Wikipedia:Peer review/Pomona College/archive1

Pomona College

This article recently concluded an FAC attempt. I've made a bunch of changes to the article since that was begun, both during and after the nomination, and I'm interested in hearing about any remaining concerns before bringing it back for round two. For this PR, I'm particularly interested in hearing suggestions on 1a (prose quality), as I've recently made some improvements to that but I'm sure there are tweaks I'm missing.

Two quick notes: For the copyrights of historical images, I'm waiting to hear back from the Pomona archivist with information on original publication dates, but I'll resolve that before going back to FAC. I'll also add the missing page numbers for some of the books referenced (I don't currently have access).

Thanks in advance for your help, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Nick-D and Nikkimaria: Both of you expressed some concerns about promotionalism. I replied to your individual comments just before the nomination closed, but I also thought it might help to provide a broader overview of how I've sought to ensure the article remains neutral. Going through by section:
  • For the lead, the WP:HIGHEREDREP RfC covers the overall characterization of reputation. I confined it to one sentence most of the way down the lead, and kept the notable alumni summary short at the very end of the lead.
  • For college history sections, the main concern is covering both positive and negative events in an institution's history, and ensuring that all of them are given due weight (without recentism) proportional to their historical importance. I've tried to strike that balance. As HAL333 noted, the 1957 image of a sexist protest places a fair bit of emphasis on a negative element, but I think it's a compelling visual.
  • For campus sections, the typical issues are an undue focus on big new constructions and greenwashing (often entire subsections) touting an institution's sustainability efforts. I've made sure to avoid overemphasizing newer buildings, and I've confined the sustainability efforts to one two-sentence paragraph (even though Pomona probably has a better claim to a genuine focus on sustainability than most colleges).
  • The organization and administration section is a pretty dry, data-focused section, so hopefully it has no major neutrality concerns. The inclusion of it at all (many college pages leave it out) aids with making the page encyclopedic rather than brochure-like.
    • This section, particularly the first and third subsection, are quite short; is there no more to say on these topics? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      I added the budget breakdown; that was a good suggestion. I don't see any other recommendations at WP:UNIGUIDE#Organization and administration; is there any other information you'd like to see covered that's not yet? One way to lengthen the section would be to move the information on the student government here; I'm not sure if this would be a better spot for it than the student organizations section or not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  • For college academics sections, the outcomes (particularly fellowships) and rankings information tends to become bloated. I trimmed down the fellowships info to keep it more proportional with the percentage of students who pursue fellowships, rather than focusing on it just because it's the most high-status post-college occupation. I also removed most of the trivial rankings from that subsection and added a hidden comment warning against future bloat.
  • The admissions and financial aid sections are both pretty straightforward presentations of data.
  • The student body section is more data. I've noticed some institutions tend to leave out the statistics for areas where they don't do as well (often socioeconomic diversity), but I've tried to include all the major demographic categories here for which I could find data.
  • Having a noted alumni section is standard for college articles (including the remaining FAs), but it's often way overlong, and in many cases includes a gallery, which I feel is undue. I've tried to keep it to a moderate length here, pushing most of the entries to the people list page, and only used one image. I chose the people to list based on significance, which has meant including some like Barrows with more mixed reputations.
  • The student life section involves some qualitative characterizations like the extent to which alcohol influences the social scene on campus; I've stuck to reliable secondary sources for these. I removed some of the cruftier clubs and traditions information that had accrued.
    • Comparatively this section remains quite long. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah. Part of that comes from the fact that I turned athletics from a level-2 section into a level-3 subsection of student life; see this discussion for background on that. One thing I considered is whether or not transportation should have its own subsection (rather than being merged into the residential life section); let me know if you or anyone else has any strong views on that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there's still room to improve the article's neutrality further, but I hope that the above helps give a picture of how I've approached preparing it so far. Please feel free to let me know if you have any thoughts on this or want to continue any of the discussions where I replied just before the FAC closed. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by HAL333

I feel guilty about not following up at the original FAC - sorry about that one. Here's what another sweep pulled up:

No worries! I've actually come to appreciate the chance to step back and work on further refinements. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• In the South Campus section, "President" is capitalized.

  It's being used there as a title, so I capitalized it per MOS:JOBTITLES. I would normally just use "Blaisdell", but it's been a while since he's been referenced, so the title is a reminder for readers who may have forgotten or not read the history section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but then "president" is not capitalized in the same usage (e.g. president David W. Oxtoby). ~ HAL333 00:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hmm. I'm not quite sure if it is the same usage or not—I intended for the Oxtoby line to be more a descriptor, rather than a title as with the Blaisdell line, but I don't know if that's an actual distinction or just one I'm inventing in my head. MOS:JOBTITLES says Even when used with a name, capitalization is not required for commercial and informal titles, which maybe speaks to it. I'll ponder, and others are welcome to weigh in, and if it's still bugging you down the line feel free to lmk. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would try to say the specific number of Rhodes, Goldwater, etc Scholars. It looks like some of the current sources can already support those figures.

  You mentioned the same thing way back at the GAN; search for "There was originally" for my reply and lmk if it's still a concern. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  I guess it's fine as is. :) ~ HAL333 00:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could you maybe drop "many" from many policymaking committees for concision?

  Just saying faculty and students sit on policymaking committees might falsely imply that it's all policymaking committees rather than just most. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• In October 2020, Fitch Ratings Month not really needed imo.

  Removed. There was a lot of change in the markets in 2020, but anyone who really wants to know can just check the ref. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not a big deal, but it may make more sense to list the races/ethnicities from highest percentage to least in the pie chart.

  Good catch; changed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also very minor, but would "DACA recipients" be more apt than "DACA status"?

  Changed, as "DACA recipients" is the more common phrasing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• graduates of a high school within the U.S. --> "graduates of a U.S. high school" Also, nit-picky and minor

  Done. The only potential source of confusion I can think of is applicants from American international schools in other countries, but I don't foresee anyone misreading that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• (among students with an official class rank) Maybe move that clause to the beginning of the sentence (if it applies to all three). It's kind of unclear as it is.

  Good thought; done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• FAC reviewers may complain about the table and sandwiching in the "Athletics" section, but I don't care.
• Pomona's first intercollegiate sports teams were formed in 1895 Was it just football? If so, would "team" be more accurate?

