advice you get there to heart. Only if the peer reviewer feels the article is ready for FAC should you take that step. Peer review is where you will get the best feedback and advice from this point forward. Congratulations again and thanks for your had work and contribution to the project.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, Thanks for your help!!! I already nominated it for FAC, I just saw your suggestion of WP:PR. Since I already nominated it, can we just work within the framework of the FAC? I promise I will take all the advice to heart! I am so happy about GA, this article has come such a long way Ericci8996 (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a very good article and you have a lot to be proud of, but it has a long way to go for FAC. It is not ready yet and will probably be archived quickly, which will just be discouraging for you. If you want to keep improving it, my advice is to withdraw it and get one of the folks at PR to help you take it to the next level. The editors there are excellent and will give you the best advice.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nasty, since I've already listed it and some people have already commented, I'm going to give FAC a try, if not, I can always PR then reapply... I won't get discouraged :) 76.118.13.248 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC and some problems

Don't be discouraged, Ericci. It's very hard to write a college article, given the sources that are available. The ones that are "honest" about the institution are usually tucked away in the institutional files somewhere. Regardless, there are other ways to deal with the balance of sources. I agree that it sounds very much like a college promotion (which is what I was trying to convey), rather than an objective article.

Upon this Granite.

Benedictine Review

Cite for first degrees awarded

Also, College Bl. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox template for Universities guidlines states that the graphic in the top of the box is for the university's offical seal or shield. The graphic at the bottom of the box is for the school's wordmark or secondary logo. As is the standard for most university pages on Wikipedia, images of the school are not placed in the infobox when university seals and logos are available. 68.145.121.198 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a reason to make this article different. I think it would be a lot better, too, to free up that rather nice image to be used elsewhere in the article where it can be rendered larger. ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason infobox cannot have image in it. As per University guidelines says it SHOULD, there is NO absolute requirement... Also as said before the GA moderator supported the image of Alumni Hall... Ericci8996 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems incumbent on those who want an exception to the guideline to make a convincing argument for that exception. So: Why should we make an exception here? ElKevbo (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly the guideline does support the image of the structure being under the first image field. Broad consensus is for this. Secondly the second image is labeled "logo". Why would you put an image of the building under the logo field? The only time the logo is put in the first field is if there is no free image available of the structure. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And why should we not use the institution's seal like we do in nearly every other university or college article? I'm still not seeing any reason why we should ignore the precedent set by nearly every other article and the infobox usage guidelines that clearly state the "preferably [use] the university's official seal or logo." ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Elkevbo, what we are trying to say to you is that the official logo aspect is fulfilled with the logo at the bottom of the infobox. If we were to put the official logo at the top, it would be too repetitive and since there is a beautiful image of Alumni Hall available, consensus seems to have taken it's vote.Ericci8996 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For the third time: Why doesn't this article include the college seal in the infobox like nearly every other article? And why do you insist on stuffing a very beautiful photo into a tiny infobox when the photo would look much better and be more useful to readers if it were rendered larger outside of the infobox?

