Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Maryland, College Park/archive1

University of Maryland, College Park
Self-nomination; more or less, since I have done a lot with this article. However, I feel it is at the point of being a model article for most universities. -James Howard (talk/web) 18:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Lack of pictures, and a lack of external references for certain key facts stated. Overall it is an acceptable article.83.77.128.225
 * In a somewhat ironic twist of fate, I have a quiz bowl tournament there on October 22. I'll bring my camera and grab some pics. &rarr;Raul654 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I don't believe it needs more pictures. Nice work. :) --Syrthiss 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I am also working on getting a university article featured. However, after looking at this article, I would not use it as an example for a featured university article, for the following reasons:
 * There are too many lists, especially for the academics section. I would recommend that you move the list to a sub-article and summarize the material into prose. In fact, it is preferable that the article use prose instead of lists.
 * Little or no information on student life (what is it like attending/living at the University of Maryland? What special activities/groups make the university stand out?)
 * No information concerning the campus (is the campus compact? Spread-out? Modern or classical in appearance?).
 * Reference section must be separate, and the number of references is lacking (surely there must be printed publications on the flagship campus of the University of Maryland).
 * Try to avoid having external links within the main article.
 * History section must be summarized in this article, with the current form moved into a sub-article.
 * Another concern I have is that the article didn't go through peer review first (especially with this many problems). Unless you have the time to address these problems, I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. Pentawing 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Object - For the following reasons (among others):
 * The campus is not adaquately described and there are no pictures illustrating it.
 * The long list of academic subjects interrupts the article.
 * There is no description of the social and cultural life of the campus.
 * The discussion of past research the university has done is lacking.
 * There is no discussion of the mission, values and goals of the University as an organisation.
 * The truth is this article does not compare well to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology article. Yet that article failed to recieve featured status in January. From the alumni this appears to be a great university and I really think this article does not do the university justice. Every useful contribution to Wikipedia is valuable, but for an article to be featured it must be comprehensive and exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Cedars 09:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Object (although I did a lot of the writing on it) The sports ... and to a lesser expent the ancient history section, which I think I started ... have a lot of arbitrary (football unsuccessful between 1953 and today?) and excessive detail. The "Diamondback" section is pretty bizarre as well. And shouldn't that humongous list be tucked away somewhere, if included at all? I usually try to improve articles rather than just take shots at'm, but I already did my part on this one.Sfahey 02:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object no chance in hell this time around... WAAAAAAAY too much list. Not even 1 photo of the campus in question! This needs a total overhaul/rewrite.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 03:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see external links in the "living learning programs" section. Could you convert those to footnotes, please? Mamawrit  es    & listens  10:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)