  It was football, baseball, and track, according to here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And the literary sources look great! I would support this outright as a FAC. ~ HAL333 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Very glad to hear! Thanks again for giving it such a close look. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Zetana

Hi, I'm new to peer reviewing, so I apologize if I'm doing something wrong. I'm going through each section of the article, I'll post one at at a time, if that's okay with you. I'll try to look for stuff that could be seen as promotional since I see that was an issue with the first FAC.

First time really reading through an article like this, very interesting topic I have to say.

Thanks so much for taking a look, Zetana, and I'm glad you find it an interesting read! Your suggestions so far have been really helpful; I've replied to them below, and I'd love to hear any feedback on the remaining sections. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

History

Founding era

1. That year, as the real estate bubble burst... This sentence is a bit awkward, and its length is compounded by the accompanying notes in parentheses. There's a lot of commas in the sentence which breaks the flow, though I don't know how you would restructure it if at all. Also maybe I am dumb but having "financially untenable" as an additional descriptor helps me understand that fact better (if that is what the implication is). As for the notes in parentheses: I am undecided on the Sumner Hall fact (I think it is a bit trivial, but it does indicate to the reader that the hotel was repurposed rather than torn down), the Pomona fact seems unnecessary to me, it might be important to the city's article but I don't see its relevance to the college, unless Pomona the goddess is integral to the college's identity or something.

   Yeah, I struggled with this sentence. I made some further tweaks here, which I hope helps. Regarding the goddess, I included that since most articles that include etymology tend to trace it back farther than just the immediate predecessor. The goddess is tied to the college today mostly through a sculpture at the organic farm and a bronze relief in the campus center, but at the time of its founding there was a more meaningful connection: the economy of Inland Empire back then was built on citrus crops, and naming after a fruit goddess referenced that agricultural identity. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

   I personally don't think it's terribly relevant to the college as currently written since it's sort of thrown in there as a factoid, it being in parentheses is almost like being hidden in a footnote. You reference the Inland Empire and etc. as the name's significance but it's not on the article itself; I think if you work that into the article (with the agricultural connection directly to the college, not just Pomona the city) it'd be more clear why the fact is relevant. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

   Zetana, I changed the parenthetical to a footnote, so it no longer disrupts the flow of the text. Is that better, hopefully? I do think it's important to have the information somewhere in the article, since the purpose of an etymology is to answer the question "where did this thing get its name?", and just saying "from the city" would immediately beg the question of where the city got its name, especially as it had only been founded a few years prior. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

   OK, I think it looks better that way. Zetana (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

2. In 1911, as high schools became... The previous sentence has a similar structure (In 1905, during president George A. Gates' tenure...), I think combining the year directly into the sentence, like As high schools became more common in the region, the college eliminated its preparatory department in 1911..., adds some variety.

   Hmm, I agree it'd be good to avoid too much repetition, but something feels a little off to me about moving the date to the end like that. I'll come back to it and see if I can figure out something that works. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

3. Daily attendance at chapel was mandated until 1921... Is there supposed to be an 'a' in there (Daily attendance at a chapel was mandated...) or not (e.g. I went to church the other day.)?

   "Chapel" here is an activity, so it's analogous to I went to church and omitting the 'a' is intentional. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

   OK, makes sense. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Interwar years

1. In the early 1920s... I would prefer something like Confronted with growing demand in the 1920s, Pomona's fourth president, James A. Blaisdell, considered whether to.... Flows a bit better in my eyes. The way it's written currently I have to mentally keep track of the year and skip over the president name to connect it to the demand part.

   Good suggestion; done! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Pomona's enrollment and budget declined during the Great Depression. Are there any interesting statistics for those you could provide here? Stuff like "Pomona College had 800 students in 1928, but its enrollment declined to 400 during the Great Depression." Or just something simple like "enrollment declined by 30% (-200 students)". I'm curious about this.

   I've added some additional detail to the sentence. There's some conflicting data on enrollment numbers, so I left that out to be safe, but it seems to have dropped from the 800s to around 600 (and it decreased further during WW2, as I assume happen at most institutions). Financial data was more straightforward: Lyon gives number on p. 284-285, which per WP:CALC I expressed as a one quarter reduction. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Postwar transformations

1. Pomona's longest-serving president, E. Wilson Lyon... This part reads a little promo to me. Is it necessary to say Lyon was the longest-serving president? I'd be more comfortable with the 'longest-serving' if the sources go into detail how Lyons' relatively long tenure enabled such 'transformations' as you write later, but if it was mentioned more as a throwaway fact I think it should go. Also guided the college through a transformational period... reads promo to me but I don't know what to suggest as an alternative.

   Regarding the length of Lyon's tenure, I think it's worthy of note because of just how unusually long it was; as Southern California Quarterly put it, at the time of his retirement [he was] the dean of American college presidents in terms of length of service. Regarding transformational, I changed it to transformational and turbulent to emphasize that we don't mean "transformational" in a purely positive sense. The sources do seem pretty unified in asserting that Pomona changed a lot between 1941 and 1969; there are some details in Lyon's L.A. Times obit, which I added as an additional reference. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

2. Following the war, Pomona's enrollment rose above 1000... Similar to #2 in "Founding era", I'd change this sentence to Pomona's enrollment rose above 1000 following the war... as you have a similar structure in the sentence right before it.

   Done here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

3. Lyon made several progressive decisions... You have the year appended to the very end of the sentence, but I think it reads a little better if you just put it right after "Fisk University" so you don't have that dangling bit with the comma. Sorry, I really hate commas!

   Done here. No apology needed; it's improved the page {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

4. Pomona's previously conservative student body quickly liberalized... Have you seen any information about the 'conservative student body' that you could include earlier in the previous "History" sections? (Such as what constitutes students' conservatism during this period of time, or before when Pomona was first founded) It comes a bit out of the blue for me since it's only first mentioned halfway through "History" but if there's nothing written about it before then I understand.

   Hmm, nothing particular comes to mind that would be due to mention. My understanding is that move away from conservatism was both social and political, so things like the gender integration of campus help give a sense of it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

   Got it. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

5. Several identity-based groups... (founded 1984) should it be (founded in 1984) instead? Or alternatively ax that fact, maybe it's trivial. Having one example of a group should be enough to demonstrate the idea but maybe you don't need any more information about it beyond the name.

