Talk:History of Cornell University/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 23:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Why not combine the first three sentences? (done) The length of paragraphs kept seeming odd to me while reading. There are a bunch of single sentence paragraphs, while others, like the first in Founding, have absurd run-on sentences with parentheses, quotes, and semicolons. Two disambigs to fix. (done) And bold text shouldn't be used in the prose, was that because an article on Calspan got merged or split there? (done)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * While the choice of sources is fine, and the textual sources are good, bare references should be filled out with dates and titles that aren't in all caps. (Fixed the eight naked references. I have taken liberties with going lower case, but some editors, like Ryulong, insist on taking the title verbatim from the &lt;title> tag of the page.) Without titles and dates, the source really isn't verifiable to the reader as the same one the editor used. Except in quotations, in-line references should be position outside the period at the end of a sentence. (MOS allows a specific fact to be supported by a footnote in the middle of a sentence)
 * That is somewhat a matter of appearance, and fine when there are lots of sources and you want to be specific, but it still seems odd to have one in the middle of a sentence but none at the end.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the recommendation at MOS:ALLCAPS for changing newspaper article titles to capitalize each word, but again, that's mostly about appearance. The parameter is frequently not the title of the article being sourced, so I'm not sure that's a air-tight policy. Again, the idea is for verifiability. (Done)-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is 'broad in its coverage
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The beginning is solid, going over the background and the school's beginning, but then it hits a lot of topics, and I'm not sure we need whole sections on Interdisciplinary studies or Calspan, which could be combined with something like Infrastructure innovations to make a campus history section.
 * Camps history covered in three spearate articles: Cornell West Campus, Cornell North Campus and Cornell Central Campus. The Cornell Areonautical Lab was very significant in the history of the institution and deserves coverage, but does not fit into any other section. And what's up with the "Epilogue" about Ezra Cornell's wife in this encyclopedia article? I just don't understand what that section adds and why its formatted that way. Couldn't that just be integrated above or left to the article about Ezra Cornell himself? (done - epilogue was added recently by a student)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Sections like Race relations are covered well without a POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * In-text images shouldn't use specific pixel sizes, just set them to thumb. I also recommend using the "upright" field for vertical images. Sandwiching text with images on both sides is explicitly discouraged in the MOS, so why not just put one of the founders in the imageless section below? (we were trying hard to give them co-equal billing both in terms of placement and size) And I don't think you are actually able to use File:Culogo web 60red.png. (there is a fair use rationale timeplate posted for this article on that file's page.) We cheat on the GU page by using a photo of stained-glass version of a previous logo, though even that's questionable. And though I don't think its really required for GA, alt text has become expected for images.
 * Two things. Alt text isn't really the same as captions, and the idea is to describe an image. And use of Template:Logo fur doesn't mean you can use a logo anywhere. Looking at other college history articles, I don't see any others with an official school logo.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See University of Miami - it is allowed if there is a fair use rationale. Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what Miami has to do with it. Logos are (generally) only permitted on the main article about a subject, not on related articles like this one. So its fine on Cornell University, but wouldn't be here. UCLA actually took on the issue of reoccurring school logo use last year, WP:NFR, but basically you can't use anything official here.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 04:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a notice up at WP:IMAGEHELP, where more experienced users can comment.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a notice up at WP:IMAGEHELP, where more experienced users can comment.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I don't mind holding this article for as long as it can be, but I don't really think it meets the standards of other Good Articles. The content is good, but the structure was often hard to read. For example "In the late 1850s, at the University of Michigan, where he had been appointed a professor of history, White's thoughts on a great American university continued to develop." The University of Michigan hadn't been appointed professor, White had. Maybe try something active like "White developed his thoughts on a great American university in the late 1850s at the University of Michigan as a professor of history." I can go through and try to pick more of these out if I'll help.

These are things that stand out to me as potential issues: While I like the recent work that has gone into the article in the last 3 weeks, large issues with prose and referencing remain. Good luck, and let me know if I can help.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Run on sentences: "However, even before Ezra Cornell and Andrew White met..."; "At Geneva, White would read about the great colleges..."; "But, while Cornell and White..."; "John McMullen, who was president..."; "CAL invented the first crash test dummy..."
 * Present tense: "Cornell and White soon find themselves..."
 * Unnecessary adverbs/conjunctions: "Hence, both chaired committees..."; "Thus began the collaboration..."; "But, while Cornell and White..."; "To this end, he traveled to France..."; "In fact, seven of the first 11..."; "However, until the early 1980s..."; "Since then, 327..."
 * More sentence starters that aren't really needed: "In general", "For example", "Similarly", "Subsequently", "Historically"
 * One sentence paragraphs: "It was the success of the egalitarian ideals..."; "Andrew D. White, its first president..."; "Yet, Cornell and White soon find..."; "Cornell formally added alumni-elected..."
 * I counted another fourteen paragraphs with only two sentences, including in the lead.
 * Could "Support from New York State", "Giving and alumni involvement", and "Affordability and use of the endowment" be worked into a single section on finances, perhaps with subsections?
 * The template for "Main article: New York State College of Forestry at Cornell" should be at the top of the section or just linked in the text.
 * First female students information is repeated in "Opening" and "Coeducation" sections.
 * There are six sources between the "Conception" and "Establishment" sections, half of which are on one sentence. At the very least the "ref name" feature needs some use.
 * When the same source is cited to a different page, the "ref name" is inappropriate. Racepacket (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides those, I counted another eight paragraphs without a single reference.