Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duke University/archive2


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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria 16:23, 29 August 2011.

Duke University

 * Notified: Bluedog423, ElKevbo, LaszloWalrus, Ttownfeen, Pismo01, Tinlash (all users with more than 50 edits who have edited in the past year) Universities WP, Christianity WP Methodism work group, Christianity WP, North Carolina WP, Atlantic Coast Conference WP, Durham NC WP

I am nominating this featured article for review mainly because of numerous issues with referencing. Specifics:
 * A bunch of dead links, see this, which leaves a good bit of information (including a bunch of statistics) unreferenced.
 * A lot of the article is sourced to primary sources, including information that is laudatory of the University and therefore needs to be sourced to third-party sources. For example, in the Football section, "he and his staff have been widely hailed as contributing to a turnaround that is currently in progress." is sourced to a Duke University website. In the Research section, "while philosophers Robert Brandon and Lakatos Award-winner Alexander Rosenberg make Duke a leading center for research in philosophy of biology." is also sourced to a Duke University website, and "leading center for research" isn't exactly NPOV coming from the institution itself.
 * Several areas with statistics are unsourced, including "Nine of the 11 non-fraternity selective living groups are coeducational. Central Campus provides housing for approximately 1,050 students (of which about 850 are undergraduate juniors or seniors) in 45 apartment buildings. About half of Duke seniors, however, choose to live off campus."
 * Referencing missing information or poorly formatted, including websites that include only a bare URL.
 * Other references have improper publishers. For example, ref #99 should be U.S.News & World Report, not Colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com.
 * Why does "small compared to the percentage for Trinity undergraduates (47%), but much larger than the national average for engineering students (3.2%).[82][83][84][85][86]" need five references, including three to primary sources?
 * Many areas of the article, especially in the Athletics section, are outdated. They discuss 2005, 2006 and 2007 information which may or may not still be relevant mid-way through 2011.
 * Dab links for The Chronicle and The Hangover.
 * The Alumni section is extremely dense and listy. The sheer amount of blue links makes it very difficult to read and navigate.
 * I second the serious need to clean up the Alumni section. It needs to be converted to prose and supported with reliable sources. —Eustress talk 00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in prose format previously before this nomination. Somebody then changed it to a list format based on his/her interpretation of this comment even though (as I stated below) I prefer the prose format as it includes more transitions and seemd to flow better. I may simply revert it to what it was before as that follows other university FAs.  The density of blue links seems to be common among university FAs (such as Dartmouth College and University of Michigan) which list even more alumni than this article.  I think it's unavoidable since it's basically a large set of names, but the prose format seems to be the preferred format. I will work on supplying references as well. -Bluedog423Talk 03:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reworked the alumni section. Still have a few more references to go - will get to them as soon as possible. -Bluedog423Talk 04:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also added some references to the Alumni section, and will continue to add them later in the day when I get a chance if someone doesn't get to it first. Merveilleux (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call on getting it back to prose. I think if you're able to populate the remainder of the citations needed, then this issue could be struck through. —Eustress talk 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've provided the remaining references for the rest of the alumni section. I also re-worked the structure and copyedited line by line to follow the protocol set by other university FAs.  I think it's greatly improved. -Bluedog423Talk 05:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Striking through issue. —Eustress talk 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose needs a look-through. The are unclear areas, including "In March 2006, the university also purchased 15 houses in the Trinity Park area that Duke students had typically rented. These houses are now owned by individual families who live in them, including the Dean of Duke Chapel." - this begs the question of if the university purchased the houses, how are they now owned by individual families? Language such as "finally" in "Duke Men's Lacrosse finally won its first national championship" in unencyclopedic.
 * Watch out for vague language, including wording like "At present, there is a plan to restructure Central Campus." When is present? Also, this specific paragraph is unreferenced.