   Changed. In the campus section later, I use e.g. built 1947, which I think is hopefully okay, as the "in" is implied. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

21st century

1. Several protests in the 2010s... leading to reforms. I don't know anything about the incidents but "some reforms" instead of just "reforms" appears to describe the university response more accurately, based on the references you used. As it stands, the sentence implies the university did something sweeping/substantial in response to the protests, though that doesn't seem to be the case?

   Changed; I went with various. I couldn't really find a good source summarizing all the reforms, but the biggest one is probably the establishment of the EmPOWER Center, a resource center tasked with supporting survivors which I mention later in the student life section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now. Zetana (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear the comments are helpful! I've responded to a couple of your comments, but everything looks good overall. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Campus

I don't have much to say about the beginning of this section; the image for the visual axes is helpful in visualizing the campus design. The main problem for me is the section's length. The subsections starting from "South Campus" have a lot of detail about individual buildings; even just having a bunch of names and details is veering into excessive detail in my opinion as it reads more like a list-in-written-form. I'm more in agreement with Nick-D's comment from the FAC of suggest reducing the level of detail by describing the general character of the campus and its notable buildings and other elements only. I'm having a hard time putting into words what exactly is putting me off here, but at a glance: not all the residential halls need to be named, nor the social science/humanities buildings, nor the buildings adjacent to Marston Quadrangle, nor all of the academic buildings on North Campus... I'm not sure about the importance of the quotes on the college gates either.

Basically my problem is that the section is not in summary prose, I think? Like, my own preference would be "Topic sentences describing the overall nature of campus sections + Occasional brief mentions of Very Important Buildings integral to the campus". There's already a good deal of summary sentences, like South Campus consists of mostly first-year and second-year housing and academic buildings for the social sciences, arts, and humanities, but then it's followed by a lot of names for buildings which don't appear to have any special significance, e.g. The less-developed 40-acre (16 ha) eastern portion of the campus is known as the Wash (formally Blanchard Park), and contains a large grove of coast live oak trees, as well as many athletics facilities. It is also home to the Sontag Greek Theatre (built 1914), an outdoor amphitheater; the Brackett Observatory (built 1908); and the Pomona College Organic Farm, an experiment in sustainable agriculture. (I underlined the part I think could be omitted) I see at least 45 named buildings/locations in the article from a rough headcount. I think you could cut down the amount of named buildings by at least half and not impact the comprehensiveness of this section significantly, if at all, I just think the choice of choosing which buildings to name should be more restrictive to include only places that have the most commentary/coverage or are most integral to the campus. I can't speak with respect to comparing this article to other college FAs, but Georgetown University § Campus and Texas A&M University § Campus have standalone campus articles that go into greater detail than what is on the main page. If cutting content is a concern for you then I think spinning off the bulk of the detail into a separate article should address that. Zetana (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Zetana, thanks for articulating the concerns here so clearly. On reflection, I think part of the issue might be that, although many buildings at Pomona do have a significant architectural history that makes them worthy of mention, most don't merit more than name/location/date, and including only those elements makes the section feel dry and indiscriminate. Fundamentally, prose like that isn't the best way to present information about a campus, which is much better done visually. Therefore, I introduced an interactive map, where readers can click on a building to get basic information about it. It was a pain to make, and there are still a few bugs to hammer out, but overall, I'm really pleased with it. Once I had that in place, I felt comfortable doing a major trim of the section, removing most of the dates and many of the buildings. I hope that helps significantly. If you're curious about any specific buildings I retained, feel free to ask and I can speak to their significance. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now! I like the map, that helps condense a lot of details. Regarding a couple of the named buildings, I'm just curious about the importance of Oldenborg Center, Carnegie Building, and Smiley Hall dormitory. And, what do you think about the significance of the Dialynas and Sontag infobox second large-scaled residence halls in the U.S. to earn LEED platinum certifications and, and, in "South Campus", To its north is... and the Smith Campus Center, home to many student services, as well as a recreation room, the Coop Store, and two restaurants (underlined part)? I don't feel that the article needs those parts. Zetana (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Zetana, glad it looks better now! To answer you on those three:

• I included Oldenborg mainly because it's a dining hall, which makes it a fairly significant building for student life, and because it's programatic aspect is rather unusual and notable—not too many colleges have a dedicated foreign language dining hall, and the college says it may have been the first foreign language dormitory anywhere. Architecturally, it's a brutalist structure known mainly for its twisty halls which are rumored to have inspired the Borg in Star Trek. The college is currently planning to tear it down and rebuild it.
• The Carnegie Building is significant mainly because of its prominent location as the west anchor to Marston Quad. It's one of the college's visual calling cards, i.e. if you see a single photo of the college in an article or something, there's a good chance it's Carnegie.
• The college claims that Smiley Hall "is said to be the oldest American college dormitory in continuous use west of the Mississippi." (I didn't include that fact in the article since I wasn't able to substantiate it in a more reliable place and it seemed a little promo-y.)

I'm using the Dialynas/Sontag photo as the visual for the paragraph on the college's sustainability efforts; the caption helps explain their relevance to that. I just swapped out the primary reference for a secondary one to The Student Life (there was also coverage in the Journal of Green Building, which is a peer-reviewed publication but was authored by the architect).

Regarding the SCC sentence, that's a good catch; I shortened it to just and communal spaces. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Smiley Hall, that would be an interesting fact but if you can't find a better source to reference the claim then I think the hall could be cut. I see what you are intending with the Dialynas/Sontag caption, however it reads somewhat like promotionalism, e.g. something like Dialynas and Sontag residence halls (built 2011) are LEED platinum certified explains their relevance directly without the additional qualifications as currently written. if they were the first university buildings to earn LEED-platinum certification, perhaps that would be one thing, but qualifying the statement as both 'the second ones to earn certification' and 'residence halls that were certified' (as opposed to all university buildings in general) is veering too much into unnecessary details in my opinion. Zetana (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For Smiley, I'll do some more digging and see what I can find.

For Dialynas/Sontag, that's fair; I tweaked as you suggested. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Organization and administration

More comments below. Zetana (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Governance

1. The board consists of up to 42 members, most of whom are elected to four-year terms with a term limit of 12 years. Do you know who gets to elect the board members? I read the bylaws but I don't understand it very much.

