Talk:Washington & Jefferson College/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality:

Consider moving to lead paragraph the number of miles between the campus and downtown Pittsburgh. (Now just in campus section)

I'm not sure that adds anything to the lead, since the lead notes its presence in the Pittsburgh Metro area. The number of miles seems redundant.

I think metropolitan area is too vague. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I changed it.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword "making the college third in the nation per capita for producing doctors and scientific researchers" - is the per capita based on cumulative number of graduates? Over what time period? Reword "The college is first in the nation per capita in producing attorneys" - again meaning is unclear

I agree, and the source is similarly unclear. Also, as I consider it now, I'd like to see that claim come from a non-W&J source, or at least something more than a few statements scattered around the website and alumni magazines. I mean, that's a pretty big deal if true. I think I might write an email to the press officer, or whoever, about those factoids to see if there's more substantiation. For now, I'll cut those claims, pending confirmation.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword " based on the yearly course theme" Do you mean "based on a different course theme selected each year"?

Yeah, and that's better language.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword "The college has a relationship with the" ROTC. Just say, "Students have the option of enrolling in the"

I think that the original language is better, since it explains that the college has a relationship with another school's ROTC program, rather than the college simply permitting students to enroll in ROTC. The fact that the other school's ROTC program is integrated into the curriculum, rather than simply an add-on or transfer credit-only, is important.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider breaking up the idea into two sentences. The contractual relationship is between the individual student and the ROTC program. Perhaps something like "The ROTC program of X allowsW&J students to enroll...." Does W&J give academic credit for ROTC classes? How long has the relationship been in place? [User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. See what you think.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you work in the idea of how long the relationship has been in place and perhaps how popular it is? Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some more info. No RS on how popular it is (but I can tell you that it's not very popular, as far as I know).--GrapedApe (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

" She has signed signed the "Presidents Letter," " - did she really sign it twice?

No, that's a typo.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

" The transfer student population is relatively low." - please be more specific

Yeah, I changed the language to "The number of transfer students in the student body is relatively low compared to other institutions."--GrapedApe (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On an absolute numerical basis or as a percentage of student body size? Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

`OK, I have more info on that. Check out the new language.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Spell out or define PAC. Done.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Most colleges have a separate student intramural athletic program. Are you sure that this program is equally open to faculty and staff?

The source states that "The mission of the Washington & Jefferson College intramural sports program is to provide an opportunity for all students, faculty, and staff to participate in enjoyable and organized recreational activities." So, yeah, I took that to mean that the intramural program has offerings for faculty and staff. As for how this is specifically performed, I am not sure.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword "With 37% of the student body participating in "greek life," fraternities and sororities play an important role in student life at W&J." How about, "37% of the student body join fraternities or sororities."?

I'd rather not start a sentence with a number, plus the original language signifies that 37% is substantial, whereas the proposed language simply throws out a number without a discussion about the context.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can spell out the number at the start of a sentence, per WP:MOS. However, "important role in student life" is impermissible puffing. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a simple change that I think works well: I changed "important" to "significant." This removes any chance of puffery, since the word "significant" is much more neutral. It is also the adjective that is used in the lead of Dartmouth College Greek organizations, a GA article. I tried a few alternate drafts of the language, but I couldn't come up with anything that worked as well. The section needs a good opening thesis sentence, and just stating the percentage isn't very engaging. Also, the fact that the greek system is "significant" is supported by the 37% fact in the beginning of the sentence. I believe that all the concerns are addressed here.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How about adding "as of {year}" Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The source isn't specific about what the timeframe is on Greek participation. It could be historic or for 2009-2010. Not sure.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You say, "All Greek organizations occupy College-owned homes on Chestnut Street on campus." This means that all fraternities and sororities:1) have houses, 2) use college-owned houses and 3) those houses are on Chestnut Street, without exception. Are you sure?

Yep. Totally sure. That's what the source indicates, (plus I know from personal experience, but not that I would ever cite to that, but I am certain that the source is correct).--GrapedApe (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but how about changing "homes" to "houses?" Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's better.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean by "scratch" in the Olympics?