Do you see what I'm getting at? No one has made any argument explaining why this article should be different. And that difference is actually making the article worse than it could otherwise be. ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to weigh in on this any further. I suggest getting the feedback of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities for a resolution. We're talking about their guidelines, and they would be the best to judge. Either way, the version of the article I saw yesterday was improperly structured, with duplicate logos in the infobox and the picture casually plopped outside the infobox. If the WikiProject is not active enough to provide meaningful feedback, I suggest following the proper procedures for seeking resolution to this dispute. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's very frustrating for me to continue to ask very reasonable questions and not receive any legitimate answers. I've already dropped a line at WT:UNI and I agree that it would be problematic if the project's members have no interest in enforcing their guidelines. ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The appearance of the infobox in this version is the most appropriate from what I can tell. The "logo" parameter is filled in with the school's logo, and according to the template, the image should be a "University-related graphic, preferably the university's official seal or logo." However, if the "logo" parameter already contains that graphic, so I don't see why a nice university-related photo cannot be used. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as above: Why aren't we using the institution's seal like nearly every other article? ElKevbo (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, guidelines are just guidelines, but there is a certain power in consistency. There is no requirement that an infobox be used at all. It seems to me that if an infobox is used, it is more useful if we keep it consistent over all of our university and college articles. Since GA reviews do not have an infobox criteria, the only question for the GA review is whether the information in the infobox is verifiable, stable and not infringing any copyright. Racepacket (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I was the GA reviewer on this article and I was asked to comment here. I do not read the comments as questioning the GA status of the article. Rather, it seems ElKevbo is making an argument to replace the current image with the college seal based on the University Project guidelines and prevailing practice in similar articles. For my part, I think ElKevbo has an excellent point. The guideline does encourage the seal as the main image and most college articles do adhere to that standard. All the current university FAs do. I also respect the view that it is actually a bit silly, since no one visually associates any college with its seal (even if they went there), but consensus was achieved on this point long ago. That being said, the question is what would most improve the article. I agree there is no hard and fast rule. But I think the argument for consistency is a good one and should be taken seriously. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a small point, there are many schools where the seal would be visually associated with the university, especially for those that go there. Some schools use their seal as a logo, while other go the other route, and restrict its use for more official functions. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As Nasty Housecat pointed out- This issue doesn't really effect the GA status but it's more about consistency and following the guidelines. I disagree with Nasty Housecat's point that colleges are not visually associated with the seals. They appear on all official college documents and degrees and in addition, I've been to some universities where seal sculptures/statues that are campus focal points, also many universities have incorporated the seal or features of the seal into the more modern trend of logos. Generally the seal is used at the top (missing here). The logo at the bottom (already correct on here). The picture is a very nice picture and is useable in another part of the article. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Done: The seal has been placed at the top of the infobox. The pic of Alumni Hall fit nicely into the section on the historic building. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed - No consensus reached... 4 users for the image: 68.145.121.198, Ericci8996, Alpha Quadrant, VisionHolder

4 users for the logo: ElKevbo, Racepacket, Nasty Housecat, BHockey --Ericci8996 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

first- consensus is not voting (i.e. 4 vs. 4), second- Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", third- We do have consensus because it is a guideline formed through previous discussions and consensus building. Personally I think the university logo should be top and seal at the bottom of infobox but that issue for the guideline discussion, Same for your argument for pics in the infobox, not here. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the photo of the building is a nice touch to an already informative and well done GA. I think the image adds personality and character to the article. Since Wikipedia guidelines for university and college articles says that the logo is preferable, I think it can stay. While I can appreciate the need for uniformity and consistency, the author has already given such consideration in the rest of the article. Plus, official college artwork is placed at the bottom of the info box. I do not believe that this constitutes a violation of the unnecessary artwork found in the citation about college and university info boxes. Again to reiterate, the official college seal or logo is not required. For examples of schools without such logos in their info boxes see these two featured articles Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and Oriel College, Oxford. That makes 5 for the image. --Ryanj.mccarty (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't "look nice" on the infobox, it's just a long-standing, well practiced policy/guideline. The example of the Harold and Inge marcus Department... is a bit flawed because the article doesn't even have an infobox, secondly it is an academic Department of a larger university. It needs an infobox with logo but will not have a seal on its own. The main university page Pennsylvania State University is an example of the proper university infobox with the seal at the top and logo/watermark at bottom. I'm not familiar with British colleges, in America most colleges have a seal or logo, I see the infobox for Oriel is not even the standard university infobox. If the college doesn't have a seal or logo that should be at the coat of arms at the bottom should be on top. In general the logo at the top rather than a picture is used not just in university infoboxes- sport teams, companies, countries, etc... all have logos, seals, coat of arms, or similar type image. Pictures are then used throughout the article. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are my actual reasons why it should remain an image of Alumni Hall,

Though many college's have the seal in the infobox, it is not a requirement - no where in the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines does it require the seal. Preferred does not equal required. As demonstrated above and again here, there is no absolute requirement for the infobox image to be of the official seal of the university. The seal has as much right to be in the infobox as the college's coat of arms (which is obviously distinct from the seal and is in many articles, University of Pennsylvania), as well as an image of the institution. Meaning, what is in the infobox is open to interpretation and there is no official fact that the seal must be used, as I said, many colleges also use seal and image of the institution in the infobox.

Here are my more sentimental reasons why it should remain an image of Alumni Hall.