   I'm also going off just the bylaws haha, but looking at this line—The members of the Board of Trustees, other than the President of the College, shall be divided into four classes of not more than twelve members each. One class shall be elected at each annual meeting, by a majority of the Trustees then in office.—and also just considering the normal nature of these things, I think it's the existing board members who vote. Should I specify that or can it be assumed? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'm not aware of how colleges normally elect their board members, so it might be routine for Pomona & co. but I would bet most readers wouldn't know anything about it. I think it's probably enough to just leave a brief explanation in a footnote so a curious reader has easier access, but it's up to you. Zetana (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I added a few words to help clarify. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Looks good. Zetana (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Other officer and leadership roles defined the college's bylaws are... Is this part necessary? I think the president details is sufficient enough and that you can cut this sentence.

   Cut. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

3. The college has 838 total employees as of the fall 2019 semester. Just want to check who's responsible for this dataset, it's Pomona and they're hosting data on Tableau? I see that they have 2020 numbers on there now. Additionally, any chance you could squeeze in another sentence talking about the percentages of full-time/past-time & instructional/non-instructional staff? I saw that information on the Tableau page. I also wonder if a chart of the numbers of employees over the years may also be appropriate to include, your thoughts?

   Yeah, those numbers are part of the IPEDS survey, but they come from Pomona per WP:ABOUTSELF. I updated to the 2020 data; good catch! For instructional/non-instructional, I give the number of faculty members later on in the academics section, plus it's in the infobox. For full-time/part-time and the history, is there a reason readers would want to know that information? It seems rather in the weeds to me, and there's nothing particularly unusual or notable about that data as far as I'm aware. For the staff count history, I'd also have concerns about WP:RECENTISM, as the IPEDS data only goes back to 2005, and if I included it I'd want to do it over the college's entire history. I'm not sure if public data exists from before 2005 (which circles back to the fact that it's not really that important). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   OK, no complaints, your explanations make sense. I was vaguely interested in the additional employment data but yes it's probably not important enough for inclusion. Zetana (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Academic affiliations

1. Overall the 7Cs have been praised by higher education experts for their close cooperation, although there have been occasional tensions. Any additional information on the 'tensions'? I'm thinking something like a brief summary of the types of tensions commonly observed (e.g. funding, governance, administration) though I understand if that's not possible.

   Yeah, this line plagued me during the GAN. My understanding is that the main source of tension is financial, because Pomona sometimes wants to fund shared resources at levels some of the other colleges cannot afford. I really wanted to include a line saying that, but after searching through all the news coverage that I could find (both modern and historical) and reaching out to the Pomona archivist, I came up empty, so I had to comment it out. I think it's important for neutrality to have some mention of tensions, and hopefully it'll be possible to source more specifics someday. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The college is accredited by the WASC Senior College and University Commission, which reaffirmed its status in 2021 with particular praise for its diversity initiatives. I think you can cut the underlined part.

   On second thought, I suppose I don't have a particular problem with this statement. I think however it's one of the sentences that can come across as promotional which is why I initially commented on it. Zetana (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I wasn't initially inclined to place that much emphasis on accreditation, but ElKevbo has argued strongly for its significance, and I give a fair amount of weight to his perspective as he's a professional scholar of American higher ed. Accreditors are useful because they're one of the few entities that give detailed, individualized attention to colleges but are independent of them (that's also why I included it as an external link). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I don't mind having the accreditation fact itself, however the diversity initiatives part stood out to me the first time I read it. Do you think it's sufficient to just say "Pomona was accredited by WASC" or do you feel the additional diversity descriptor is also needed? I'm not familiar with accreditation assessments so I can't judge whether that praise is unique or unusual compared to other colleges (and therefore arguably worthy of mention), but I would lean slightly towards removing that part. Zetana (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I can't say I'm super familiar with accreditation assessments either, but our article defines it as a peer review process by which the validity of degrees and credits awarded by higher education institutions is assured. The diversity descriptor is my best attempt at summarizing the points in this letter. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Hm, okay. Personally I'd cut it out of habit, but I don't have a strong issue with keeping it. I think it's just one of those things where it's often similar phrasing used in PR language so it's hard to instinctively differentiate. Zetana (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Finances

1. I've been using the {{currency}} template whenever I see a monetary amount in prose, not a recommendation but just a suggestion if you think that would be useful.

   Looking at MOS:CURRENCY, it doesn't appear that having $US rather than just $ is needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The college's total assets (including the value of its campus) are $3.15 billion. Suggest slight tweak to The college's total assets, including its campus, are valued at $3.15 billion.

   Good suggestion; tweaked. The only thing I kept was the parentheses, since I want to make clear that including its campus is just clarifying for readers what the definition of assets is, not specifying some specific type of asset count as opposed to some other type that didn't include the campus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

3. I think a pie chart of the budget percentage breakdown might be useful, but it's not critical.

   I'd be open to this if there was room, but I'm already going to have to ask for a little leniency on MOS:SANDWICH to be able to include the athletics photo, and I don't want to push my luck too much. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   OK, it's not critical anyway. Zetana (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Academics and programs

More comments below. Zetana (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

1. 32 credits and a C average GPA are needed to graduate, along with the requirements of a major, the first-year critical inquiry seminar... Is it "the" or "a"?

   Changed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Courses

Boy I am jealous of that student-to-professor ratio.

1. Students and professors often form close relationships, and the college provides faculty with free meals that can be used to interact with students. Underlined part reads a bit wonky. Not sure how to explain, but almost too clinical/transactional as written?

   I tweaked it a bit; is the new wording better? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, that looks improved. Zetana (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The college operates several resource centers to help students develop academic skills, including the Quantitative Skills Center (QSC); the Center for Speaking, Writing, and the Image; and the Foreign Language Resource Center (FLRC). I don't think you need to name any centers, just having mention of them existing is enough.

   I changed the wording to a more concise option that doesn't explicitly name the centers. Another option would be to convert it to a footnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Research, study abroad, and professional development

1. Pomona is home to the Pacific Basin Institute... I would slightly change to Pomona is also home to the Pacific Basin Institute... since you just named an entity in the sentence prior.

   Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The office also connects students with alumni for networking and mentoring via the Sagehen Connect platform. I know that Sagehen Connect exists (https://sagehenconnect.pomona.edu/), but I couldn't find it in the cited pdf via Ctrl+F.

