User:Amerique/UCR Survey

Straw poll
I am listing this survey under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. In constructing this survey, I have tried to identify specific areas and points in the article visitors to this page have either asserted were biased or irrelevant or defended as unbiased or relevant. This survey is designed as a means of gathering information for supporting an eventual consensus, but is not intended as a means of determining a consensus on any specific areas or points of contention.--Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

Neutral POV of Article

 * The UCR article, in whole or in part, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (I am providing my responses first as a format example.) Per my comments elsewhere.


 * The UCR article, in whole or in part, is unbiased.

Admissions

 * The Admissions section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner, per my comments elsewhere.


 * The Admissions section, as currently worded, is unbiased.

Rankings and Distinctions

 * The Rankings and Distinctions section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner, per my comments elsewhere.


 * The Rankings and Distinctions section, as currently worded, is unbiased.

Nobel Laureates

 * Information on the non-presence of Nobel Laureates on faculty is relevant to this article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner, per my comments elswhere.


 * Information on the non-presence of Nobel Laureates on faculty is irrelevant to this article.

Retention, Recruitment, and Alumni

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner.


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.

StudentsReview.com

 * Information from StudentsReview.com, specificly the "abomination to higher education" quote, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think a better quote can be chosen.


 * Information from StudentsReview.com, specificly the "abomination to higher education" quote, is irrelevant to the article.

Alumni Giving Rate

 * Information on the alumni giving rate, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning this information, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner.


 * Information on the alumni giving rate, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.

The Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) The "have not always been successful" clause on the last sentence is the only issue I have with this section.


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.

Enrollment

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) More disorganised than biased. Financial/endowment information should probably go in its own section. Its current phrasing certainly reads as biased.


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.

Diversity and hate crime

 * The hate crime information, as currently worded, is biased or irrelevant.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to mentioning the hate crime information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner.


 * The hate crime information, as currently worded, is unbiased or relevant.

The "909 Stigma"

 * The "909 Stigma" section, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) I am not opposed to the section in principle, but think it can be worded in a more neutral manner, as is the mention in the Inland Empire article.


 * The "909 Stigma" section, as currently worded, is irrelevant to the article.

Severe Air Pollution

 * The section on air pollution, as currently worded, is relevant to the article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)I am not opposed to the information in principle, but think it can be worded more in a more neutral manner.


 * The section on air pollution, as currently worded, is irrelevant to the article.

Athletics

 * This section, as currently worded, is biased.


 * This section, as currently worded, is unbiased.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Football team

 * Information on the current non-existance of a football program is relevant to this article.


 * Information on the current non-existance of a football program is irrelevant to this article.


 * --Amerique 00:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Per my comments elsewhere.

Survey Discussion
Discussion resulting from the survey should go here.