I attended Saint Anselm and took the image - I know the page is not supposed to cater to those who attended Saint Anselm, but by far the most views are coming from students, prospective students, alumni or friends of the college. Thus, (and you wouldn't know this as not being a student at Saint Anselm), Alumni Hall is the heart beat of campus, and it has been the infobox image for almost two years. I am respectfully asking that we keep the image as it is. I know it doesn't have to be, I know it can be the seal, arms or an image, as the guideline states, but I would really appreciate it if it was left the way it's been for such a long time. I just got your message and I come in peace too :), and I know it may seem like at times I want to own the article, I don't want to make that impression - I just want to be the token St. Anselm student at the table here who knows how important Alumni Hall is to a student at the college. We have our graduation outside on the lawn infront of this building, to be honest, it is more of a representation of the college itself as the logo is rarely used by the college. What I've done with this page is very similar to what you've done for Lindenwood University, nice work by the way!

So that's where I stand as of now, both factual and also sentimental reasons for the image. I hope St. Anselm can continue to be one of the articles with an image, as the caliber of the image sets it apart from other articles. I know this is exactly why in your eyes it should be changed, but if you ask a St. Anselm student, the real image they remember from their time at SAC will be of Alumni Hall. --Ericci8996 (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For reasons alluded to in the post directly above, as well as a general tendency to prefer consistency and fairly strict adherence to guidelines, my inclination has been to support use of the seal rather than the photograph. However, I feel Eric makes a good point above. A large corporation, or even a major state university, can be represented by a logo as well as any other image. In most cases, probably better; I am sure that more people can identify the IBM logo than their corporate headquarters in Armonk – which is only seen regularly by a small minority of employees and customers in any case. For a smaller college with traditions surrounding a specific location all the way back to its founding – a building, in this case, which was the entire college at that time, I don't see the need to insist on a less-recognizable seal just for some (optional) consistency which seems to evoke the memory of Emerson. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Eric, actually the St. Anselm article was one of the main GA examples I used as model when bringing the Lindenwood article to GA status and I'm using for another university article currently. My understanding of the guideline- that the word "preferred" is used because not all universities are the same. And some, esp in other countries, don't have a specific seal, in which case a logo or coat of arms is used. However you have somewhat convinced me, and the picture does look visually appealing so I placed the stunning image of Alumni Hall at night back into the infobox, kept the spring Alumni Hall in the building's section because it fits with the other sunny daytime images throughout the article. I then moved the seal to the Academics section (I assume the seal still comes on diplomas and official documents so it is appropriate there). Note: While you have me somewhat convinced I can’t promise another Wikipedia user, admin, and/or Wikiproject:University member won’t have issues with the image in the future being in the infobox in the future. The best way to satisfy everyone is the seal but for now I’ll stick with the status quo and say, Happy Editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

BHockey10, you have no idea on how much it means to me that you used the Saint Anselm article as a model for Lindenwood. That like makes my day LOL. I thank you for complimenting the image and for your work in incorporating the seal into the article - you are right, it needs to be in the article some where and I think where you placed it is excellent. Thank you for the best wishes in editing! It's a lot of fun isn't it?

Fat&Happy, I want to thank you for giving your honest opinion above, even though you could have easily automatically taken the opposite position as mine out (primarilly because of the sentiment we are both guilty of below in rm NN section); so thank you for that and I look forward to working with you and any other party to resolve the issue below.

--Ericci8996 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

File:The Saint Anselm College Anthem.ogg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:The Saint Anselm College Anthem.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Issak

Hi Cim203! I noticed you wanted to include the architect Nicholas Isaak!

I'm really swamped with M.A. work right now, but I did find a source for the info! https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/navfac/navfac_ww_pp/navfac_hq_pp/navfac_env_pp/navfac_bdd_culturalrsrc_pp/tab94501/cw%20final%20rpt%20appendix%20c.pdf

Isaak did various buildings, while Richard Koehler did the Abbey in 1955. Sorry about the revert, but ElKevbo is right to revert an unsourced edit! If we didn't have people like ElKevbo, we would have all sorts of stuff on all these pages! :)

Keep up the editing! --Ericci8996 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my objection isn't necessarily to including this information but to including it without any sources that establish that it's (a) true and (b) worth noting (i.e. this architect is sufficiently important or interesting to be specifically called out in an unrelated encyclopedia article). ElKevbo (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion 2014

