Jump to content

Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSt. Mark's College (University of Adelaide) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 5, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Use of College Roll Book

[edit]

I have added citation tags to each notable alumnus because the college roll book cannot be used because it does not meet the criteria for using self-published sources in articles about themselves. It does not meet these criteria:

-it is not unduly self-serving
-it does not involve claims about third parties

The roll book is unduly self serving because claiming these people attended the school makes the school look better. It involves claims about third parties because it claims these people (the third parties) attended the school. If independent sources are not provided to support that these people attended the school I will begin removing people from the list in approximately 2 weeks. Note: I have tried to find sources but couldn't find any. Username nought 11:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. Why would the College create a roll-book that lied about who were members of the College? It is not self-serving and it is not about third parties as it is about members of the College itself. In fact it is likely to be more reliable than some other sources where it might well be self serving to claim that one had been a members of the College. --Bduke 11:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not self serving to say prominent people went to the school? It clearly increases the reputation of the school. The alumni are considered third parties because the only evidence they attended the school is the source in question which cannot be used. Username nought 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nought, your logic is so flawed, and I hope you will see that. How can a record be "self-serving", or rather as the Guideline says, overly self-serving? The nature of the material precludes it from being self-serving, as it is merely a recording of history. It is not saying "This many prominent people attended St. Mark's College". All the Role Book records is where these people lived way before they became prominent. How could it possibly be known at the time they were at St. Mark's that they would become "prominent" citizens in later life? We have already discussed the usage of the word "Notable" with regard to the Alumni, and have established that it is the way such a section in a Wikipedia article should be labelled (see talk above), so I don't see the point in discussing this further. Please revert your own edit or someone will do it for you. I also find it hard that you have failed to find a single reference to site for this matter, so please let us help you by detailing your efforts here. For example, where did you search, and when? Who did you search for? What perameters did you use? Any information would be helpful, even to just ensure that we don't try and search the same places you have found no information. ABVS1936 12:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unduly self-serving because the reputation of the school is significantly improved by claiming these people attended the school. The roll book is therefore questionable because it may have been doctored for the purpose of improving the school's reputation. I assume this is a perfect example of why this criterion has been set for the useage of self-published sources. Username nought 13:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a joke. Here's what it says:

"Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability; true, and it seems to be your primary objection
  • it is not contentious; nobody but you is questioning the authenticity of the roll
  • it is not unduly self-serving; it is a list of names, written when these people enrolled at college
  • it does not involve claims about third parties; it doesn't
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; it doesn't
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. there's not
I'm afraid your allegation wouldn't stand up to even the barest encounter with Occam's Razor, my friend. On the one hand we can assume the list has been doctored. That is to say, ABVS worked out a likely looking year for each notable person (how he chose those particular people - who even knows!), removed that page of the book in each relevant year, replaced it with the exact same paper aged to match facing pages without any visible glue lines, forged the handwriting using period ink on these multiple pages for hundreds of names including the new ones he was slipping in so that his college could bask in their reflected glory, all in the five minutes or so while the librarian who supervises access to the Rare Books Room is at the toilet. On the other hand, the book just might be authentic. --Yeti Hunter 14:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Roll Book itself is not just a record of when these people were at St. Mark's, nought, it is the actual document that all collegians sign on the day they begin their life at St. Mark's, that is the first day they are actually collegians. So to say that I, or someone else, may have "doctored" this invaluable 80 year old tome is ridiculous. Yeti Hunter is absolutely correct. ABVS1936 01:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be denied that the source is self-published. It cannot be denied that the use of the source significantly improves the reputation of the college. Noone has addressed these points, therefore I am going to add the citation tags again. Please do not remove them until independent sources are found. Username nought 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the meaning of self-serving, you self-righteous grandstander. To paraphrase a quote by one of the 20th Century's great authors, I do understand why we continue to pole the boat of assuming good faith upstream against the raging current of the evidence. Why do we engage in discussion as if this were somehow the work of a bona fide editor and not a vandal?--Yeti Hunter 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nought, for once, I agree: we haven't addressed those points. You know why? Because:
(1) For the main part, we agree with them.
(except perhaps in relation to your claim that it is self published. Each member of the college writes their own name in the book, so to say it is self published would be to say that these members of college were actually part of the college, which would be at complete odds with your claim that they are third parties, which is to to say that your claims reek of idiocy); and
(2) Your two points DON'T MATTER! We have addressed the six points that DO MATTER, and we have done this several times, and every time we have been more than convincing. You have said that the book improves the reputation of college. This does not make it 'unduly self serving'. It is about objective as objectivity comes.
Nought, you've been warned about this vandalism, and if it continues, you will be reported to the administration.
Ryan Oceros 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bother. This little debate (from the last few weeks) must have got this page onto every Adelaide admin's watchlist.--Yeti Hunter 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise it cannot be denied that including the St. Mark's College Roll Book as a source improves the article and brings it closer to the standard expected of a Wikipedia article. It further asserts the notability of the subject article, which I recall was exactly what you were pushing for 1, perhaps 2, weeks ago. It's strange that you ask for sources to assert the notability of the subject and, when those sources are proven (by argument nonetheless) to be reliable that you would hasten to disprove their notability and try to force the point of backing up an obviously valid source with an equally valid one. I mean, where else would you expect a record of the people who have attended a certain "school", as you've put it many times, or College in this instance to be kept? As for the accuracy of the referenced material, that question has already been answered - it would be nigh on impossible to "doctor" said reference, as you inferred above, due to the nature of the document itself. If you have any intention of getting into an edit war, please stop and think first, and perhaps state your intention on this talk page before implementing any wide ranging changes. Cheers, ABVS1936 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unduly self-seving, claiming these high profile people as alumni promotes the school to prospective students and should be backed up by independent sources. Again, please don't remove the tags until appropriate sources are found. Username nought 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't add the tags. --Yeti Hunter 08:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a request for comment section to this page to try and help to resolve this dispute. The dispute is listed under the Society, law, and sex topic area. Username nought 09:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