Despite a comment on the work needed being placed on the talk page in April, little work has been done, with the exception of fixing several dead links (a chunk of which I did myself, before realizing the true extent of the issues). However, many more dead links still remain, and little work was done on the major issues with the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I did do an article cleanup about a week after you posted on the talk page, but as you stated, it was mostly fixing dead links.  However, at least it's not near the top of the cleanup listing anymore.  It's below such education FA's as Georgetown University, Stuyvesant High School, Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State University, Texas A&M University, University of California, Riverside, Baltimore City College, Plano Senior High School, Amador Valley High School.  So, it's in good company.  I'm not suggesting that makes this review invalid, but rather that dead links are a common issue with even FAs since it necessitates a dedicated user to stay on top of them since the internet is constantly changing.  Or maybe all those should also be nominated for review also.  The majority of the article is unchanged since the last FAR in 2008, but perhaps that's one of the issues since you mentioned some of the information is out of date at this point. In any event, I'll work on addressing your concerns over the next week or so.  Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bluedog, thank you for the work that you have already done on the article. I agree that there are many FAs (including those you list above) in need of some serious TLC before they are back up to FA standards. Those you mention probably do need a FAR, or at the very least a prod on the talk page to let people know that they are being looked at. As to your other point (that the article is largely unchanged since 2008), this is partially a problem because of out-of-date info, and partially a problem because FA criteria have changed in the intervening three years. Since that point, the requirement for high-quality reliable sources (as opposed to simply reliable sources) has been added, and FACs over the past two years or so have been getting much closer checks for image licensing, source reliability and close paraphrasing/copyright violations than they were in 2008, or even before that when the article was originally featured. I am not saying any of this to try to discourage you, simply pointing out what tends to be a major issue with old FAs - even if they were kept up to the standard (no dead links, etc) of when they were featured, they quite likely don't meet today's featured criteria, even though they did meet the criteria in place at the time when they were promoted. I look forward to the work that you plan to do on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I corrected the DAB link to The Hangover. I also fixed the formatting on ref #99 and removed 3 useless references from the section on study abroad. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the work you have done. On my note that improper publishers, however, you will see that ref #99 was just an example - there are a bunch more in the article. I have removed the "done" tags that someone added, mainly because two of the three things marked were not actually done - one of the dab links still remains and only the specific publisher example has been fixed. However, thank you again for your work, and I hope that additional work will continue. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, that's weird, I used DAB fixer to correct the link to The Chronicle. I couldn't find it earlier because it was in a reference. I'll go through and fix it manually. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DAB links have been removed can you strike? Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Why can there not be done templates? I believe the existence of them allows editors trying to know what has been done and what still needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Criteria 3:
 * File:Cameron indoor.jpg needs a licensing fix.
 * Re: the above pic. If you would like to keep it in the article I'd suggest asking for help with the licensing at commons. Brad (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Ricardo Lagos.jpg needs a source
 * File:Duke University Crest.svg is a non-free image that is properly licensed for non-free use and has a proper non-free use rationale. Only listing it here to verify that it has been checked. Brad (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Criteria 2c:
 * Please update the "retrieved on" dates for all of the external links used as references. Additionally the "retrieved on" dates need to be standardized. I currently see a mixed format of ie 2008-01-22 and or January 21, 2008 etc.
 * MOS Issues
 * Per MOS:Images the photos need alt text; see WP:ALT. See WP:LINK regarding overlinking and linking common terms or items that aren't helpful to the reader with understanding more about Duke. Brad (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My issues have been resolved. FARC not needed. Brad (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is with editors working on the article adding done templates to issues that the reviewer doesn't think have been finished. For example, a done template was placed next to my comment about the publishers not being inputted correctly. This was not, in fact, "done" - only the example given had been corrected. Another user coming to the page would look at that template and go "oh, the issue has been fixed", when in fact it hadn't been. So, editors should leaving the adding of done (or striking, as I have done above) to the people making the comments, rather than the people fixing them, since the two parties can have very different ideas of what constitutes "done". Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixes - I have fixed all the broken links. Now when I run this tool, I get no suspicious or dead links. By the way, what a great tool! As to utilizing more third-party sources, especially when laudatory language is used, I will go through the article more thoroughly when I address overall prose and syntax, but for now have addressed the two examples you gave. The first example actually didn't have a source at all incidentally (the source was for the subsequent statement of the assistant coach being named ACC assistant of the year - which seems fine to have Duke as the primary source on that since it's 100% fact), but it did give an opinion that a "turnaround is in progress" (which is debatable). Thus, I replaced the statement with a fact regarding number of wins. For the Philosophy of Biology references, I replaced "leading center for research" with "rank[s] as the nation's best program in philosophy of biology, according to the Philosophical Gourmet Report" - which, again, is simply stating a fact and I supplied a link. As for the two image issues raised by Brad, I honestly wasn't sure how to properly address the Cameron Indoor picture as it was uploaded by somebody who hasn't edited a page since 2005, so it's extremely unlikely I'd get a response. That individual released several of his photos in the PD, but did some with GFDL. However, I suppose I'm not allowed to simply guess the particular disclaimer (if any), so to be safe, I replaced it with a clear PD image. (Although I prefer his image, so if there's a reasonable approach to rectify this, let me know.) The Ricardo Lagos image has simply been removed as images in the Alumni section aren't typical anyways. Next, I plan to go through the article sentence-by-sentence to work on the prose and fix out of date statistics/statements. While doing that, I'll give my best effort to fix any missing information from references. Let me know if you see any issues with my revisions. Cheers. -Bluedog423Talk
 * You're doing a great job! I've struck the issues above that I feel to be completely remedied, and it looks like a start has been made on most of the others. Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