The 2+ year precedent for this page having the infobox image of Alumni Hall has been overturned by users WilliamTheaker (talk) and ElKevbo (talk) without discussion on this talk page. As you can clearly see from reading the section above, a consensus was reached between the above users in 2011, after my rationale of Alumni Hall being the "heart beat of campus" changed the minds of several users to support keeping the image. I do not have time to explain the aformentioned consensus, as I am much to preoccupied with my studies in dental school. Let there be another young Anselmian who keeps this page up to date and the best page that it can be! --Ericci8996 (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there wasn't a consensus reached in that discussion. You need a pretty good reason to make an exception in our guidelines for this one article because there is consensus on them. ElKevbo (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice this discussion on the talk page before uploading. My apologies. WilliamTheaker (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Saint Anselm College. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612113404/http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/about/tjd.htm to http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/about/tjd.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527093318/http://www.anselm.edu/administration/greeningthecollege/ to http://www.anselm.edu/administration/greeningthecollege/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207151746/http://wbztv.com:80/local/new.hampshire.senate.2.833984.html to http://wbztv.com/local/new.hampshire.senate.2.833984.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Saint Anselm College. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527114731/http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/F85240FE-C8DB-472D-9D37-2541BCE364D3/14738/studenthandbook0911.pdf to http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/F85240FE-C8DB-472D-9D37-2541BCE364D3/14738/studenthandbook0911.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908131923/http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/kevin.decker/Research%20Information/Ford.htm to http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/kevin.decker/Research%20Information/Ford.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228033553/http://www.anselm.edu:80/news+and+events/college+news/news/2009-02-09-fitness+center.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/news+and+events/college+news/news/2009-02-09-fitness+center.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091207093546/http://www.foxnews.com:80/story/0,2933,209076,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209076,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091005052735/http://www.anselm.edu:80/academics/academic+departments+and+programs/Certificate+Programs/ to http://www.anselm.edu/academics/academic+departments+and+programs/Certificate+Programs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226013030/http://www.anselm.edu:80/administration/internships/ to http://www.anselm.edu/administration/internships
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100527114208/http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/4D2173B6-C2DB-4E98-81BD-AC71BA493EF3/14350/catalog0910.pdf to http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/4D2173B6-C2DB-4E98-81BD-AC71BA493EF3/14350/catalog0910.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100602050125/http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AA368B40-D385-40CF-9A5B-3048C08BB0C1/14606/Orientation2008NewStudents.doc to http://www.anselm.edu/NR/rdonlyres/AA368B40-D385-40CF-9A5B-3048C08BB0C1/14606/Orientation2008NewStudents.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Saint Anselm College. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719051129/http://www.aacn.nche.edu/CCNE/reports/rptAccreditedPrograms_New.asp?state=NH&sFullName=New%20Hampshire&sProgramType=1 to http://www.aacn.nche.edu/CCNE/reports/rptAccreditedPrograms_New.asp?state=NH&sFullName=New%20Hampshire&sProgramType=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151031113107/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KVMQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VosDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6081,3643654&dq=ronald+reagan+saint+anselm+college&hl=en to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KVMQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VosDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6081,3643654&dq=ronald+reagan+saint+anselm+college&hl=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151026081239/http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xwoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s1EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=760,1063637&dq=saint+anselm+college+richard+nixon&hl=en to https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xwoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s1EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=760,1063637&dq=saint+anselm+college+richard+nixon&hl=en
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120323124910/http://english.vietnamnet.vn/international/2007/06/702448/ to http://english.vietnamnet.vn/international/2007/06/702448/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100126010812/http://kofc.org:80/un/eb/en/members/knights/college/index.html to http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/members/knights/college/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100612113404/http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/about/tjd.htm to http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/about/tjd.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602123610/http://www.anselm.edu/news+and+events/portraits/fall-winter2006/features/DC.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/news+and+events/portraits/fall-winter2006/features/DC.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint Anselm College. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528020156/http://www.anselm.edu/admission/visiting/Campus+Map/Buildings+1-5+16-19+33-35/joseph.htm to http://www.anselm.edu/admission/visiting/Campus+Map/Buildings+1-5+16-19+33-35/joseph.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Saint Anselm College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/about%2Bus/facts%2Babout%2Bus/College%2BHistory.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news%2Band%2Bevents/portraits/spring2003/features/program3.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/academics/academic%2Bdepartments%2Band%2Bprograms/Humanities%2BProgram.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://saintanselmhawks.com/landing/general/082515_DIII_ExploratoryPhase
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/administration/the%2Babbey
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/admission/visiting/Campus%2BMap/Buildings%2B1-5%2B16-19%2B33-35/joseph.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/admission/visiting/Campus%2BMap/Buildings%2B1-5%2B16-19%2B33-35/joseph.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/administration/the%2Babbey/abbot/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news%2Band%2Bevents/college%2Bnews/news/2009-02-09-fitness%2Bcenter.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C209076%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/manchester-nh/st.-anselm-college-2587
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/saintanselm/templates/SecondLevel.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2Fadmission%2Fapplying%2FFAQ%20Admission%20Process.htm&NRNODEGUID=%7B6A43B473-273E-49CA-AD5B-012F7CAB4F59%7D&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/academics/academic%2Bdepartments%2Band%2Bprograms/Certificate%2BPrograms/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/academics/academic%2Bdepartments%2Band%2Bprograms/Special%2BPrograms.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20150715%2FNEWS060501%2F150719512
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113151947/http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/category/politics/face-the-nation/ to http://blogs.saintanselmcollege.net/category/politics/face-the-nation/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news%2Band%2Bevents/college%2Bnews/news/2007-10-30-10-30-07-dionne.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/campus%2Blife/campus%2Bactivities/Clubs%2Band%2BOrganizations/Clubs-alphaorder/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028004638/http://www.asan.com/aspa1.htm to http://www.asan.com/aspa1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/campus%2Blife/campus%2Bactivities/Clubs%2Band%2BOrganizations/Clubs-alphaorder/quatrain.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-archbishop-of-quebec-named-currently-serves-on-bishops-committee-on-lif/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news%2Band%2Bevents/portraits/fall-winter2006/features/DC.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anselm.edu/news%2Band%2Bevents/portraits/summer2004/features/classnoteables/Surette.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Academic boosterism