[edit]

Username Nought, please refer to your user talk page for your first (and hopefully only) vandalism warning. Your continual Abuse of Tags is in contravention of Wikipedia's vandalism policy. Your addition of 'citation needed' tags has been, for the most part, completely unjustified (and by 'unjustified', I mean unjustified with respect to Wikipedia's Policy on such tags, not unjustified in your own mind). Ryan Oceros 17:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Use of College Roll Book to Claim Notable People Have Attended the College

[edit]

Dispute: Can a college roll book be used to claim high-profile people attended the school?

Comments from previous discussion:

  • Nought, your logic is so flawed, and I hope you will see that. How can a record be "self-serving", or rather as the Guideline says, overly self-serving? The nature of the material precludes it from being self-serving, as it is merely a recording of history. It is not saying "This many prominent people attended St. Mark's College". All the Role Book records is where these people lived way before they became prominent. How could it possibly be known at the time they were at St. Mark's that they would become "prominent" citizens in later life? We have already discussed the usage of the word "Notable" with regard to the Alumni, and have established that it is the way such a section in a Wikipedia article should be labelled (see talk above), so I don't see the point in discussing this further. Please revert your own edit or someone will do it for you. I also find it hard that you have failed to find a single reference to site for this matter, so please let us help you by detailing your efforts here. For example, where did you search, and when? Who did you search for? What perameters did you use? Any information would be helpful, even to just ensure that we don't try and search the same places you have found no information. ABVS1936 12:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unduly self-seving. Claiming these high profile people as alumni promotes the school to prospective students and should be backed up by independent sources.Username nought 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have mentioned above, the college roll was signed by each and every past and present member of the college. Therefore, it is questionable as to whether it is actually 'self published', insofar as it is the product of thousands of authors. Therefore it wouldn't even need to satisfy the six requirements.
In the alternative that it is a 'self-published source': your argument seems to be, "since it speaks highly of St Mark's, it is self-serving; since it is self-serving, it is unduly self-serving". You have not provided any basis for claiming that the selfservingness is undue in any way, shape or form. 'Unduly self-serving' definitely connotes some notion of subjectivity. There is absolutely no way that a list of names (of which you seem to have accepted the authority) can be seem as unduly self-serving. The list of names does not even tell of the persons' accomplishments. This information is to be found elsewhere, and has been cited. The list of names is completely objective. Try and deny this objectivity if you like, Nought, but you will fail. Ryan Oceros 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the "Use of College Roll Book" section on this page for more statements by editors previously involved in this dispute. 09:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll put myself here since, although I haven't been involved in this particular dispute, I have had interactions with 'Username nought'. My opinion is that the college roll should be used to verfiy the involvement of individuals in the college. This should then be backed up with secondary sources if possible. Such sources should advance the acceptance of their notability. Ozdaren 05:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I have to put myself here as I have been involved with this article since it was proposed for deletion long ago. I have no connection with the College and have never been there. The idea that the roll book is self serving is very curious, as it is just something that all members of the College sign on entry. As I said in a previous section, this is likely to be more reliable than some other sources that asserts that a person was a member of the College to get support for something or other - i.e self serving. It is an excellent source that the person was actually at the College. The key question is whether the person is notable. Most of the people listed have a WP article on them so we can assume they are. This discussion about the roll book is a silly distraction. Move on. The list of alumni is fine. --Bduke 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • First of all, while use of secondary reliable sources is always preferred, the use of a primary source for information about the publisher of the primary source is certainly acceptable (unless the claims are extraordinary, which this isn't). This would be akin to tagging someone's birth-date with a citation flag because the info came from their autobiography. Second, even if I agreed that policy supported the tagging (which I don't), this seems a bit like policy for the sake of policy which is antithetical to Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice 13:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree that the roll book is a pretty darn reliable source, and given the apparent lack of any credible claims that the people listed did not attend this college, it seems perfectly adequate. -- Beland 17:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could editors please address my concerns that the book is self-published and unduly self-serving. I think I should mention that there is only one copy of the book and the college can choose who can see it and who can not. Username nought 09:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok nought, for one the Roll Book isn't published - it's an archive of those who have attended St. Mark's College, therefore a reliable record of those names (why would there be more than one copy of such a book?). Second, anyone can view the book, al you need to do is go to the College and ask, or perhaps make an appointment first and make an appropriate time when either the librarian or the archivist are there. And thirdly, please explain in detail why you think it is unduly self serving? The featured articles you directed us to during the "Notable Alumni vs. Alumni" section title debate could also be construed as 'unduly selfserving' but as yet no one, not even you. has raised that point on their pages, and those articles have been featured. I think we already have a concensus here that the Roll Book is acceptable, but please try and get more comments here: I for one would like to have it fleshed out once and for all. ABVS1936 10:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if the debate is over, but ive been monitoring this (via watchlist) for the last 2 or so weeks. The use of the college rollbook i feel is fine to justify if a person attended the school. Isnt a rolebook a legal document? so it therefore would have to be true. Well, in my view - schools dont really lie (well about stuff that can be proven wrong. It is A-OK to use the roll book. But, there is usually 3rd party refs for this stuff anyway, and they can be phased in as their are found. But for now, using the rollbook is ok. In Aquinas College, Perth an article i worked on, i could reference about 80% of the alumni from 3rd party refs (i sinced moved them to the talk page - i felt it was somewhat ugly to have refs for them. Hope this helps, good luck. Twenty Years 14:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style

