Talk:Critical Review (Brown University)

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Brown University#New curriculum|New Curriculum]] The anchor (#New curriculum) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 December 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Wikipedia is not MySpace

I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Please refrain from polluting it with information that is more appropriately placed on your homepage. --128.148.31.6 (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has survived an Articles for Deletion debate. (See below.) NBS525 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Position hierarchy

Is the whole descriptive paragraph really needed? The hierarchy writer→higher-level writer→editor→higher-level editor→executive editor or editor-in-chief aseems fairly standard for any publication as well as many of the tasks (editors responsible for their writer underlings). The only major difference among publications is the titles of the positions. IMO, the only points worth mentioning here are that editors are promoted from within the "experienced writers" population (not brought in specifically for the position) and that editors really do all the composing and layout work (no separate publication or graphics group). DMacks 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like a fair way to make it more concise. Feel free to go ahead and change it. NBS525 04:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and paste-ups for delivery to commercial printing house" - These phrases are not familiar to me. Perhaps they refer to a step that used to be part of the CR production process but is not necessary anymore? After the page-layouts are created, the files are converted directly to PDF, combined, and the book is e-mailed to a publisher, and the individual review/tally files are prepared for web publishing. Could someone explain these terms? Thanks. NBS525 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase addresses to issues: who does the final layout (composing the text and graphics into page layouts and generating the ultimate form that gets sent to the publisher) and "do you do your own printing" (some student publications some places actually do that step also). Pasteup is a standard publication term...sorry for not linking it. In the days before you could put everything into a single computer document, say "print to .pdf" and email it to a printing company, "pasteup" was done literally. We would take one sheet (essentially) over-sized graph paper for each left-right page pair, manually glue the reviews into position on the pages, and then give those physical pages to the printer. DMacks 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... I see! Wow, Critical Review technology seems to have come a long way. As for the phrase "commercial printing house," that too may not be entirely appropriate anymore as the CR has occasionally printed with Brown's Graphic Services recently, rather than outsource the job entirely. I doubt this little tidbit is important enough to include in the article itself though. NBS525 22:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to your talk page. NBS525 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

I know you've just gone to all the trouble of renaming the article and disambiguation link repair, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the article to be named "Critical Review (Brown)", with Brown capitalized? NBS525 02:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. DMacks 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done./blahedo (t) 05:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey distribution

moved from User talk:DMacks

As someone involved in The Critical Review during the period in question, I can tell you definitively that we did not use departmental evaluations as input for many course reviews. We did it only in desperation. The bigger problem was that we relied on departments and on professors to hand out the forms in their classes. The editor at the time (Markey) insisted we not force ourselves on the professors or departments because we were trying to earn their trust. This was by far the bigger limit on our ability to report classes than the issue of departmental evaluation forms. I won't revert to prior version, but would ask you to consider a more accurate representation of the issue. Elvira100 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. But that's not at all what your edit sounded like it meant, because there was (according to the article) more to "a course review" at that time than just the bar graph. How does relying on profs to hand out the evals lead to having no bar graphs, vs having having courses that aren't reviewed at all? In the mid 90s, we were still relying on profs to hand them out but we had a bar-graph for every course reviewed. DMacks (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right that it wasn't a complete description. The issue was that many profs simply didn't hand them out or didn't collect them in class. That left us with some courses where we got nothing back, and others where we did, but only a few. So we had courses without enough input to provide a reasonable sample to report. I don't remember the minimum quantity of input we required in order to print a graph, but we simply wouldn't print a graph if there weren't adequate responses. Again, policy of the editor, who was trying to rebuild confidence in the veracity of the reviews. Elvira100 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense (and article seems to describe it well). Thanks for the historical insights! DMacks (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Critical Review (Brown University). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]