Talk:Johns Hopkins/Archive 1

Archive 1

GA nomination failed

I have failed this article according to the GA criteria: it needs more references, inline citations (convert the links to inline citations), it needs more expansion and organization, etc. Look to other GAs for examples or let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 23:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Section too long

In my opinion section 6 is too long and should be split up into smaller, more expressive sections.--Hans555 07:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an awful section, physically makes my head hurt to read it. It seems all conspiracy with no substance, and not even a revelation.

Page seems to be in control of zealot, suggest refer to committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.153 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Cleanup Tags

Not only the last section. The entire article is painfully repetitive and badly written. The article needs a cleaner flow of information. For example it would gain from a consistent chronology that avoids random jumps in the time periods being discussed. The entire discussion of the "other founder" needs to be examined to decide if it is even relevant as this is Johns Hopkins' biographical article, not that other guy. The section titles are also horrid. I mean seriously, a title with a question mark? (see what I did there?) Anyway, good luck to whomever tackles this one, I am afraid I don't have time to give it an overhaul right now. Guardian 07:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Section is pretty bad

Can the whole last section just be removed. It makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.78.153 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, this is a horrible article. Bwyche, can you stand aside for some time and let others make some drastic revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.73.247.16 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been searching for the first Black medical student at Johns Hopkins University and find it not under the university, but under the biography of Johns Hopkins. Why? The student attended in the 1960's, A biography usually ends about the time a person dies - in this case 1870's.

The student in question was named Robert Gamble, attended 1960's. And there is even a link to Robert Gamble who, per the link, was a South Dakota Senator born in the 1850's. Dr. Gamble truly IS remarkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.178.79 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edited (07/22/2009), (Re-submit for GA Nomination?)

I have pruned, heavily edited and revised the article to remove redundancy, use of convoluted phrases, added a protrait and engaged in a general cleaning up. I also merged some university related content into the university article. On the whole, the article seems much better and more focused now although I feel some more amendments of the awkward use of language in some sections is still required.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Having thoroughly edited, revised and revamped the article I think it it's now in a good enough state to be re-submitted for GA nomination. However I would like some feedback from other interested parties before doing so (if anyone is paying heed to the talk page that is).TennisGrandSlam (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, TennisGrandSlam Bwyche (talk)00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome Bwyche! :) TennisGrandSlam (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Johns Hopkins" search should not go to this page

Why does this page come up when I search for Johns Hopkins or Hopkins, instead of Johns Hopkins University. Seriously, when someone says either "Johns Hopkins" or "Hopkins", they are nearly always referring to the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.99.210 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article is about his philanthropy, but there's not a word about how he got rich

I've read his wealth came from wholesale groceries, whiskey, and the B&O Railroad, but the wiki B&O page just mentions his name once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowcamel (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Many links to this page are spurious

Many links to this page should be to the university. It would be great if someone could sort through the list.54.240.197.233 (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This section seems to fail NPOV in a big way, not to mention weasel-words

In this vein, integral parts of his legacy, as an emancipator, a founder of an orphan asylum for African-American youths, a staunch advocate of abolitionism and of quality care not just for those physically ill, but also for the elderly, the poor, no matter their age, gender, or skin color, and the mentally ill, have by and large been overlooked, even in the institutions that carry his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.96.113 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. which is why I deleted the paragraph.

Clarification needed

I've added "citation needed" tags to references to his funding the School of Public Health. According to the School's page, it was founded with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. 97.91.254.54 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Johns Hopkins/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have provided more inline citations as requested, is it now ready for a quality assessment or an assessment as a quality article ? ----BWyche If you have this on you watchlist Bwyche please remember to sign articles talk with four tildes ~~~~ they were great citations and thanks for the hard work Mike33 06:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

cousin marriage

Article says there was a "Quaker taboo against marriage of first cousins" but that is not true, particularly not in 19th c. US. Over time it became a very frequent practice among Quakers, as their numbers dwindled in relation to the general population of the eastern US. And practicing Quakers had to marry other Quakers under the oversight of local religious meetings. There was no particularly Quaker taboo against cousin marriages and by the middle of the 19th c. it would be hard to find a pair of Quakers who weren't cousins of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.81.155.212 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)