[edit]

In the WP Manual of style it says st or st. can be used for saint. In the article it uses both. I prefer st mark's because I've always been told you don't put a full stop after an abbreviation where the last letter is the last letter of the abbreviated word. But considering the article name is st. mark's we should probably stick with that. However I would like to change the name of the article to St Mark's College (North Adelaide) considering the college is not exclusively affiliated with AU (I think). Could I please get other editors thoughts on this. Username nought 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The College is still affiliated with Adelaide Uni, so it should remain the way it is named now. Also, look at the other North Adelaide College pages who share the same affiliation with AU - except Aquinas, but comment has been made on the talk page (for some time now, I'll admit, with no action as there have been no comment from other editors to provide a concensus) - that have the same naming convention. St. Mark, with a "." is probably the way to go, seeing as that is how it appears on College correspondence and the website, and all around the college. And in the larger world, as it is the correct abbreviation for Saint, eg St. Peter's Bassilica etc. ABVS1936 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought SM was affiliated with UniSA and Flinders as well. If it's not I'd be happy to leave the article name as it is but if it is affiliated with the other unis it's name should be changed otherwise it implies it is only affiliated with AU.
Considering the college correspondence and website use a "St." I agree that should be the naming convention for the article. Username nought 08:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Mark's was and is only affiliated with AU. I've never heard of it being at all affiliated with any other Uni. ABVS1936 09:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AU always have a member on the StM council. No other university does.--Yeti Hunter 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1991 murder

[edit]

I have moved the contents of this thread to Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/1991 murder and blanked the page out of respect for the victim's family. The discussion is still available via that page's edit history. Yeti Hunter (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

This article could do with a good peer review to help it get away from all of the arguments, controversies and problems so that the related editors can get on with writing the article.