   Good catch; I added a new ref. Not sure how that happened—I must've assumed it was mentioned in the report, but it turns out the platform was launched more recently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

3. During the 2015–2016 academic year, 175 employers hosted on-site informational events at the Claremont Colleges and 265 unique organizations were represented in 9 career fairs. I think this sentence should be cut.

   I think we should try to include some information about the level of employer recruiting that happens at Pomona, since that's an important aspect of career development. I'd be open to changing it to something else if we can find something better, but I'm not sure what that would be. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'll get back to you on this one once I can properly word my thoughts, at first glance it looks promotional (by virtue of so much detail) so that's why I initially commented. Zetana (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   I still can't really articulate what I dislike about this sentence other than "It sounds like something I would read on a pamphlet" but that's a rather unfair comment. I agree that there ought to be some mention about what kind of employer recruiting happens but I can't offer much besides what's currently here, sorry. Zetana (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, no worries. Someone else at the FAC might have thoughts on how best to cover this. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Outcomes

1. I was going to ask if you thought a wikilink for feeder schools would be useful, but I see that the page for it is about college-preparatory schools only. Perhaps a target towards wikt:feeder school instead?

   I could change A 2020 analysis of top feeder schools per capita to A 2020 analysis of the schools that send the most students per capita. It's a little wordier, but if "feeder school" isn't a commonly understood term, do you think it'd be better? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Hm, I'd like to leave the term in plus a wikilink, but your suggestion also works. My impression is that 'feeder school' is an apt descriptor but presented just as bare text is a bit confusing. Zetana (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   Adjusted to the alternative phrasing. I'm not a big fan of links to wiktionary, since I think they're confusing for readers who are expecting blue links to lead to articles, but that's a personal preference thing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   Ideally we'd just wikilink to the actual enwiki page but it's not a usable target at the moment; I might try expanding that article in a few days and then perhaps it could be wikilinked then. Zetana (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   Looking into it, someone created an article for the term, but it was turned into a soft redirect in 2013 as it didn't pass WP:NEOLOGISM. The page was then turned into a redirect to College-preparatory school in 2015; I'm not sure if I agree with that choice or not, since college-preparatory school almost needs a hatnote to the wiktionary entry now. I guess college-prep schools are sometimes called "feeder schools" since they feed into colleges, but that's a fundamentally different concept than colleges feeding into grad schools, and per WP:SAMENAME I wouldn't want to see information about that added to the college-prep school page. Anyways, we're on a bit of a tangent here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'm more familiar with 'feeder school' as a college-prep school but this whole thing is confusing. Your alternative phrasing works fine, I'm not going to think about this any further. Bah! Zetana (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Pomona alumni earn a median early career salary of $73,700 and a median mid-career salary of $146,400, according to 2021 survey data from PayScale. What's PayScale?

   It's a "compensation data and software company", according to its article, which was deleted after a PROD in May. It looks like a bad PROD to me, so I'll challenge it and have it restored. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'd prefer a brief description of the company in the article, like you did with Parchment in the subsequent section. The description you just wrote looks okay. Zetana (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   I added a brief description. I'm not convinced it's really needed—the WP:INTEXT guideline says It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references (or in this case wikilink)—but it only takes a few words. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

3. The college ranks among the top producers of... Wikilink National Science Foundation?

   Yeah, this does look a bit weird, but it's wikilinked a few paragraphs above. There are a few other places in the article where I IAR violate MOS:REPEATLINK (e.g. Swarthmore), but I don't think I can justify this one given that it's within the same section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Oh, I didn't see the previous wikilink, nevermind. Zetana (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Reputation and rankings

1. Pomona is generally considered the most prestigious liberal arts college in the Western United States and one of the most prestigious in the country. I think you could cut "generally" from the sentence. Similar idea with Pomona has generally rated similarly in other college rankings later in the subsection.

   I'll take it out for now, but if others voice concerns, I'll be inclined to restore it. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that a different college has that status, but given that it's a strong claim, I want to be careful not to overstep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'm generally not a fan of using 'generally' (hah!) in these types of sentence constructions because I find it redundant, but if you have concerns about the defensibility of the claim you could say "considered by some" or "considered by many" as a slight qualifier. Zetana (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Pomona has been ranked in the top 10 liberal arts colleges every year by U.S. News since it began ranking them in 1984, and is one of five schools with such a history, alongside Amherst, Swarthmore, Wellesley, and Williams. Is the underlined part necessary?

   Pomona is very often placed alongside Swarthmore, Amherst, and Williams (acronym "SWAP"). I unfortunately wasn't able to find that group of four placed together in a reliable source, but that sentence is my best attempt at giving readers a sense of what Pomona's closest peer schools are considered to be. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, makes sense. Zetana (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

3. In 2015, the Forbes ranking placed it first among all colleges and universities in the U.S., drawing media attention. I'm feeling a bit iffy about this statement, notsomuch the Forbes ranking but the media attention part, as you only cite one short news article from a local news station. If there were more references from news agencies from other locations I'd be more comfortable with it.

   There was some additional regional coverage from KPCC[1] and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin[2], and brief national coverage from CNBC[3] and MSNBC[4]. I think there also may have been something on Good Morning America, but I can't manage to find that in the Archive.org database. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   If you added those references to the claim in the page I'd be more okay with it, although I'd still prefer more in-depth coverage from national news. The sources you provide seem to be more run-of-the-mill routine coverage as they don't really say anything more about the ranking beyond what Forbes reported, so I'm not seeing the amount/depth of reporting that reaches significant coverage. Zetana (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   I'll add more refs. I think it's important to note that the phrasing here is drawing media attention, not drawing widespread media attention, wording that often appears in articles and that some editors argue has WP:SYNTH concerns when sourced only with examples. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also some comments on the next two sections, they're pretty short so I don't have much to say. Zetana (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Admissions and financial aid

Admissions

1. Applicants who want an earlier, binding decision to the college can apply early decision I or II; others apply through regular decision. Something about the grammar here is off to me though I can't place it. I think it's missing some "the" before "early/regular decision", and "early/regular decision" sounds like an adjective that's missing a noun at the end like "process".

