Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Virginia Greek life/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2015.

University of Virginia Greek life

 * Nominator(s): Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the University of Virginia's fraternity and sorority system, which has existed since the mid 1800s and whose history includes the founding of two national fraternities as well as other events of significance. The article details the history of the system and lists the Greek organizations on grounds including foundation date, a picture of the residence (if there is one), and other notes. Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
I have performed only a cursory prose review, primarily examining structural and referencing requirements. There is arguably a case to be made that the long tables constitute a list article (and thus a candidate for FLC rather than FAC), but I'll not address that consideration, and treat this as an article that merely includes a large subsidiary list.
 * The lead is problematic. I am not convinced it represents an adequate summary of the article body. In particular, the lead's discussion of reserved rooms does not seem to appear in the body (and is likely too specific for lead inclusion to boot).
 * I'm not sure I understand your comment here; could I ask you to be more specific? The lead seems to me to be a comprehensive yet brief summary. You're right that the Lawn room assignments hadn't appeared in the body, so I have added them to the Notes section in the tables. I feel they should be included in the lead because they give an example of the Greek system's importance to the school--being selected to live in a Lawn room is very meaningful (I could mention that in the article if needed), and out of the very few organizations that hold reserved rooms, three of them are Greek. But I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit up front. I'm pretty much terrible at writing standards-compliant leads for articles here. But, sadly, I still have to point out problems with WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the rest of the article. Typically, about one sentence per section or important topic is an appropriate summary weight, although that varies somewhat. The lead should not introduce information that is not covered in the body, but should also not fail to mention important topics that are discussed later. Whether it is necessary (or even permitted) to include references in the lead is debated here; my stance is that (except for direct quotes or BLP-compliance issues) the lead should be unreferenced because it is merely an "abstract" for the article. As currently written, I think the lead has problems with all these aspects of lead construction policy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've shortened and rewritten the lead to try to make it more of a summary instead of going into too much detail. WP:LEAD actually requires that lead sections are sourced, so I've retained the citations where necessary. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The introduction paragraph in History is problematic, claiming that Greek life began "relatively soon after" 1819, but noting that fraternities were not introduced until the 1850s. It's not immediately clear what is being cited for support here, and some of the confusion may be the result of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society's operation as Greek-lettered Phi Pi Theta. It is mentioned (in the lead) as being lettered, but never named as Phi Pi Theta, and I'm not sure the distinction between it and actual fraternities is made clear; I'm certainly unable to define the difference.
 * Done. You're right; the Jefferson Society is not a fraternity, and I have added that in explicitly. I also reworded the History lead to remove the timeline ambiguity. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Link colony to Colony (fraternity or sorority).
 * Done. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Late 1900s section discusses Easters without any context. I have no idea who or what the Easters was.
 * Done. I had explained what Easters was after it was initially mentioned, but I reworded the section to make it flow better and make it less confusing. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The "Controversies" section has but one controversy, and is basically just a place to hang discussion of the Rolling Stone article; perhaps issues like the failure to maintain house condition (until remedied by the HRC) belongs here, which would also prevent discussion of the HRC from appearing in anachronistic order? Also, I'm of a mind that this section should appear before the tables; it's reasonable to believe our readers would think the article's prose complete before scrolling to the bottom of these lengthy tables.
 * I moved the controversies section in front of the tables, but I didn't add the HRC information--I think the HRC info is better suited to the history section, since it wasn't a recent or well-known controversy. I don't think the controversies section should be removed, since the Rolling Stone article was recent and gained national attention, but I don't have much else to add to that section. Not sure what the best decision is here. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Try to have the column and table widths consistent between the various tables.
 * Done, to the best of my ability (unfortunately entering the same width for the identical columns in each table doesn't result in exactly the same width in reality). Although you may want to check it on your computer--I don't know if tables display differently on different screens. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The slight discrepancy that remains, I think, is due to the padding that is added around the images. Regardless, this is close enough for me, anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is it standard practice when discussing fraternal organizations that have disbanded and reformed (sometimes decades later) to treat them as a contiguous organization with the original founding date intact? Do third-party treatments of fraternal organization history do so?
 * I don't think there's a standard practice, so I chose to use the original dates because it was objective. Using the most recent "re-founding" could lead to a lot of subjective decisions--what would count as a "re-founding," as opposed to a temporary suspension? Some organizations have had charters revoked by their nationals temporarily, some have been suspended by the university. Others have disappeared for a time because membership lapsed. In any case, whenever I found that some sort of blip in the organization's timeline existed, I mentioned it in the Notes column, so I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay. I spoke with an editor from Wikiproject Fraternities and Sororities, and he agreed that using the original founding date would be best. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Defunct fraternites are mentioned, some by name. Is it possible to include a table for them as well?
