Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters/archive1

List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it reach FL status. This is the first time I've used this feature on Wikipedia and, to be honest, I'm not sure if this is technically a history-related article. Currently, I'm having trouble finding third-party sources for this article, since most of the information contained in it is only recorded by the national organization. However, any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, — Ł ittle Ä lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to WP:FLC
 * Since the title of the article includes the word "chapters", I would try to get this word into the first sentence of the lead, per WP:LEAD
 * - Added "chapters" to the first sentence.


 * I would also add the United States to the first sentence or possibly change 36 states to 36 U.S. states
 * - Changed "36 states" to "36 U.S. states"


 * Avoid words like "currently" as they become out of date quickly - so change There are currently 129 active chapters, 12 colonies, and 92 alumni chapters.[2][3] to something like As of October 2008, there are 129 active chapters, 12 colonies, and 92 alumni chapters.[2][3]
 * - Removed "currently" and "presently" from lead.


 * I am unclear on the difference between "active" and "alumni" chapters (the word alumni is used once in the lead, and then not used again to describe the national fraternity chapters). This is an example of providing context for the reader - I imagine the authors know exactly what this means, but an interested reader without fraternity experience would not. The table should also clearly indicate the difference between chapters (my guess is these are inactive chapters). See WP:PCR
 * - I changed "alumni chapters" to "non-collegiate alumni groups." Also, an alumni chapter is different from an inactive chapter, but do you think I need to mention this given the new wording of this sentence?  I have also listed the inactive chapters with an " * ", but perhaps I should find clearer way to indicate this.
 * Would it be possible to have a table of the alumni groups in the article? Also would it make sense to mention the number of inactive chapters here too (to avoid confusion)?


 * Similarly, say where the first chapter was in the lead (you already identify the location of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters)
 * - Added location of the first chapter to the lead.
 * I tweaked this - the first chapter did not spread to other campuses, the fraternity did. Revert of you don't like my tweak, but it was incorrect as I read it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Berkeley is a dab, fix it.
 * - Internal link is now directed towards University of California, Berkeley article.


 * Since a later table shows 13 chapters were added in the 1930s and 1940s, change the verb in  however the growth of the fraternity was halted [slowed?] during the 1930s and 1940s by the Great Depression and World War II.
 * - Changed "halted" to "slowed"


 * Direct quotes need a ref, so add one for ... establishing chapters across the South, strengthening its position as a "southern fraternity." See WP:MOSQUOTE
 * - Removed quotations.


 * Problem sentence  The fraternity experienced unprecedented growth during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, founding over 100 new chapters and establishing a West Coast presence while further strengthening its position in the South.[5] Why not say "from 1970 to 1999"? Since one of the very first chapters was at UC Berkeley (and it is still active), didn't they already have a West Coast presence?
 * - Fixed both issues.


 * Watch overlinking - West Coast and South are linked twice in one paragraph.
 * - Removed repetitive links from lead.


 * Per WP:MOSNUM generally numbers 10 and below are spelled out, above are given as numbers
 * - Changed "9" to "nine"


 * Any reason not to include the city as well as the state in the table (wide enough on my monitor to show it)
 * In progress - Thanks for the suggestion. I will work on adding this, though it may take some time since there are 211 cities that I have to look up.
 * - Added all cities to the table.


 * Could you add the year a chapter went inactive to the table as well?
 * Question - Do you think I should add a new column for the closing date or would it be better to simply add the date in parentheses underneath the chartering date? Most of the chapters are still active so a new column may not be necessary.  What do you think?
 * I would try it for a few cases and see whuch you think looks better and go with that (perhaps in a sandbox). This might be one way to differentiate inactive chapters. I owuld keep the asterisk, but you could also change the background color of the cells of inactive chapters in the table. Also do a different color for colonies. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In progress - I'm working on looking up these dates.


 * The dots in the tables in the Statistics do not add anything (the numbers are also given) - why are they there?
 * Question - They were meant to offer a visual representation of the trends in growth of the organization (i.e. the first peak in growth, followed by the slump during the Great Depression and WWII, followed by the peak in growth experienced from 1990 to 2000). Is there a graphing function on Wikipedia?  Or do you think I should simply remove the table?
 * Makes sense explained that way, perhaps you could aks for a graph to be made at Graphic Lab/Image workshop? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved


 * Why are only five states of 36 listed in Charters by state? Since the main table is sortable, is this really needed?
 * Question - Should I remove the table in its entirety? It was meant to show the five states with the most chapters, but it does seem rather redundant.
 * COuld the information be added as text - "The top states by number of active chapters are ...."? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Last part of the Otterbein COllege section needs a ref. Not sure the header for this section meets WP:HEAD
 * - Changed heading from "Pi Kappa Phi of Otterbein College" to "Otterbein chapter."


 * All of the refs are from the fraternity itself - the article needs more independent third-party sources to establish notability
 * Question - This has been an issue that I have tried to address at the Help desk. I've been having trouble finding third-party sources because most (if not all) of the chapter information is recorded by the fraternity.  Do you have any suggestions as to where I might find third-party sources?  I was thinking about referencing the individual university's IFC (inter-fraternity council) page for all of the active chapters.  Do you think that would be a worthwhile endeavor or is there another approach I should take?
 * With so many chapters I can see where that would be a pain - perhaps be ready to that in or explain that in WP:FLC if the issue arises, but don't do the work unless asked to there. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved


 * Why is Erickson, Evan; Sullivan, TJ (2002), The White Diamond of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity: A Guide to Brotherhood, Charlotte, NC: Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity listed as a ref - it is not cited anywhere
 * In Progress - I will add a citation to this reference shortly.


 * Why is "National Fraternity" capitalized?
 * - Fixed. Removed caps: "National Fraternity" -> "national fraternity"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)