   I added the word "via". Early decision (ED) is very often talked about this way (e.g. "She applied ED to Pomona"), but it does sound a little weird. I'm open to tweaking it more if we can figure out something better that remains concise. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I think the 'via' addition makes it better, still not a fan of the wording but I can't think of an alternative at the moment. Zetana (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   Still can't think of anything, just gonna throw this one out here: The college also accepts some applicants via an early decision track. Zetana (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Hmm, I tried to work that in, but it didn't quite fit, as I'm trying to not have too many sentences start with Pomona or The college since it gets redundant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Additionally, the college enrolls two 10-student Posse Foundation cohorts, from Chicago and Miami, in each class. I think you can remove the commas, i.e. ...Posse Foundation cohorts from Chicago and Miami in each class.

   the college enrolls two 10-student Posse Foundation cohorts from Chicago and Miami in each class is a little ambiguous, since it could be read as two cohorts from Chicago and two from Miami, whereas that's not the case when the commas mark the dependent clause. I'm open to changing it if there's a way to do so without introducing ambiguity, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   I see what you mean. I'll think about it and ping you here if I come up with an alternative. Zetana (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

   The only alternatives I've managed to come up with are The college also enrolls two 10-student Posse Foundation cohorts (from Chicago and Miami) each year, or The college also enrolls two 10-student Posse Foundation cohorts each year, one from Chicago and one from Miami. I think your original wording is best. Zetana (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, sticking with that, then. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

3. The college is part of many coalitions and initiatives targeted at recruiting underrepresented demographics. Just want to clarify, it's educational coalitions and initiatives? I don't know if you agree, but a link to affirmative action somewhere might be useful.

   Definitely agree; I wikilinked affirmative action in the United States (per MOS:SPECIFICLINK) over recruiting underrepresented demographics. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Costs and financial aid

Nothing to say here, looks good.

Glad to hear! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

People

Student body

1. 27 percent of students are from California, and there are sizable concentrations from the other western states. I suggest changing "and there are" to "with".

   Good suggestion; done! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The college has enrolled higher numbers of low-income students in recent years... What time period is "recent years" referring to? I see that the cited source also follows that statistic up with But the gap in the school’s black-white graduation rate has also widened which seems like a relevant fact to the positive claim but I don't know how to work that into the article if at all.

   Good catch; that's a MOS:CURRENT issue. The line from The Hechinger Report that I'm referencing is In the 10 years since David Oxtoby took the helm of Pomona College,...the number of low-income students has more than doubled.. Oxtoby began in 2003, so I tweaked it accordingly (broadening out a little to "early 2000s", since I doubt the trend start date can be specifically pinned to that year). I also added a reference to some data, although it doesn't go back quite that far. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Regarding the gap, that might be a little outdated—the recent accreditation evaluation that we discussed above included minimal achievement gaps as one of the things it commended the college on. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, no complaints here. Zetana (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted alumni and faculty

Looks good.

Nice to hear! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdkb, I will get back to you on the replies, and more comments on the final section, on the weekend, I'm a little busy right now so I'm juggling some things on my schedule. Zetana (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries! I so appreciate your thoroughness. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I am still thinking about the replies, but in the meantime here are comments for the final body section. I'll swing back and take a look at the lede afterward. Zetana (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Student life

Residential life

Your suggestions here each involve trimming information on dining. I already pared back this paragraph after the last FAC, and I have to say I think it would be unwarranted to trim it further, so I'll offer some overall thoughts on due weight in addition to my replies. One way to look at due weight for the residential life section is by how typical students spend their time: dorms get a solid paragraph because students hang out and sleep in them; partying and the social scene gets a paragraph because it's also a big part of campus life. Likewise, I think dining ought to have a decent paragraph, since nearly all students are on the meal plan and spend many hours each week eating on campus. It's not much in the context of the article as a whole, and the total length of the article's readable prose is less than 40,000 characters so overall it is not in need of trimming. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to intentionally shorten this section, if it was really long but I thought all the information was critical I probably wouldn't have said much about content balance. My main concern is just with details I think are unnecessary, and consequently could lend an air of promotionalism to the writing. I haven't pressed most of the points I've raised because your replies makes sense and I don't have any further objections to including some of the content. I fully agree with you that student residential life ought to have a decent section on it, but I feel a number of details are overly minute or phrased problematically and don't help contribute to 'due weight', and aren't helpful for either the reader or overall article quality. In this case and elsewhere it usually ends up with me suggesting to cull the content, but I do think that results in an overall improvement. I hope this clarifies my position. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I did some additional research to see if I could find non-trivial information on dining at Pomona to add. There's a ton from The Student Life[5][6] and some elsewhere[7][8][9], but the main place I found additional details is for sustainability efforts[10][11], and I'm hesitant to go into too much detail there because sustainability is definitely an area prone to promotionalism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

1. All on-campus students are required to have a meal plan, usable at any of the Claremont Colleges' seven buffet-style dining halls. suggest something like ...a meal plan, which is valid at the Claremont Colleges' buffet-style dining halls ? as currently written, sounds promotional

   I tweaked the phrasing a tiny bit; does that help? I do think it's helpful to note the number of dining halls (since that gives a sense of the available options), and the fact that dining services are fully interoperable is a unique enough fact that it's worth the bit of emphasis from any of. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, new phrasing looks better. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2. All on-campus students are required to have a meal plan... is the footnote at the end of this sentence necessary? this seems like trivial information

   It is pretty trivial, but as it's just in a footnote, it's not disrupting anything. The thought behind it was that the sentence is giving the ways students are able to use meal swipes, and the footnote completes the list. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   I would still prefer its removal, but if kept I think the first sentence should be slightly reworded to e.g. Meal plans can also be used for takeout meals... as I don't quite understand what a "meal swipe" is, and I think "ordered" is an unnecessary word, and "pack-out boxes" is a strange phrase. However I really do have an issue with the second sentence The dining halls offer green clamshell takeout boxes for meals to go and would like that one to go at least. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   I changed the note to be significantly shorter and use Meal plan credits instead of Meal swipes (good catch there). On reflection, I decided pack-out boxes weren't significant enough to merit mention. To clarify, pack-out food ordered days in advance and comes packaged, and is used when students plan to be away from campus; takeout containers, on the other hand, are used in place of silverware and allow students to take meals to eat outside (done frequently, given the climate) or elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of the distinction. Zetana (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

3. Every night Sunday through Wednesday, Frary Dining Hall opens for a late-night snack. Meal plans also include "Flex Dollars" usable at the various campus eateries, including the Coop Fountain, Coop Store, and sit-down Sagehen Café in the Smith Campus Center. I don't think these two sentences are needed, appears trivial to me. if you really want to keep the last sentence, suggest shortening to Meal plans also include "Flex Dollars" which are usable at various campus eateries.

