Wikipedia:Peer review/The Citadel/archive1

The Citadel


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting feedback on how to improve it in preparation for a Good Article Nomination, and eventually to improve it to Featured Article status.

Thanks, Billcasey905 (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill! Overall, this page looks quite good; with a little more work, it should be on the track to GA status soon. I skimmed it over and made a few tweaks in various places. Here's some broader thoughts:
 * The lead doesn't fully capture an overview of the article. Make sure it touches on the key content from each section, doesn't contain anything not covered in the body (e.g. info about the tuition, which should probably be body as well), and doesn't contain more minor details.
 * The history section toward the end gets a bit messy, talking about stuff from 2008 before going back to 1968.
 * Citadel cadets and alumni have served in every United States military action from the Mexican War to the current Global War on Terrorism belongs in the alumni section.
 * In 2018, The Citadel appointed the first female, Sarah Zorn, to lead the entire South Carolina Corps of Cadets as Regimental Commander. This sentence is a little unwieldy—maybe introduce the position first before naming Zorn.
 * Language like 280 died in the service of their country is a little unencyclopedic—just state the facts directly without any sentimentalism.
 * The presidents box in the history section is unusual, but I think it's fine, assuming that the leaders of The Citadel have a greater presence and impact on the institution than an average college president (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case for a militaristic institution). If you wanted, you could collapse it and then use the room to include other historical photos.
 * Regarding neutrality, I'm pleased to see that the article includes things like the first women cadets in its history section, and that the paragraph on the Fourth Class System discusses the controversy around it. It doesn't directly use the word "hazing", though, whereas many media outlets appear to do so. Looking through media coverage, descriptions of The Citadel's conservative culture appear to be very prominent, so I wonder if there's more that could be said there. We also don't want to introduce recentism concerns, though, which can come up at college pages.
 * The article is quite light on photos. If things like the Citadel Ring Statue are worth describing, they're probably worth a photo. You can search Flickr if Commons doesn't have enough.
 * It's clear that The Citadel has a strong cultural presence, but the depictions section is probably still going to get some scrutiny, as many editors dislike these sections. I'd recommend getting it as tight and concise as you can to try to combat that criticism.
 * I don't see anything about the Citadel Foundation. Organization and administration sections are a common omission, and it might be good to have one here.
 * I would link to The Brigadier in the external links, per the rationale here. The athletics link is questionable per WP:ELMIN, but it's common at university pages, so if you like it you could probably fight to keep it.
 * Putting the campus section at the end is a bit unusual (it's more often after the history section), but if you prefer it, I don't think there's any real need for it to go higher.
 * I hope all that helps, and best of luck to you in developing the page! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! I'll work through these over the next several days.  Billcasey905 (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm curious about why the article doesn't mention the racist incidents and systemic racism that appear to have dogged this institution for much of its histry:. This article notes that the Confederate flag was often displayed at the institution as late as 1992, and it's been funded to establish a Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation Center to - in part - come to terms with its own racist history. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick, I'll work that in as well. Some of these topics are covered already, but I'll try to amplify the discussion a bit. Billcasey905 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)