@Wikieditor19920: I see you tagged this for academic boosterism, but you have not brought up specifics on the talk page here. Could you state what your concerns are? I haven't read this page, but an article with bad enough boosterism that it requires a tag should not be a GA, so the tag should either be removed or the article brought for WP:GAR. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging Ericci8996 (semi-retired?), who brought the article to GA way back in 2010. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Saint Anselm College/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As pointed out on talk, there are issues with the GA criteria, specifically boosterism, NPOV, MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and uncited text which contravenes verifiability requirements. These need to be resolved for the article to remain a GA. (t · c) buidhe 20:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

rm NN

Fat & Happy - Why remove these Alumni? Explain what rm NN means... All were properly cited and were important as presidents, ceo's or whatever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove non-notable; i.e., classification of those individuals as notable alumni is not clearly established. While not foolproof, the usually applied criteria for similar lists of notable people is that they are notable enough to have had a Wikipedia article written bout them (and, implicitly, have survived any WP:NN deletion challenges). Otherwise, calling them notable alumni is pretty much POV and/or original research. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. Every person cited held an important position and just because there is not a Wikipedia article written about them does not mean they should be simply forgotten into the depths of history. The original research I did is fully cited and I respectfully request we have several other people interject their opinions before you simply remove them. I will revert page to the way it was before your edits and we will wait for consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your basis or source for unilaterally designating these particular individuals as notable alumni? Fat&Happy (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A) several of these alumni have buildings named after them on campus and thus are obviously important to the college. B) again, all these people have held positions at national and more local companies. There reasons as cited for being important to the community and world. Again, Wikipedia is not the end all decider of a human beings importance.