More fixes - I updated 41 references that should address your fourth and fifth bullet points. Many had improper publishers, missing information, etc. I also worked to address Brad's concern around Criteria 2c - mainly that the date formatting was inconsistent. As to the first part of his comment, is that a suggestion to simply update ALL references in the entire article to retrieved on July 6, 2011? I mean, that's a simple find/replace and I now know that all the weblinks are valid, so perhaps that's okay, but I just wasn't sure. Brookie made adjustments to the Alumni section to attempt to address your concerns there. Thanks Brookie! Personally, though, I thought lists were discouraged and I prefer the prose format of this section as that seems to be the typically accepted protocol among university Featured Articles. The length of such a section and the number of blue links is obviously subject to personal opinion and debate. I mean, we could simply not link every name (which doesn't sound like a good solution) or eliminate some notable alumni. However, I think this section being as complete as possible is preferred. This Alumni section is not any longer than Dartmouth's, which is also a featured article. Feel free to give your opinion, but I personally prefer the (perhaps lengthy) thorough listing in prose format, just like in the Dartmouth article. If somebody wants information about Duke alumni, they can read the section in its entirety - if they're not interested, they can skip it. Hope those improvements help! I'll work on alternative text for the images next...-Bluedog423Talk 16:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the date of retrieval as long as the dates are from the past year (July 2010-July 2011) should be sufficient. We know the links are working but to the average reader it may seem like the article hasn't been updated if they see 2007 etc. Brad (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS Issues - I have supplied alternate text for all photos (used my architectural knowledge to the best of my ability!) and also removed several (60+) wikilinks that do not add to the understanding of the main topic. -Bluedog423Talk 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Update - I have worked through several more issues throughout the article and performed line-by-line copyedit on the first few sections (lead, history, and most of campus) of the article. I added references for unsourced statistics where I saw them and attempted to replace certain primary sources. I updated statistics when they were out of date, and removed old information. I also sought to rectify any instances of "recent" past, "currently," etc. and replace them with specific dates. I performed edits on all your examples above. Essentially, I believe all the items outlined by Dana boomer have been (mostly) addressed except for "prose look-through" and perhaps vague language in later sections. I can't perform any work or respond to any requests over the next few days, so hopefully you're pleased with the work that has been done up to this point. I will continue my thorough copyedit next week and address any instances I find of vague language, incorrect syntax, and continuing to replace primary sources where applicable. Cheers. -Bluedog423Talk 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Providing a targeted review of the athletics section (sports is my forte), in the same fashion as if this were FAC instead. Quite a few things, considering how small a percentage of the article this is.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NCAA should be spelled out somewhere. I see that it's first given in the history section; that would be a good place to do so. When you do this, make sure to leave the abbreviated version in parentheses afterwards, to make things easier on readers.
 * As a newspaper, The Trinity Chronicle should be presented in italics.
 * Another abbreviation in NACDA. This should be handled the same way as the one before.
 * Overlinking: There's no need to have two links to Division I and ACC in such close proximity to each other.
 * First mention of the Atlantic Coast Conference in the section could use the abbreviated version right after it as well. Or you could put it in the lead.
 * "and placed the best in the ACC,[165],". Stray comma here. Hope the rest of the article doesn't have anything like this.
 * Men's basketball: What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of this sub-section?
 * Football: "Duke reached their first Rose Bowl appearance". Last word should be chopped, unless you think "made their first Rose Bowl appearance" is better.
 * Missing period before ref 197.
 * American Football Coaches Association could be linked a paragraph before it is now.
 * Few reference-related comments while I'm here. First, ref 162 needs fuller formatting.
 * What makes http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=8686 (ref 184) a reliable source?
 * References 192 and 194 appear to be the same and can easily be combined. Oddly, they have different publication dates given.