 * I thought about this, but I figured it would make the already lengthy article unnecessarily long. It would undoubtedly miss some organizations, as I haven't been able to find a comprehensive list of defunct fraternities at the university. Puppysnot (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One possibility is to spall off the lists entirely into a "List of fraternal organizations at the University of Virginia" list article (or something of that nature). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd rather keep it as a single article. Splitting it into two would result in one article that's basically just the history of the Greek system at UVA, with a history section and a controversies section, and a second article that's purely the lists. I feel like the history article would seem incomplete standing on its own, and furthermore, I don't think the "List of fraternal organizations..." article would pass notability requirements. I suppose I could add a short list at the end of the article in a new section titled "Defunct fraternal organizations" or something like that. Maybe I'll work on it in my sandbox and see what I come up with. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference formatting, and possibly reference selection, needs work:
 * Several references are not formatted at all, and lack sufficient bibliographic information. See especially #24 and #107, but also print sources incorrectly formatted as bare links, as in #16, #86, and #99.
 * Done for these, plus a couple others I found. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's up with the edition/pub date for the Baird source. The 9th edition (which should probably be "9th" rather than "9") was published in 1920, not 2015. If that is the edition you consulted, the OCLC number is correct. If you used a more recent edition, then the edition number and identifier are wrong. Books don't need exact publication dates (especially since you do not do that for any other print source); a year will suffice.
 * Oops. Looks like I accidentally put in the access date instead of the publication year. Fixed. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Web sources need some attention. You're not consistent about the use of |publisher versus |work, which results in different italicization. A quick glance suggests you're okay for the many fraternity and university web pages cited, but third-party stuff gives you some trouble, such as the Rolling Stone article, where you've used |publisher incorrectly. Also, in general, |work names should be what the website presents itself as, rather than the URL. Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com; Business Insider, not businessinsider.com (there are exception, where the TLD is part of the actual site name, but I don't think you're referencing any here).
 * Addressed below (duplicate comment). Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wilson and Mohr should probably be "17th" edition rather than "17".
 * Done. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Worldcat really dropped the ball on their entry for the source cited here as Semicentennial Biographical Catalogue of the Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America. You have the publisher correct, as per the source itself, but the book has an author as well: Israel Coriell Pierson (Worldcat gets both wrong, but such is life). Worldcat and the title page both agree that this should be properly titled as Zeta Psi Fraternity of North America, Founded June 1 Anno Domini 1847: Semicentennial Biographical Catalogue With Data to December 31, 1899 however.
 * Added the author and fixed the title. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference 106 (the Undergraduate Record) does not present bibliographic information correctly. This should be presented as a periodical (The University of Virginia Record), with |series=New Series |volume=7 |issue=1 |date=December 1, 1920. I'm not sure where in this work the content you are citing is, so I can't be more specific than that.
 * I believe I've fixed this. I used the cite journal template, let me know if that's not correct. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Web sources need some attention. You're not consistent about the use of |publisher versus |work, which results in different italicization. A quick glance suggests you're okay for the many fraternity and university web pages cited, but third-party stuff gives you some trouble, such as the Rolling Stone article, where you've used |publisher incorrectly. Also, in general, |work names should be what the website presents itself as, rather than the URL. Rolling Stone, not rollingstone.com; Business Insider, not businessinsider.com (there are exception, where the TLD is part of the actual site name, but I don't think you're referencing any here). The Erdely source (the Rolling Stone article) also needs to have an archive date specified since you're citing an archival copy.
 * I believe I've addressed all of the work/publisher issues. I've added archive dates to archival sources as well. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Book sources need ISBNs, when assigned, or OCLCs otherwise.
 * Done. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find ISBNs/OCLCs for Patterson's book or the 2 Corks and Curls books. Perhaps someone with more experience could help. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, ISBNs should all be properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s.
 * Added hyphens where necessary. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Patterson needs an OCLC number.
 * Unfortunately I don't think the 9th edition has an OCLC number, although more recent copies seem to. Any advice? Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The OCLC provided for the Garnet & Gold Pledge Guide is for a 1965 edition. Worldcat doesn't appear to index a 1970 edition. I'm not sure if the problem is the publication year or the Worldcat number. It's possible there are editions not indexed by Worldcat.
 * Same question as above, if there is no ISBN/OCLC number is it acceptable to leave it out? Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bruce has a formatting issues ("p. Vol. IV 94–101"). Also, the ISBN given is for the 2011 Nabu Press reprint, not the 1920–1922 Centennial Edition. Cite what you used. Replace this ISBN with the OCLC for the original if appropriate.
 * My mistake, I didn't realize different editions would have different ISBNs/OCLCs. Fixed. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ISBN given for the 1897 Catalogue of the Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity is for the 2010 Nabu Press reprint. Cite what you used. Replace this ISBN with the OCLC for the original if appropriate.
