Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in London/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:31, 2 January 2010.

List of universities in London

 * Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from KV5
 * Lead is very short; 1 paragraph isn't enough. Perhaps some of the prose from later into the article could be incorporated into a longer lead.
 * The key should be made into a table.
 * Not a huge fan of the giant green checkmarks in the first table. There's gotta be a better way to effectively present this information, such as a "Notes" column or symbols/colors.
 * Why do the later lists only use a bulleted format instead of a tabular format?
 * Quite a few redlinks in the second section.
 * I don't have time to copyedit right now, but there are some grammar, capitalization, and punctuation errors. Two examples that I saw are "Higher Education institutions" (higher ed isn't a proper noun) and "South-West London" (southwest is the proper spelling).

I suggest recruiting an experienced copy editor. This list probably should have gone to peer review before coming here, and I wouldn't be opposed to its withdrawal to be put through peer review before a re-nom. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Ruslik_ Zero 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree that the second section should be converted into a tabular form. I also think that the list should provide more information: street address, number of students, year of foundation etc. See, for instance, List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_New_Hampshire.
 * 2) I do not understand what are inclusion criteria? Some of the institution mentioned in the list do not look like universities. The list should be either renamed to List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_London or the inclusion criteria should be rectified.
 * 3) The lead should be expanded. It should, for instance, list the inclusion criteria which I mentioned above.

Oppose, a bit of this is said above, but my main concern is the rather subjective presentation of and lack of crucial information. In addition there are some style and grammar issues. Arsenikk (talk)  13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between a "major university" and "specialised universities and higher education colleges". For instance, I was under the impression that London School of Economics was a business/economics university and not a full-range university, and was sort of expecting it in the second section. Is there any reliable sources that can be sited for this divide?
 * The second list needs to become a table. By merging the two sections, a full, sortable list can be created, which is much more useful for this kind of information.
 * What I expect from a list like this is: name, location (for instance borough or similar), no. of students, public/private and perhaps notes. Maybe there are other things too, for instance year of establishment, faculty size etc. Rankings and accreditation actually say very little about a university, and there is academic dispute whether the rankings actually measure the quality of a university at all. There also becomes the discussion of which rankings to include.
 * Why are some of the universities in italics? The key should be above the list in table format (what is the point of reading a table without having read the key, just to discover it after the table was read), and not use italics for indication.
 * There seems to be an undue attention (in amount of prose) given to future universities. Why is a qualitative discussion of them worth while, where only a bare mention of the current in Name (type) format.
 * Don't use relative terms like "within the next few years".
 * Lots of statements are unreferenced.
 * The lead should perhaps be five times the length. It also seems subjective, over-focusing on the University of London.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.