History section

[edit]

Before you get all self-righteous about being reverted, old mate, perhaps you should check out the guidelines regarding undue weight. The paragraph you added about alleged acts of minor sexual harrassment was the same size as the entire history section covering the first 75 years of the college. Come off it. I'd also question whether Natasha Stott Despoja could be considered a NPOV source, especially at the time. --Yeti Hunter 13:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on your talk regarding your edit.Twenty Years 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(extract from relevant user talk pages) I disagree with your revert of the material on the St Marks page. I am completely neutral in the situation and that event would clearly be notable in the history of the school. Although the section may have had issues, like advertising, it is both notable and verifiable, and therefore should remain. I am reverting and am going to weed out some words. Twenty Years 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could call it a pre-emptive revert. I expect to find that the article deals only with allegations which were never confirmed, so I thought I'd use the guideline of when in doubt, leave it out, at least for now. You'd think in 16 years you could find a more concrete reference to actual misbehaviour if indeed it happened at all.Yeti Hunter 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't think Natasha deserves a guernsey for being the student club president of the university at the time. If indeed it merits inclusion at all, the section still needs a fair rewrite (and reduction in size per WP:UNDUE IMO)--Yeti Hunter 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(same time)No worries, although I suspect this issue will see a fair amount of action on the talk page in the coming days.--Yeti Hunter 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(same time)Whilst the source i feel is fine. I do now see that it is only claims, i think it could be used in the article, but it has too much weight, maybe two sentences or so about it would be more appropriate. What do you think about chopping it right down to a small size. I wouldnt disagree if you revert my edits - feel free if you wish. Twenty Years 14:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, made a great deal of improvement. Twenty Years 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, although I suspect this issue will see a fair amount of action on the talk page in the coming days.--Yeti Hunter 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the paragraph should be in proportion to other events in the college's history and I'm happy to leave the quotes out but I think the history section could be expanded a lot and when it does the paragraph won't be so disproportionate. I have added a sentence outlining the claims, I think it gives relevant detail without making the paragraph too big. Username nought 10:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your revision is appropriate. 16 years have passed since these unsubstantiated allegations. To my knowledge they have had no lasting effect on the college or its reputation. Therefore I favour a minimalist inclusion of this point at most.--Yeti Hunter 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - did the master refute the claims or refuse to comment? Yeti Hunter 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are very serious and the short sentence I wrote to give readers an idea of the seriousness does not put the paragraph out of proportion. Also, this incident is one of the major news stories of the college in the last 20 years, so I think three sentences is not too much considering its notibility.
The initiations and sexual harrassment were seperate claims. The initiations are not considered sexual harrassment because they happened to all first year students (males and females). The forcing of female students to make coffee, wash etc is considered sexual harrassment. So please use this sentence:
In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college.
Instead of this one:
In March 1991, South Australian newspaper The Advertiser reported claims that some traditional college initiations could constitute sexual harassment. Username nought 22:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing, mate - they are serious allegations indeed, but in 16 years have remained just allegations, which were subsequently refuted by the master of the college. If that's where it ended as far as your reliable sources are concerned, I think it's a bit presumptuous and POV to insert more detailed descriptions of the claims which might lead some readers to believe that this is a common occurrence at St Marks.--Yeti Hunter 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations themself are notable, hence their inclusion in the state's major newspaper. For example if a politician was accused by a colleague of sexual harrassment their would be plenty of media attention and even if the incident never went to court, the incident of the accusation and the media that surrounded it is notable. Username nought 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The impressions readers get from verified information is up to them. Therefore, I am going to add the detail of the claims again, your reasons to remove it are insuficient. Username nought 01:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news service, and certainly not for 16 year old news. Hence, mere inclusion in the newspaper is not sufficient. Let's conduct the edit war on the talk page rather than the article itself, yeah?--Yeti Hunter 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am willing to try to disuss this before I edit again. I think we have establised that the incident is worthy of inclusion so my only issue now is the inclusion of the sentence that details the allegations. Basically, I think it should be included because it is relevant detail that gives readers a better idea of what the issue was about without making the paragraph too big. Isn't that fair enough? Username nought 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's undue weight. I'd go so far as to say the incident should be deleted entirely, in light of the fact that the Master of the time refuted the allegations, and nobody bothered to refute that claim. Forgive me but you seem overly keen on presenting St Mark's in the worst possible light that you can get away with--Yeti Hunter 01:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an extra sentence is undue weight and when the history section has been expanded a bit more it won't look as bad. The topic deserves an extra sentence, I think you'll be hard pressed to find any other historical events of the college that have been worthy of two articles in The Advertiser. I also don't think it should be deleted entirely because the master refuted the claims, there are two sides of the story and both have been presented in the article, this is common practice. Username nought 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to comprehend how you think that both sides of this "story" have been presented in the article - as far as anyone can see, the only side that has been presented is that of the accusors. The fact that the claims were refuted by the then-master is not the "other side of the story". Perhaps a little more research on your behalf would turn up a number of more notable news articles regarding the college - I can remember reading at least 5 articles of higher importance that this in the las 4 years alone. As above, WP is not a news service, and thus only the bear minimum of facts regarding this claim should be included (I do not think anything further that the fact they were accusation and not charges or observations itself lends credence to this line of thought).