 * I italicized Trinity Chronicle, spelled out NCAA and NACDA, removed the stray comma, changed "Duke reached their first Rose Bowl appearance" to "Duke made their first Rose Bowl appearance", filled out ref 162, and removed the ref to hoopsworld. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Giants2008 for the review and Ryan for some fixes. I've addressed the remainder of your points, although I still plan to do a more extensive copyedit of the section.  I'll admit that a couple of the things you pointed out (errant comma) was due to a recent edit by me to update some statistics, so it hadn't been like that for long. The athletics section is the one that is probably the most difficult to keep FA-quality simply due to the fact that users tend to update it the most of any section. Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've done more copyediting, paying particular attention to references. I just have the Student Life and Athletic sections remaining. Let me know if you notice any issues. -Bluedog423Talk 02:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the strikethroughs, Giants2008. As for the last remaining item (sorry I missed that), I found two sources that state 14 alumni in the NBA as of the 2008 season (GoDuke and DukeScout).  However, since they're both primary sources and already three years old (and having to constantly update that figure requires too much upkeep), I simply got rid of the sentence. -Bluedog423Talk 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked over the article about 24 hours ago and the sources are still primarily from Duke. The alumni section is hideously overlinked; I would only link to the names of the alumni. 2c referencing is still chaotic. Brad (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion Brad. I've delinked everything in the Alumni section except for the names and agree that it is much more readable.  In regards to sources being primarily from Duke, I'd think that in many circumstances Duke would be the most reliable and up-to-date source.  I understand the desire for secondary sources when citing certain statistics that could be seen as self-congratulatory.  However, much of the article is simply citing information about Duke's curriculum, housing model, etc.  The mission of Duke's curricular requirements, the % of undergraduates that live on campus, etc. I think are best cited using Duke sources.  If there are particular examples of situations in which you believe a Duke source is not verifiable, then I'd be happy to replace them.  For 2c, can you also outline what you are referring to when you say it's "chaotic"?  I have made sure that all the formatting is consistent, so the only thing that differs is the "Retrieved On" date, which I wouldn't think is a bad thing.  But since I've gone through every source and verified that there are no dead links, I could certainly easily update all the Retrieved On dates to simply read August 2, 2011 if that is preferred.  I guess you basically suggested that above.  Thanks for your thoughts.  -Bluedog423Talk 03:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An example edit of some cleaning I did. This is very picky formatting but needed nonetheless. You will see the date format corrections I made, though even I messed one up in the same edit. As for "retrieved" dates I think they should reflect a date within the past year so that the casual observer would see a recent date. We know the links are still current but that needs to be shown. As far as the Duke sources are concerned they're correct if just citing statistics and programs etc. Brad (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help Brad. I've gone through the article and updated all the retrieved dates. -Bluedog423Talk 16:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another Update - I've completed my copyedit of the prose and have spent many many hours on updating, correcting, and adding references. The difference between how the article read when this process began and now is stark.  It began with about 205 references (that weren't fully functional and properly formatted) and now contains 279 in addition to extensive structure changes, grammatical fixes, image modifications, and more.  Hopefully, all this effort has been worthwhile and made the article greatly improved.  If the original nominator, Dana boomer could come back and check her original concerns that would be greatly appreciated.  Perhaps I'll message her on her talk page.  Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies for dropping out of sight for so long on this review - RL has been insane. I took a quick look at the article today and it's looking much better, and is probably headed for keep without a FARC territory. I'm going to try to take some time over the next couple of days and actually do a full review, to make sure that my first impression is the correct one and to give ya'll any further comments that I have. Again, I'm very sorry for not keeping up better on this review, and thank you for all of the work you've done on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