   The references for Snack give some sense of how significant it is to student life. I'd say "Flex Dollars" are also significant to student life, as indicated by persistent coverage in the student newspaper: [12][13][14][15]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   Alright, Snack makes sense. I still think you should shorten the second sentence, as I don't find the names of the eateries to have much encylopedic relevance. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   I was able to shorten it a tiny bit by using an acronym with {{abbr}} for the campus center. I'm not sure that's quite as much as you're looking for, but it helps incrementally. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   I would still like that second half to be removed, but I don't feel too strongly about it so it's not a big deal. Zetana (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Campus organizations

1. There's an number of organizations which are introduced by name, then also their acronym, but that acronym isn't used anywhere else. The orgs I see are all the ones listed after Pomona has numerous clubs or support offices..., On the Loose, Outdoor Education Center of Pomona College, Pomona Student Union, Claremont Colleges Ballroom Dance Company, Underground Theatrical Institution, and Pomona Academy for Youth Success.

   The relevant guidance here appears to be Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Reading through that, I don't see any instruction on what to do for subjects that appear in an article and have an acronym but will not be referred to by that acronym elsewhere on the page, so it seems it's up to us as an editorial call. Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, the prose would definitely flow a little better without the acronyms, or going even further, without the organization names entirely (as I did for the academic skills centers). However, on the other hand, I think part of what a comprehensive article ought to do is to introduce readers to terms that are associated with the topic, and those terms are used a lot. I can envision a reader seeing an acronym like ASPC or QRC somewhere and coming to the article to try to figure out what it stands for, and if we've taken it out, they won't be helped. Given all that, I decided to go with a middle ground, and took out the names and acronyms from the body but kept them in a footnote. How does that look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   I think your approach improves the prose significantly. I see what you mean with readers potentially looking for those acronyms, though I think that many readers aren't reading the article because they're familiar with Pomona (I'd imagine it would be quite the opposite), and would be totally lost upon seeing a whole list of unfamiliar student orgs. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2. The Claremont Independent... One of the refs is a Medium piece, just checking if that's intentional, and if so what makes it reliable. It's also deleted now.

   There are two possible purposes for references—verifiability is one and help[ing] users find additional information on the subject is the other. For that sentence, the reliable sources supporting the material are the Ozy article and the funding article in The Student Life I just added; the others are for the "additional information" component. I think they're helpful but not essential, so if you want them taken out I'll remove them. Good catch on the dead link; I fixed that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   My read on that guideline is that citations are primarily for verification, and that 'additional information for readers' is a secondary objective, so if the citation's not for verification, then it doesn't belong. My issue with the Medium citation is that its self-published nature doesn't make it a by-default reliable or notable source to include. I could open my own Medium account and post some piece about my college, but that wouldn't be a usable source; I think this citation also falls in the same bucket. The other citations look fine. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, I took it out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

3. The Golden Antlers publishes satirical content. What makes this outlet significant enough for inclusion?

   It has a fairly significant presence on campus, so I'd say it's due in that respect. Perhaps more significantly, it also has a bigger presence off-campus than most clubs because it's publishing content online—a reader researching Pomona is far more likely to have encountered a Golden Antlers article than they are e.g. something about the orchestra. Having a mention helps contextualize it, which is particularly important for a satire publication. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   Okay, no complaints. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

4. Pomona has numerous clubs or support offices which provide resources and mentoring programs for students with particular identities. I count 11 named clubs, plus chaplain, FLI Scholars, and Campus Advocates and EmPOWER Center. My preference is not to name any of them unless they've been covered a lot by news (it's not clear to me how significant it is that a college has these kinds of orgs/offices, because AFAIK it's not particularly unique and doesn't necessarily differentiate Pomona from the rest of the crowd), but if you wish to name them then I think some should be pruned. Also ...and chaplains office. seems like it's a bit off grammar-wise.

   I'm no longer naming them in the body, per above. As you've probably gathered from the rest of the article, Pomona places more emphasis on identity than most colleges, and these organizations receive a lot of attention, but you're correct that they're not particularly unique. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

5. These include mentoring for... and the Alternabreak volunteering trips over spring break. I think you can cut "Alternabreak" and simply leave with "volunteering trips over spring break." i think i'm being a bit inconsistent with pointing out places where i think a name of some event/org should be cut, but in this case it feel thrown in there and feels somewhat promotional that way.

   This again goes back to the question of whether it's useful to name entities at Pomona rather than just describing them. I'm similarly torn, but in this case, the photo caption includes the name, so I felt comfortable removing it from the body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Traditions

1. Begun in 1995, the OA program is one of the oldest outdoor orientation programs in the nation. Suggest slight tweak to something like The OA program began in 1995, and is one of the oldest outdoor orientation programs in the U.S., the latter reads less like promotionalism to me.

   Good thought; I changed to your suggestion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Transportation

1. Pomona's Green Bikes program... change to Pomona's "Green Bikes" program... ?

   The MOS guidance on this looks like it's a mess. We could probably go either way, so I've added the quote marks. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

2. PEC and Smith Campus Center off-campus events are usually served with the college's 34-passenger bus, the Sagecoach. think you can just say ...are usually served with the college's passenger bus. no need for bus name, don't think capacity is necessary either

   I removed the capacity. For the name, it's again the same question as above. In this case, it only takes one extra word, so I kept it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Athletics

1. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags and Athenas is introduced with its acronym but the acronym isn't used elsewhere in the article.

   This is another instance of the naming/acronym question. "CMS" is a very frequently used acronym (moreso than the unwieldy "Claremont-Mudd-Scripps"), so I'd definitely lean in this case toward keeping. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

   Alright, makes sense. Zetana (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Are the athletics facilities necessary to be included? Let's say if I cut that entire sentence out, do you think the article would be missing anything?