I have no idea what "scratch" is; that is why the name of that game is in quotes. I listed the names of the games as they were presented in the source.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we find an additional source that might add some light on this? I have followed the history of the Olympics and of intercollegiate athletics, and I have no idea. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that there's no connection between the college's Olympic Games and the Olympic Games, right? In fact, the college's Olympic Games actually predate the modern Olympic Games by a decade. The college's games are also not related to intercollegiate athletics. I have searched for information, and there is nothing about the game of "scratch" in google books, no in any news archives I could find. Here's a scan from an old college Olympic Games flyer, listing "scratch" as an event: File:Washjeff Olympic Games.jpg. My guess is that the game was of local origin, kinda like the "cane rush."--GrapedApe (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. Racepacket (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: - check word spacing; "10 Greek housing" should be "ten greek housing"

What do you mean by "word spacing"? I checked for " " between words, but I couldn't find any. Also, according to WP:MOSNUM# Numbers as figures or words, "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals," so it should probably stay as "10". However, I will change the capitalization.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a number of places where 1 space is required, but 0 were present. Maybe I was thrown off by capitalizing the word Greek. I understand what "ten fraternity and sorority houses" mean, but I am confused by "10 Greek housing" -- is it housing located at 10 Greek Court? Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization of Greek to greek. I'm not sure what else is confusing you. There is a reference to "10 greek housing units," which I think is pretty self-evidence in its meaning: housing units for greek organizations.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Check for consistency: the lead paragraph says "town of Washington" below it is "City of Washington". I think that city is correct, but should not be capitalized. Racepacket (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I fixed it.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the Washington-W&J Relationship article is clear that the issue was real estate tax exemption, you should clarify this article that the dispute was over paying real estate taxes and not income taxes. Racepacket (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources:

See two concerns in section below. Racepacket (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

Rankings should be attributed to the ranking authority, not a position description for recruiting the Dean of the Faculty

For which claims? I felt that the material from the Dean of the Faculty position description was a reliable source, since 1) I was published by the academic department, which would be the best and most direct source of that information 2) the academics office is governed by standards of academic honesty, so there would (in all likelihood) not be falsified or incorrect data. Will that type of document have puffery? Probably, but I only used hard data claims from that document.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been on a number of academic search committees, and you can count on both the position description and the candidates' resumes putting each side in their own best light. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing references to that document.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A fitness magazine would not have comprehensive knowledge of the physical education requirements of all college in the U.S. There are trade associations, government agencies, and professional societies that would be a more authoritative source.

I do not believe that the ranking, nor the language in the article, claims that the ranking is anything more than a ranking from a popular magazine. It's no different that a US news ranking: subjective in what it evaluates and the weight it gives to each item, but still encyclopedic.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we do better? Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to locate the information that you seek. I also don't believe that is necessary.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects:

What about rankings by major publications? Accreditations and per reviews of the institution? Compliance with Title IX re both academic and athletic opportunities?

Re Rankings: Under the "Admission and rankings" header, there are rankings by major publications, including US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly, which are all of the major rankings that have ranked W&J.

Re Accreditations and Peer reviews: See the second sentence of "Academics", which reads "It is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools."

Re Title IX opportunities: I haven't seen any information about that. I'm not familiar with that topic. Can you suggest some resources where I could find that information?

Each school is required to post data on athletic participation broken down by gender. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate that information. I checked the college's athletics website [1], google, including a google search for "Title IX" restricted to http://www.washjeff.edu domain. I have found nothing on that. Besides, wouldn't that be more appropriate to place in the athletics article at Washington & Jefferson Presidents, rather than the main article?--GrapedApe (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

consider using the college rankings template/infobox

I considered that (I think I even had it in an earlier version), but didn't think it was necessary, since the prose covered all the relevant rankings(re: US News, Forbes, and Washington Monthly). Why have that information twice, in prose and chart?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Accreditation Report, W&J offers a Online Certificate in Information Technology Leadership as a distance learning program. Should that be included in Academics?Racepacket (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Done.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:

Source says "one of the very few liberal arts schools that, despite not having a physical education major, still has a physical education requirement." but you have dropped "not having a physical education major" I doubt that there are "only a few" liberal artis colleges that have a phys. ed. requirement. Also, you don't say how much is required? One semester, 2, 3, 4 or 8?

Good point. I have fixed it. Also, I'm not sure that getting into too much detail about the requirement is necessary: it is the existence of the requirement, not the length of it, that is noteworthy.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a parenthetical or dependent clause to describe the requirement? Racepacket (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• The phrase "amounting to one full-time class," is unclear do you mean a "one semester class"? Racepacket (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's kinda more complicated that that. Here's the requirement from the catalog: "Students may satisfy this requirement by taking four (half semester) 1/4 courses or two (full-semester) 1/2 courses, or any combination of 1/2 and 1/4 courses." W&J organizes the curriculum based on "classes" rather than by credit. So, how about we use the phrase "...amounting to one full semester class...". That way, it is clear that the requirement can be met by a variety of class combinations, as long as they amount to one full class.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps undue weight to greek life?