 * Done. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Corks & Curls probably doesn't have an OCLC number. But the citation provided here is insufficient. Unfortunately, without copies in hand, I'm not able to construct the missing information (this yearbook series has numbered editions, for example).
 * Unfortunately I don't have copies either--I'll keep looking for the info online. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Some web-only sources lack retrieval dates. Some print sources archived online have retrieval dates (which are not strictly required, and often disfavored).
 * Fixed. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reference #88: [A]lpha
 * Actually, [a]lpha is correct--that's the way they stylize it. See alpha Kappa Delta Phi. Puppysnot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether the fraternity's lowercase styling of its first letter supersedes the MOS on title case. I'll let someone else respond to that topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, very little of this is referenced by sources I would consider independent. While I'm not concerned about using fraternity publications to cite charter dates or the names o their houses (in general, the table information), even the historical context of the topic is largely sourced by University of Virginia documents (note that, broadly speaking, I'm less concerned about sources merely published by the University of Virgnia Press), and the websites and publications of the sundry organizations that are the topic of the article istself. Many aspects of this topic are of considerable historical importance; has nothing more been written by third parties?
 * Actually, I strongly disagree with this. There are a lot of primary sources, but most of them are used in the table for the Notes section. I made sure that any significant claims were cross-referenced with reliable sources, or else I didn't include those claims in the article (the article's edit history demonstrates that). As for the History section, most of the material comes from the histories by Dabney, Bruce, and Patton, with other third-party sources scattered (like Wilson and Mohr's Encyclopedia of Southern Culture). From my understanding, all of those should pass for reliable sources, especially if you aren't concerned with sources published by the UVa Press. There are occasionally primary sources in the History section, but they generally serve to source founding dates or other insignificant information. However, if you feel differently I'm open to discussion. Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that this represents a comprehensive review of the literature. Even prior to the table, a substantial amount of the references are not to third-party sources, and of those that are, the article leans exceedingly heavily on the Baird, Bruce, and Dabney sources. I do not have immediate access to all of these works, so I'm in no position to evaluate how substantive their coverage would be, but I would want to survey some or all of the following as part of a more comprehensive sourcing effort:
 * These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are good references that I hadn't thought of including (I've actually heard of a couple of them before). Unfortunately, I doubt my local library has copies of them, but I'll check. If not I'll have to work on this at some point in the future and renominate later on. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but I believe that it still has quite a bit to go before meeting the FA criteria. Regrettable, I lean oppose on prose and structure, and oppose outright on the current state of referencing and reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for the review. This is my first FAC so I'm not surprised that there's some work to do. I'll make note under your above comments as I address each issue, and if the consensus is still oppose after I've made the improvements, then I can do some more work and renominate in a few weeks. Puppysnot (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, I believe I've addressed all of your comments, although some merit further discussion. I'm in no rush, I just wanted to let you know I had finished. Let me know what you think! Thanks, Puppysnot (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Back from a business trip that, naturally, had no reliable wifi access. Let me see what I can provide in terms of responses. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Responded further; still a lot of reference formatting issues. I also tried to address my overall sourcing concerns. Not strictly related, but someone will ping you on it eventually regardless: When a statement is cited to multiple sources, those references should appear in numerical order (so [35][41] is okay, but [41][40] is not). This one gets me every time, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for sticking with this review. I've addressed your comments above. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a couple OCLC numbers, which I've asked about above. I'd be interested in looking at the sources you listed, but I don't think I'll have access to them at my local library. I'll keep an eye out for them. Puppysnot (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * Fixed. Puppysnot (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Society_Old_Boys.jpg: what is the source of this image? When/where was it first published? Who was the creator?
 * I'm not sure, it had already been uploaded and used on Wikipedia. I've contacted UVA's Special Collections library about it and hope to hear back. Puppysnot (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikkimaria, UVA's library got back to me and said that they have the photo in their collection, but have no information on its authorship/publication date. Does this mean it needs to be removed from the article/Wikipedia? I think it's a nice addition to the article, so I'd like to keep it if possible. Puppysnot (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately without more information on the publication history we probably wouldn't be able to use it, unless you can claim fair use in some way. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Old_Kappa_Sigma_house.jpg: where was this first published?
 * I don't know the original work it was published in, but UVA's library states the date as 1917. I've contacted them, as above. Puppysnot (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The UVA library got back to me on this one as well. They confirmed the photo was from 1917, but don't have information on its initial publication. The librarian theorized it could be from Corks & Curls (the school's yearbook), but I don't have access to old copies, so I wouldn't be able to tell. Puppysnot (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Dawson's_row_sanborn_map.png: description should be human-readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here, could you elaborate? Thanks Nikkimaria. Puppysnot (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looked like there was a template problem earlier, but it seems fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this has failed to attract any support for promotion after being open for over three weeks—it will be archived shortly. You may renominate after the standard two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.