   This is similar to the discussion we had in the campus section, and as with that, now that there's an interactive map, I feel comfortable removing this and have done so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Hi Sdkb, I've also responded to comments in the following sections above, that I said I would get back to:

• "Research, study abroad, and professional development" #3
• "Admissions" #1 and #2

And regarding the lede, it looks fine! I only ask whether you think including information about athletics is necessary, or can be cut. Zetana (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about it, but the factors that weighed toward inclusion were that the lead is rather short and that there is significant coverage in the body to summarize. For better or worse, sports are a big thing in American higher education, and that extends even to Division III schools like Pomona. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. I'm more familiar with D1/2 so I wasn't sure about Pomona's athletics program, but no objections here. Zetana (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I think we've touched on everything! Are there any other tweaks you'd like to see, or are you ready to support once this goes to FAC? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  I would be happy to support this at FAC. I will try to do a spot-check on sourcing in a couple of hours, but otherwise I have no further comments. Zetana (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Informal spot-check

Just looking at the more easily-accessible web sources, don't have access to the print ones. Zetana (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply here; I've responded below. I hope my changes/explanations are sufficient to address everything, so I'll proceed with closing the PR just to clear it from the queue, but don't hesitate to reply if there's anything further. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 18: "1888 Pomona College Timeline" OK
• Ref 22: "1890 Pomona College Timeline" OK
• Ref 35: "1911 Pomona College Timeline" OK
• Ref 42: "1921 Pomona College Timeline" OK
• Ref 55: "1928 Pomona College Timeline" OK

• Ref 61: "1941 Pomona College Timeline" OK for transformational and turbulent period sentence ("Postwar Transformations"). Also used for Pomona's previously conservative student body quickly liberalized during this era but I don't see anything explicitly mentioning conservative/liberal in the source. See also ref 86.

  Yeah, I had a lot of difficulty sourcing the liberalized statement. The line in the timeline is At Pomona as elsewhere, students demonstrated an unprecedented level of activism and protest directed at both institutional and national issues., which mirrors Lyon, who writes On the Pomona campus the civil rights movement had a growing influence from the late 1950's (556) and There was an intensification of interest in American politics (557). After some digging, I managed to find a (fascinating) scholarly history of Pomona from 1965–1971. It still didn't precisely support that sentence, but it allowed me to rewrite the coverage of the 60s in a way that's now fully sourced. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 68: "Arnold 1989, Lyon obit, L.A. Times" OK
• Ref 86: "Stein 2016, City Journal" this reads more like an opinion piece about the author's perception of college politics ("Postwar transformations"). I only point this out because I'm not entirely sure if that suffices as a rigorous enough source to prove the sentence Pomona's previously conservative student body quickly liberalized during this era, would like to get your thoughts on it.

  I originally added that source mainly because it was the only one I could find that explicitly supported the liberal→conservative transition (The bigger shock, and disappointment, was Pomona’s conservatism. By 1966, Vietnam had been the dominant issue in progressive circles for several years...But at Pomona, it might as well still have been the 1950s. Most even dressed that way. With a handful of exceptions—including the student-body president, as deceptively clean-cut as everyone else—no one seemed to give a damn about the war. I don’t want to take undue personal credit, or blame, for all that followed.) and since it's an interesting (albeit opinionated) read. The author, Harry J. Stein, has some journalism credentials, but he's definitely writing an opinion piece for a very opinionated think tank. I've removed it now that it's no longer needed with Edwards 2008. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 44: "1900 Pomona College Timeline" seems out of place when citing "and its ethnic diversity also began to increase in "Postwar Transformations", I don't see anything in the sentence that would be supported by this ref

  The line was Though [Dickson's] presence on campus seemed to indicate an openness to diversity, very few African American students would follow in his footsteps until the 1960s, but I agree it's a bit weird to have the 1900 timeline in the 60s section. With Lyon and Edwards providing better support for the statement, I've removed it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 89: "1969 Pomona College Timeline" OK
• Refs 101/108/109: for In 2008, Pomona stopped singing its alma mater... ("21st century") OK

  Also random prose comment here, but In 2008, Pomona stopped singing its alma mater at convocation and commencement after it was discovered that the song may have been originally written to be sung as the ensemble finale to a student-produced blackface minstrel show performed on campus in 1909 or 1910 is a rather long sentence, though I don't really know how to shorten it.

  I found a way to reword it to reduce the length of that sentence. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 138: "Pomona College 2015 Master Plan" Mostly OK, however I didn't find "neoclassical" in the PDF, only "Classical" on p.13, is this referring to the same thing?

  I'm not an architecture expert, but my understanding from Classical architecture and Neoclassical architecture is that "neoclassical" just means "classical architecture that wasn't built in Ancient Greece/Rome", making the terms interchangeable. I think I probably went with "neoclassical" since it allows a MOS:SPECIFICLINK without creating an MOS:EGG. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 171/172: for "Dividing the Light" ("North Campus") OK

  Prose: however, I would take out well-known in the sentence, artist and alumnus ought to be sufficient for describing who Turrell is.

  I changed it to Light and Space artist. The capitalization question there is a minefield. Light and Space is a formal art movement. We capitalize it in our article, following the overwhelming majority of sources, who do so to distinguish it from the common words. MOS:IDEOLOGY seems at first glance to advise lowercasing, but looking at the [Rr]epublican example, there seems to be an implicit exception for disambiguatory instances like this. IAR, it seems better for readers to capitalize so I went with that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 204: "Fitch Ratings" OK
• Ref 222: "Reading Days, Pomona College Catalog" OK
• Ref 247: "PayScale" OK
• Refs 269/270 for affirmative action ("Admissions") OK

• Ref 285: "Wood 2016, Stray Thoughts" A bit confused by this one. Various religious and spiritual beliefs are represented among students doesn't seem to be strongly supported by this ref, and the ref also cites Princeton Review when saying Pomona seems to be perennially listed in the top 10 for “least religious students.” (Last year, we were number nine.) would prefer a direct citation to Princeton Review instead.

  I added the religion sentence since it seems like a meaningful demographic category that should at least be mentioned, but the college doesn't seem to survey students about their religion so there isn't any super solid data. It appears that the Princeton Review has discontinued their "least religious colleges" category, but I found a relevant thesis and added that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 358: "The Student Life, Engage @ Claremont" does not mention that TSL is the largest media org at Pomona

  Oops, I forgot to change the URL when I copied the ref; good catch! I fixed it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

@Zetana and HAL333: Thank you both so much for your thorough comments! I'm going to close this PR and work on resolving a few technical issues with Mapframe next (references don't work within it, and the campus borders mysteriously don't work when drawn as lines rather than shapes, meaning clicks on empty space within the campus incorrectly display as the boundary), and after that I'll bring it back to FAC. Feel free to watchlist the redlink and you'll see when I do. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)