More comments shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comments
 * Ref #161 (Clubs) redirects to the Duke home page.
 * Ref #145 doesn't have any text on that page, and other wikis are not reliable sources.
 * Ref #214 (SMU Receives...) dead links
 * Formatting of the refs still needs some work. For example (note example) ref #159 and 160 have the titles italicized, which they shouldn't be, and include no publisher information. In ref #227 the publisher is given as "nobelprize.org" when it should be The Nobel Foundation - the publisher is the organization, not the website homepage. Then consider the formatting differences between refs #102 and 103. Inconsistent date formatting - see ref #110 with 3 September 2006, while most dates are month day, year. Refs like #140 should have Duke University or Duke Student Affairs as the publisher, not "Residence Life and Housing Services". This needs significant work.
 * Recent history, " In 2002 and 2006, three students were named Rhodes Scholars, a number surpassed by only one other university both years" Does this mean that three students were named in each 2002 and 2006? Or three between the two years? And what university was the one that surpassed them?
 * Academics, "The yield rate for accepted students is approximately 44%." What is the yield rate?
 * Residential life, "Similarly, students in Focus, a first-year program that features courses clustered around a specific theme, live together in the same residence hall as other students in their FOCUS cluster." Focus or FOCUS?
 * I ran checklinks about 24 hours ago and it picked up some new ones. There would have been a lot more except the dukechronicle website seemed offline temporarily; I left those alone. Brad (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just ran checklinks again and I don't get any suspicious or dead links. Can you point out which ones you're referring to?  I did fix refs 161 and 214, though. I'll work on addressing the other points later.  The date format is as follows: date article was published is Day Month Year, while Retrieved On date is Month Day, Year.  I think it's consistent throughout the article.  But if you're saying that published date format should be same as retrieved on date format, I can adjust the published date format.  I just kept it that way since that seems to be what was used most prevalently with the webref template.  Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not consistent, though. Ref #118 has the article date format as month day, year, as does #33, #56, #71, #74, #87, etc. And now I see a bunch that have the article date format as day month year, not just the one I mentioned above. They're all over the place. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think one of the reasons for inconsistent reference layout is that some references are using templates and others aren't. Some editors dislike referencing templates but they do help to bring uniformity. I fixed a few more refs just now. Brad (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the article and fixed 20+ references, paying particular attention to date format and publisher information. I have also resolved the few prose issues you identified above.  If you see other reference inconsistencies or missing information, let me know or feel free to fix it directly.  The fixes typically don't take any more time than the identification of them and I'd think the major purpose of reviews such as this is to improve the article and you definitely have more expertise in this area than I do.  Thanks again!  Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And even more comments...
 * #155 (General Rules - Kville) is now deadlinking, and in a quick website search I couldn't figure out exactly which link it was supposed to be.
 * The webpage has taken down the content until the new tenting season, I suppose. It looks like it'll be back up once the basketball season begins again.  No matter, I've replaced it with a book reference that states the same thing.


