Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Puget Sound/archive1

University of Puget Sound

Along with some random anons, I have been the only major contributor to the article for a while. I would eventually like it to become featured. I have tried to look at pages for similar liberal arts colleges and get a feel for what's going on. However, I need some other people to look over the article and tell me what direction to take it in. --Liface 20:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. If possible, move references from the lead section down to the appropriate section of the main text ([1], for example).
  2. Years are inconsistently linked. I suggest dropping all year, as of year and decade links; they are not needed to provide context.
  3. Pay attention to section header capitalization: International Programs => International programs
  4. There are a lot of red links in the notable alumni section; not sure what to suggest there.
  5. Some of the lists will need to become prose for FA.
  6. More pictures would be good.

JonHarder 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! What do you mean by lists becoming prose? --Liface 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Try to rewrite some of the bulletted lists into regular paragraphs, such as those under "Achievements" and "Traditions and events." The more of these you can convert, the better it will go for FA. JonHarder 12:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This article has a long way to go before it could become a FA, but, all in all, it's not too bad. Here are my problems and suggestions:

1. Comprehensiveness is not nearly there. For comprehensive university articles, see FA's University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, and Duke University. For example, there should be a Campus section dedicated to the scenery and important facilities/buildings on campus. I personally know very little about Puget Sound, but the one thing I have heard is that the campus is beautiful.
2. Reference format is not correct. See above examples for proper techniques.
3. Article is under-referenced. Excluding the Notable Alumni section, there are only 8 total references. In particular, the lead (zero refs) and the History section (1 ref) are very under-referenced. Every fact should have a citation. I disagree with JonHarder about merely moving the references from the lead. Having them in both places would be more appropriate. See current FA's for good techniques.
4. Organization issues. Focus of article is not quite what it should be at times - it goes into too much depth in some areas, while neglecting others all together. For example, Tuition and finances and Fraternities and sororities do not deserve their own sections. Rather, a more appropriate way to deal with this would be to create a Profile section under Academics for the tuition/fin aid info. Traditions and events and Fraternities and sororities should be under a Student life section.
5. Agree wholeheartedly with JonHarder's important suggestion about converting bullets to prose. This is a must for FA's. There should be very few (ideally, zero) bullet points in the article. In the Athletics section, instead of listing the sports in a bullet manner, they should be stated in prose (i.e. The University's 21 varsity sports teams include: Men's Baseball, Men's and Women's Basketball, Men's and Women's Crew (competes in the Northwest Collegiate Rowing Conference), Men's and Women's Cross Country, etc.). This is just an example. I personally think all the sports should not be listed. The number is appropriate and particular sports that have been outstanding recently merit mentioning as well. Notable Alumni should be converted to prose as well and needs to be expanded greatly.
6. One photo, which doesn't even provide a fair use rationale, is not nearly enough for an article of a college.
7. Prose is ok, but definitely not brilliant, one of the requirements for FA. A thorough copyedit is in order.

-Bluedog423 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)