I had intended for that section to be a separate article, like Dartmouth College Greek organizations, but after writing it, I didn't think that it warranted a separate page. Still though greek like is a pretty important part of campus life, and having 3 paragraphs doesn't seem out of line to me. Especially with that awesome picture(!)--GrapedApe (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand. But if a stranger reading the article without any other knowlege about W&J comes away with the impression, "This is a school with a history and fraternities..." Please consider rebalancing it somehow. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the section as-is is undue or NPOV.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion of relationship with City could be more neutral. Perhaps have two sentences, each describing the view point of the school and the City. "on the one hand... on the other hand..." I don't assume that the school is always right, and neither will the Wikipedia user.

I don't believe that the section on the relations is NPOV in any way. If you look at the language, it totally avoids imparting any motive on behalf of any party, nor does it take sides. Of course, the college won the court case, and eventually succeeded in demolishing some historic buildings, but I don't think that reporting the outcomes imparts any kind of point of view. I truly took great pains with this section to make sure that it was NPOV. If fact, I crafted the language to be reflective of what you ask. See the sentences that are structured to present "expansion" versus "historic preservation." The shouting match is described neutrally, with both parties shouting at each other. This is a good section, and I don't see any NPOV problems here.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there any negatives that should be covered but have been left out of the article? Crime on campus? Affordability debate? Academic freedom issues? Has everyone been completely happy without controversy for the past 150 years?

The article does have information of some controversies, including the failure of the Vilar Artist Series in the "Art scene" and controversies with the city of Washington. As far as crime on campus, there's not much, since it is in a small town. As far as affordability problems, I haven't seen anything about that appearing in a reliable source (I did search for that, unsuccessfully).--GrapedApe (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

1. No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Passed. Racepacket (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

More concerns

The sentence, "Nonetheless, the student body held a strike and general walkout in 1931, prompting Baker to resign.[25]" but fn 25 does not support the strike, general walk out or something other than health leading to his resignation. I concur that his suicide does not belong in the artcle. Racepacket (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking for a source to back that up. --GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Source located:[2]. (I knew it was somewhere).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence, "However, Vilar's 2005 conviction of financial fraud ended any possibility of reviving the arts series.[145]" should probably read "However, Vilar's 2005 conviction of financial fraud ended any possibility of his reviving the arts series.[145] " Although the news account in fn 145 does not support that. You can put a footnote in the middle of the sentence after "fraud" if the references supports the fact that he was convicted of a fraud. Wikipedia cannot speculate as to the future possibilities of any donor stepping forward. Perhaps "Vilar's participation as a series donor ended with his conviction....." Also the article in Fn 145 raises the question of whether W&J will return Vilar's donations. Did they ever do so? According to the NY Times Vilar was convicted on Nov. 19, 2008, and not 2005. Racepacket (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently he was indicted in 2005, which was the cause of his cessation of funding the art program. Also, as far as speculation goes, the "Vilar Art Series" is dead. If a future donor steps forward to create a new art series, they will not name it for Alberto Vilar. The school has not reported on whether they gave the money back. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• A rewording is still needed because "the arts series" could be read as meaning "an arts series even with other donors support." How about reversing the order of the sentences, "The following year, the W&J Arts Series was expanded to partially compensate for the loss.[143] However, Vilar's 2005 indictment for financial fraud ended any possibility of reviving the arts series.[145]"? Racepacket (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe there's some confusion here. There are two separate art series: the W&J Art Series and the Vilar Distinguished Artist Series.

• I understand. but if you don't reverse the sentence order, the reader thinks that the indictment killed off the W&J Art Series rather than the Vilar Artist Series. The article can't say "art series" when the anticedent is "W&J Arts Series" but you really mean the Vilar Artist Series. Racepacket (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Check the new language.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reversing the sentences helps but maybe we should change "The following year..." to "In 2003 ..." Racepacket (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Saying "In 2003" is kind of confusing too, since the series ended in May 2003 and the other art series was expanded in fall 2003. So, how about this: I changed it to "the following academic year." That should make it clear.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am not trying to be difficult, but you mean the academic year following the hiatus of the Vilar Artist Series (2003). The reader may think that you mean the academic year following the indictment (2005). Why not say, "In Fall 2003..." Also how about changing "reviving the arts series" to "reviving the artist series?" Racepacket (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "he is the namesake of Beaver Stadium, the largest sports stadium in the world.[219]" is factually incorrect and is not addressed by footnote 219. I would delete "the largest sports stadium in the world" and move the footnote to follow the word "Governor." Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I cleared it. Check the new language--GrapedApe (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Was there any relationship between the Washington Female Seminary and W&J other than W&J purchasing the WFS campus upon its closure? Frequently, when all-male and all-female campuses adjoin, there is one (e.g., Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College). Racepacket (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, there was no relationship beyond sharing a border and sharing a number of trustees. --GrapedApe (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)