Template:Did you know nominations/Academic regalia of Stanford University

Academic regalia of Stanford University
Created/expanded by Boven (talk). Self nom at 19:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that for almost 30 years, Stanford University used a form of academic dress that was unique within the United States?




 * Symbol possible vote.svg Two things worry me here. First, the hook is linking to Academic regalia of Stanford University, but it looks like it's linking to the main Stanford University article (which says nothing at all about the university's academic attire).  Second, even assuming the hook is rephrased to use "academic regalia of Stanford University" or something very similar, I'm not satisfied that the fact (namely, that Stanford used a distinctive style of Ph.D. robe from 1977 to 2005) is adequately substantiated via an inline cite at a specific point in the article corresponding directly to this fact.  Before this is good to go, I believe work needs to be done both on the hook and on the source citing in the article itself.  —  Rich wales 03:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Richwales on his second point. The words "unique within the United States" pick up a similar expression ("unique among American institutions of higher education") in the lead of the article but are not cited anywhere. Also, while the hook seems to cover all of the university's academic dress, it is clear from the article that the Ph.D. gown is what it is referring to. There is a minor mystery here, as the article does not explain why this gown was unique "until 2005". I suppose that must be either because it has been replaced or else because it has been joined by similar gowns elsewhere, but the article does not say that either of those has happened. Richwales's first point doesn't worry me very much, as DYK hooks often do things of this kind and what matters is for the new or expanded article to be linked in the bolded term. Moonraker (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I've added an more specific mention of the fact with a citation from the Transactions of the Burgon Society. How about something along the lines of "... that for almost 30 years, the academic regalia of Stanford University used a form of PhD robe that was unique within the United States?" Does that work better?
 * "is unique" .... surely all universities have unique robes. Actually when you read the article it seems more interesting that they are not unique. I would suggest Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ... that the PhD robes of Stanford University are stylistic copies of those used by Cambridge University in England?"
 * In the United States, the overwhelming majority of doctoral robes are exactly the same. There are a number of institutions that have adopted unique robes, but all but two of them use the standard ICC robe shape and simply vary the colors. Stanford's robe was unique within the US in being based on the Cambridge doctors' robe until Vanderbilt used the same shape in 2005. I'd be fine with your hook, but from the American perspective, the most notable thing seems to be that they designed robes that violated the ICC suggestions rather than robes that followed the Cambridge convention. Thanks for the suggestion.--dave-- 17:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Robes that "vary in color" are not usually considered "exactly the same" even if they are stylistically similar. Hence my assertion that that all universities use non-unique robes Victuallers (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. My thinking when writing the hood was that "form" was a reference to the shape. I guess my hook would make more sense as something like "... that for almost 30 years, the academic regalia of Stanford University used a shape of PhD robe that was unique within the United States?" --dave-- 01:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg final hook Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Can someone please confirm that this article has been given a complete review? No one claims to have done so, and the hooks weren't the only issue raised above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do feel free to re-review. However the Symbol confirmed.svg template does refer to "No problems, ready for DYK". The points brought up a month ago have been addressed. I am quite happy with the final hook and the DYK requirements. Victuallers (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)