Talk:Phi Kappa Phi/Archives/2009/April

Should this article be rated B-class?

See here for criteria and example pages. --Lhakthong (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Came across this article with a current C-rating. I vote to keep the rating as is (C-class), because the article sounds like it is more of a marketing -- rather than information or educational -- tool for readers, punctuated as it is with much verbosity and several "claims" here and there. In addition, there is this long debate in this Talk Page about the questionable reputation of Phi Kappa Phi.Sheldon Lowe (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Lowe, how does it compare to other Honor society pages in terms of amount of information and neutrality? I've done most of the recent work on this page, and I used as many third party sources as possible. Is it just that certain parts are too long and contain superfluous material? Is it too verbose in a section? Which parts? You are more the welcome to try and edit the language for brevity so long as information isn't deleted (unless discussed first). Are there any specific suggestions you have for making the article better? Also, the debate on the talk page was not about the reputability of Phi Kappa Phi, it was about the appropriateness of making any claim to prestige on Wikipedia. It doesn't take long to find that Phi Kappa Phi is reputable: College Confidential --Lhakthong (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

also, "Among the prestigious national honor societies with campus chapters at Illinois are Tau Beta Pi (Engineering), Beta Gamma Sigma (Business), Kappa Delta Pi (Education), Phi Beta Kappa (LAS), Phi Kappa Phi (campus-wide), and the freshman honor societies Alpha Lambda Delta, Gamma Sigma Delta (ACES), and Phi Eta Sigma." See Illinois Honors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhakthong (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not rely on that College Confidential --Lhakthong (talk)because they are simply a mix of blogs and emails of unknown sources. I would only go for reliable third-party sources.

I really do not have the time to edit or discuss, and would not wish to add more to the lengthy discussions here about Phi Kappa Phi's repuation. But here are my suggestions to improve the article.

1st Paragraph: Delete quotes on "democracy and education" (whatever that means), the motto (the mission will suffice), and the phrase "established to recognize and encourage superior scholarship without restriction as to area of study" (you already said it is an all-discipline society plus all honor societies obviously promote "superior scholarship" plus you repeated it again under Membership). Those three sound like pure and simple advertising.

Membership: Delete claims. I would be more concerned if a society with only 300 chapters elects 30,000 annually. It sounds like anyone could just join or be invited.

Initiation Fees: Why would anyone discuss in Wikipedia how much it will cost to go to dinner with one or more guests? Besides, fees change. Delete this paragraph entirely as it is totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia.

History: This is too long and detailed. Cut out the details. Also, the opening sentence about only two honor societies in existence in 1800s is totally incorrect (see ACHS website -- the accrediting agency for honor societies). Phi Beta Kappa predated all honor societies. Although it started as a social/literary organization, it was purely an honor society by the 1830s when it gave up its secrecy (due to the anti-Masonic movement) and chose to elect members based purely on grades and character. What it did not do until 1898 was to choose a field (arts and sciences). All other honor societies, including Tau Beta Pi (see its history book) were modeled after Phi Beta Kappa. I think this point has been repeatedly made in this page also.

Mission: Too detailed. Delete the quotes. Summarize the point/s in one or two sentences.

Publications: Again, the list of notable contributors like Reagan, etc. sounds like pure self-promotion and marketing. We all know that Reagan, etc. will never write a piece -- the ghostwriter he hired did it. So it just makes the reputation of Phi Kappa Phi all the more suspicious.

Chapter on Notable Campuses: This sounds like another cheap marketing ploy. I have never seen any honor society page list chapters on "notable campuses." Besides, branding terms like "public ivy" or "little ivy" are immature and unnecessary. It just makes it look like Phi Kappa Phi cannot go for the real ivies. I would just delete this whole paragraph and say that the society has 300 chapters. That's it.

In conclusion, make the article objective, reliable, concise, coherent and interesting. Details, quotes, branding labels, etc. not only are inappropriate but cast suspicion on the motive of the entire article. That makes it a C or D-class article.

Good luck. Sheldon Lowe (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. First, my pointing you to the University of Illinois Honors Program website that lists Phi Kappa Phi as one of the 7 out of 50 honor societies on campus that it considers "prestigious" and pointing to the College Confidential site of everyday people who think that Phi Kappa Phi is reputable was to give you a quick showing that Phi Kappa Phi there is really no question regarding Phi Kappa Phi's is reputability. As for the rest, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your reasoning regarding why it should stay C-class (there is no D-class, although there are "lower" classes). Regarding your specific points, there are a couple I agree with and will change them when I get a chance. The rest is up to you, if you want to see it. Basically, if you think a passage is incoherent, make it more coherent. If you think it is one-sided, add sources and statements that balance it, or at least say what specifically would make it more objective. If you think it is unreliable, say specifically what would make it more reliable (I'm not even sure what that would mean and how it differs from "objective"). If you think something is not interesting, that is irrelevant. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia I find uninteresting, but that doesn't mean I should delete them. The same goes to what you personally would rather want to know. You either have something to add to the page regarding content, or you want to delete it on the grounds Wikipedia editing guidelines. There's not much else. Furthermore, the very things you say cast suspicion on the article are entirely appropriate. Details and quotes are entirely appropriate to Wikipedia guidelines, however you might not think they are employed effectively, which is a different matter. I don't know what you mean by "branding labels", but the images on the site are to help the reader understand the explanation of the society symbols, which appropriate to Wikipedia guidelines. This page is currently under length limit for Wikipedia guidelines. If you do want to make changes to the article for brevity or greater coherence or general making-better, and do it without deleting content, you don't need approval, just make it better. No one else will do it for you. If you want to actually delete content, state on the talk page specifically what you want to delete and why, offer alternatives if appropriate, wait for objections from editors, and, if none, then delete it. If there are objections, the task is to reach some sort of consensus. If you want me to respond to all of your points specifically, I can. --Lhakthong (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for B-class criteria. It would be helpful if you would couch your criticisms in these terms. This is given as an example of a B-class article, and this is given as an example of a C-class article. For more, see link at top of this section. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, what I enumerated were my suggested changes. I will leave it up to you or to others to accept or reject what I consider to be the most important points that make the present article definitely a C-class (or below C) article. As the criteria for C-class articles specifically point out, the current Phi Kappa Phi article "contains a lot of irrelevant material" (some of which I have listed in my suggested changes) and "the article should have some references to reliable sources" (also noted by me above, which means that the article should avoid referring only to Phi Kappa Phi sources which would be difficult to validate in terms of objectivity). I am sorry I do not have the time or the energy to edit and engage in prolonged discussion.Sheldon Lowe (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon, thanks for clarifying. I understand the first point, although it would require more discussion (what is considered relevant or irrelevant). Your second point I completely agree with. However, as with many honor society pages, there are not a lot of third party sources to draw from. I used all I could find. Where information came directly from PKP, I wrote "PKP claims that", which I know you don't like stylistically, but it was intended to point out to the reader that the information is not coming from a third party source in order to best abide by objectivity given the circumstances. Thanks again for your suggestions and for taking the time to offer them. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)