 * Recent history, "Overall, Duke has produced 42 Rhodes Scholars through 2007, including 21 in just a 15-year timeframe from 1993 to 2007." This should be updated to "through 2011", and the number of scholars updated if applicable.
 * Updated with new numbers and replaced reference with a secondary source (The Rhodes Trust).


 * Recent history, last paragraph - this paragraph is really disjointed, and reads like a bunch of facts strung together with no regard for flow. We jump, with no bridges, from a medical program to the rape case to research expenditures - it's very jarring.
 * Put research information together and added several transitions.


 * Campus, "stone from a local quarry which was purchased in Hillsborough to reduce costs." The quarry was purchased or the stone was purchased?
 * Clarified. The quarry was purchased (obviously the stones were purchased indirectly, however).


 * West, East & Central campus, ", the heart of Duke University, " - hyperbolic language, sounds like a press release.
 * Replaced with "considered the main campus" in one instance and the "center of campus" in another.


 * Key places, "adjacently located to West Campus' north" What? This sentence takes some major puzzling to work out - it should be made clearer and easier to understand.
 * Re-worded to demonstrate that it borders the main campus and is located directly to the north.


 * Academics, "Duke's endowment had a market value of $4.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2010." Can this be updated for 2011?
 * I can't find the 2011 figures for the life of me. It looks like they haven't been released yet as far as I can tell.  I searched for several minutes and couldn't find anything anywhere except for long-term pool investments, but that includes more than just endowment funds.


 * Graduate Profile - can we update the first paragraph? All of the info is 4 years old.
 * Updated medical school and law school data and supplied new references.


 * Research - can we update the first paragraph? Again, the info is several years old.
 * Total research output is FY 2009 - just a year old. Total NIH funding is from 2005, but this is the last year NIH released figures.  I have updated the reference with the direct NIH source.  According to their official website, "Note: Information on organization rankings discontinued as of FY 2005 [...] Please note that, in FY 2006, NIH discontinued the publication of organizational rankings."  The funding increase is also NIH data, using the last year NIH supplied the data.  The Nursing research data is from FY 2008, just a couple years old.


 * Rankings - the first paragraph has several pieces of information from 2002, 2005, 2006, etc. Can these be updated?
 * Updated some of these. As of now, US News ranking is 2011 (latest available).  QS, THE, Newsweek, ARWU rankings are 2010 (all latest available).  WSJ Feeder rankings is from 2006, which is the last time they released the rankings.  CMUP is 2010 (latest ranking).  National merit scholar numbers is 2005, which is the latest I can find...tried to find more recent data, but couldn't find anything.  Pay data is 2010-11.  Updated PR Dream Colleges ranking from 2006 to 2011.  Kiplinger is 2010-11.  Journal of Blacks in Higher Education is from 2002, but that's the latest ranking they have.  All of second paragraph is recent.


 * Greek and social life - "In March 2006, the university purchased 15 houses in the Trinity Park area that Duke students had typically rented and subsequently sold them to individual families." I'm confused as to why the university did this... Were they attempting to make the houses unavailable for rent?
 * Clarified. They didn't want it to be student housing anymore.  Supplied an additional reference indicating this.


 * Athletics, "Eight of these teams were ranked either first or second in the country during 2004–05." Update?
 * Updated for 2010-11 athletic year using top 10 statistics.


 * Football, "Duke made their first Rose Bowl appearance, where they lost 7–3 when USC scored a touchdown in the final minute of the game." What year?
 * Added transition to clarify that it's referring to the same year as the previous sentence (1938).

Overall, the article looks very good. I have finished my final read-through of the article, and once the above issues are dealt with (mainly dealing with updating statistics and minor prose issues), I think I'll be happy to say the article can be kept without being moved to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I put in a request for copyediting at GOCE; probably be a few days before they get around to it. I also agree that the repair work done by Bluedog423 has been excellent and I don't see any reason why the article should continue to FARC. Brad (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep without FARC - Bluedog, the work you've done looks great. I think the article can be kept without a FARC now - it is much improved. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extensive review Dana! (And thanks for the direct edits you made to the article.) It's greatly appreciated. I've addressed the vast majority of your prose concerns as indicated above by my replies to your comments.  There are a few pieces of data that could be considered old still (from 2006 or such), but that's the latest available data as far as I can tell.  In some instances, it might make sense to simply delete it, but overall I don't find it to be too out of date at this point, especially NIH funding data which is of interest to readers (and doesn't change dramatically year-to-year). Let me know of anything else.  Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 05:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.