What is your basis or source for unilaterally designating these particular individuals as "non notable" alumni, despite the fact they lack a Wikipedia page?--Ericci8996 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not designating them non-notable; I'm saying there has been no substantial evidence produced from the usual secondary reliable sources to establish that they are notable. Thus, their inclusion as "notable alumni" is unsourced POV. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What more is needed I cited primary source newspaper articles and biographies on company official websites... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that anybody mentioned in a newspaper article or their own company's reports is notable? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all - the newspaper articles are merely sources - I let the positions they have attained (ie President of Firestone, etc...) speak for themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, repeating myself, they "speak for themselves" and what you hear them saying is "This position makes the holder notable." This is based on your personal interpretation of what the sources say. Your point of view. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Point of view huh? Let me give you a little lesson in what Plato / Aristotle called the "Universal Truths"... I do not "hear" these sources as simply stating their importance, their importance again as Presidents, CEOs, is something higher than the article. Attaining said positions of power and influence clearly demonstrates importance, NOT from my point of view, but to established facts. Again, these are not based on my personal interpretations of what the sources say. The higher truth of what they have attained compared to universal standards is what we are looking at here. It is hard for you to say that people who are CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are "not important"... There success is measured against this index of agreed upon success.

Let's go LINE by LINE, proving their importance, not simply because an article says so, but because of a Platonic method of Universal higher truths...

• Dr. Marc LaForce – 1960 – Director of the Meningitis Vaccine Project of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Dr. LaForce is the director of the multi-billion dollar effort to rid the world of Meningitis by providing such vaccines to almost every third world nation. The effort by Bill and Melinda Gates has been a hot topic as of late (as it has appeared in many newspaper articles) Yes, These articles are fact in proving the persons importance / merit. It is simply NOT up to interpretation at that point. If you don't want to focus on the article, cast it aside - any alumnus from any institution who is appointed by Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world, on such a noble effort, curing the world of a terrible disease, is deemed important. All this aside, according to you, all Dr. LaForce would need to be important is a simple Wikipedia page, which could have been made by any one and could be completely un-sourced. These are important as they are cited with FACT and are important because of the universal truths (ie the good they are doing or good positions they have attained) that these articles support.

Next,

• Leon Brodeur – 1951 – President of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

Mr. Brodeur was head of a Fortune 500 company - this fact alone should be sufficient evidence for his importance and success - obviously this is a great honor for an alumni to attain such a rank few people have not - neither you or I can say we have been President of a Fortune 500 company... Again, it is not simply the article which is proving his importance - it is the higher more universal fact that he was the President of a Fortune 500 company.

Next,

• Richard Bready – 1965 – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nortek Inc

Same as Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Bready is President of another Fortune 500 company - Nortek Inc... He also has importance to the college as a center of teaching excellence (scholarship and research room) is named for him at Saint Anselm.

Next,

• Richard Meelia – 1971 – Chairman & CEO of Covidien (formerly TYCO)

Another multiBILLION dollar company / fortune 500 Chairmen, Mr. Meelia's importance to society and to the institution Saint Anselm itself is warranted to be listed here. The Meelia Center for Community Service at the college is named after him.

Finally,

• Michael Sheehan – 1982 – Chief Executive Officer of American ad agency Hill Holliday

Mr. Sheehan is the CEO of an ad agency which is nationally known, representing companies such as Verizon Wireless, Bank of America, Liberty Mutual, Dunkin’ Donuts, John Hancock, Chili’s, Novartis, and Major League Baseball.

Again, it is not simply because an article affirms his position of power - his importance lies in the fact that the agency he is in charge of plays a huge part in American culture. We (and the World as well) sees these ads every day, and so on. If this did not make clear their importance, (for the last time, not simply because an article says so), the universal truths / higher goods and purposes represented by measuring them against an independent standard of excellence (the top companies in America/World), then I do not know how else to simplify this any more for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Once more you rely on nothing more than personal opinion. This is not a bull session sitting around in a dorm room. The "universal truth" on Wikipedia is the requirement that assertions be reliably sourced. It's likely that some of the people on your list would be considered notable by a broad consensus of opinion; it's equally likely that some would not. Unlike the cases of people who have Wikipedia articles, thereby having demonstrated – at least implicitly, even if not explicitly – that such a consensus exists, your inclusion of people merely because you feel their qualifications are obvious bypasses that evaluation and substitutes your personal judgment. That is editing with a personal point-of-view, and that is giving undue weight to the opinions of one person. Those are simple concepts I would hope you could understand.

(Is the tilde [~] key on your keyboard functional?) Fat&Happy (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot keep wasting my time going over the same obvious things which prove their importance aside from my pov... I respectfully disagree with your comment about a "bull session" as well and am considering reporting it as rude behavior- no where did I ever insult you claiming your ideas (in so many words) were formulated in a session of "bull" (obviously implying bull sh*t)...

Please use more respect in talking to your equal during future conversations.

PS Dr. LaForce was just named to TIME’s Most Influential People List and currently ranks #47... apparently myself and all the people and online voters at TIME would agree with me in his importance- it is these universal standards, truths & goals which are simply factors for successand thus negate any pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericci8996 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Still haven't found that tilde key, huh?

Honi soit qui mal y pense. Another reason not to make judgments based solely on, you know, things like your own personal opinion. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You have made some recent comments (appearing here [1] & here [2]) on the Saint Anselm College Talk Page. Only after the threat of being reported did you attempt to tone down your rhetoric by claiming a different definition to what was clearly meant as a mean spirited remark. Even after attempting to clarify that remark, you then dug your hole of incivility deeper, claiming that I lacked "real world experience". You claimed all this after never meeting me in person. Who gives you the right to label me after never meeting me? I never labeled you! Finally, your badgering questions about my computer's "tilde key" was the final straw of incivility. It is by choice that I do not sign posts, as they are automatically filled in after I click submit when signed into my username - this is evident as you clearly know which user you have been talking to throughout this "process".

I respectfully want you to know that there is more to a human being (even when lacking a Wikipedia page of their own) in the flesh than words, lines and "tilde keys".

So, please ensure you're familiar with our standards of civility and decency before continuing to make comments to and about other editors.

I hope this entire encounter is a teaching moment for you and that no "bad blood" remains between us. As much as you may not believe it, I really do. Next time there is an editing conflict I would appreciate mutual respect.

Thank you.

PS: As a token of good measure, I will sign this and will try to get in the habit of doing so. --Ericci8996 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted following the identical comment made on my talk page, I will not respond to unfounded allegations. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you already tried to edit it again and remove your "real world experience" comments I am locking this thread--Ericci8996 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not your prerogative on a discussion that has not run its course.

Getting back on topic after an unfortunate diversion, the Time magazine designation, if properly sourced, would be an excellent example of the type of secondary sourcing I mentioned above which would demonstrate notability. If that new information were included, I would not object to LaForce's inclusion on the list (though I cannot speak for others who I have seen take a slightly narrower view on other "notable Foos" lists). One down, only four to go. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are 100% right in the fact that I cannot control when it's decided or not. Let's put the last days drama aside and try to just get it out there why they should stay or not. We are still not seeing eye to eye on this, can a 3rd party come in? --Ericci8996 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ericci8996, is Nortek really a fortune 500 company? Who knew. Anyways, after reading this thread, it looks like FatnHappy would just like to see some/more 2ndary sourcing to show notability, ie the Time article would do nicely. I could go either way myself on this. Is there any type of "standard" on who makes these lists? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Threeafterthree! Thanks for taking part in the discussion! Yes, Nortek has been in the past on and off, here's the link I found when doing my initial search: [3]

Nevertheless, I think as I have all along that all these alumni here are notable. But for now, since I have to get thru finals, the 2 alumni under question here, Bready and LaForce, I think have sufficed with these 2ndary sources. Here's LaForce's link from Time: [4]

Just a quick aside, can we keep the 2010 website change? Ending the intro with the new dorm proposed in 2009 awhich has still not been built is not as current as we'd like it. Also, I feel the first green graduation was a milestone for the college. Regardless, those are small issues- thanks for interjecting here. --Ericci8996 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ericci8996, I would probably remove the planned dorm upgrade as well from the lead, but that is just me, and didn't want to do to much triming having just arrived here new. Was the 1st green graduation really that big a deal/widely covered that it warrants enclusion in the lead? Same question goes for the new design website. Anyways, this lede discussion probably should be under a new thread title since this thread is about notable alums, ps, I tweaked your post above since this blue box that streched off the page showed up, not sure if that was your intention. If so, please revert me and accept my apologizes. Good luck with finals. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No apologies needed at all three! I noticed you are a fellow Rhode Islander!! We need more 401 pride on Wikipedia haha