As for your claim that "when the history section has been expanded... it wont look as bad" - as it stands the article without the expanded history section does look bad, hence it is not a NPOV, and presents the subject in an overly negative light. No description of the so-called "initiation rights" should be included - it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the article. Perhaps a better place for it would be Sexual Harrassment and Initiation Rights at University of Adelaide Colleges? After all, Sen. Stott Despoja confirmed that "sexual harrassment was known to occur in residential colleges" or some other such nonsense, implying that it was not only occuring at the College in question. ABVS1936 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the college's most prominent events; it has had two articles in The Advertiser and therefore has notability that is deserving of some detail. Three sentences does not overstep this mark for one of the most highly covered events in the college's history. As for the detail presenting the subject in an overly negative light, well, so be it, the detail is fully verified. As for giving more information for the other side of the story, I found this: A male student currently at St Mark's said The Advertiser was "wasting its time" trying to get any of the male boarders to speak about the alleged practices. Username nought 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeti Hunter and I had a small discussion about this and came to the conclusion that the event was notable. We also agreed that it should be a relatively short section, which does not give undue weight to the topic, which is a minor issue in the history of school like this one. Twenty Years 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there, Twenty - the event is notable enough to be included, and I agree that a short, NPOV sentence should be included to detail the accusations (note: they were never verified nor were charges brought forth, hence they are only that, accusations). However, Nought, I do not agree that it is "one of the college's most prominent events". A vast number of events covered in the news media drag my attention instantly before this blip on the radar scope of St. Mark's history - the refusal of UofA to put aside land for residents of the Uni, the founding of the college, the opening of the college, the constructon of Memorial Building to commemorate those lost in World War 2 (especially those connected with St. Mark's), the first admission of female students to the college, the list goes on. Perhaps you should stop muck-raking and attempt to find something constuctive to add to this article - I would wager it would be a more constuctive usage of all our time.
Oh, and The Advertise would be wasting it's time in asking the male students of the College about the accusations; though they would be equally as foolish to waste their time asking the female students of the college, if you catch my meaning? ABVS1936 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May i remind you of the policy regarding personal attacks, WP:AGF, accusing someone of muck raking is quite serious, and generally frowned upon, some wikipedians would argue that you are going about the right way to being blocked. But, I am a good man, and will ignore the personal attack and get back to the topic at hand. I am merely trying to sort out alot of the problems that are happening in regard to this page, the constant battles regarding content is quite astounding. I have no interest in editing the article itself, just making sure that wikipedians here dont lose their head, Cheers. Twenty Years 15:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent) I think that the article shall remain as is in regard to the two controversies mentioned in the history paragraph. May i remind everyone to keep a cool head. I will be here if you need a third-party helper. Twenty Years 10:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My advice was asked for. I believe it shouldn't be included, as it is not a large event in the history of the college, and the wording is hopelessly shocking. It's something that, due to its severity, garners all the attention of the history section, therefore pulling at the principle of undue weight. It devalues the impact of the rest of the section (and article). Michael talk 14:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nailed it right on the head. Discussion: Closed. Result: Use smaller version. Twenty Years 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, after getting two third party views on this article I am happy to leave the paragraph as it is. Username nought 05:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope so. Twenty Years 06:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I am now happy to leave the paragraph as it is." - you seem to say things like that a lot, Nought. Wikipedia does not operate by appeasment.--Yeti Hunter 13:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of photos that could improve the section I have recently written about the foundation and opening, however they are from a book (scanned). Does anyone know whether they can be uploaded and if so what tag to use? --Echcua 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural events section

[edit]

"large number of events each year", "Hardly a day goes by", "pub crawls, toga nights, quiz nights...." This is without doubt the worst bit of this page. Does anyone have any idea how this could be improved? Pehaps by highlighting the difference between St Mark's and other Australian University Colleges' social lives with that of US colleges or Frats? Any ideas on possible reliable sources we could use for that? I just reckon it's the page's biggest weakness and we should try to improve it.--Yeti Hunter 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick check of the referencing for this section and found some topics that haven't been referenced:
  • Re O-week
  • Pub Nights
  • Pub Crawls
  • Scavenger Hunt
  • Fresher's Dinner
  • Alexander Downer
  • Amanda Vanstone
  • Marksenfeast for the eyes
  • Car Rally
  • Wong Night
I haven't been able to find any references for them. Yeti Hunter and ABVS1936, could you please try and find references for these topics. I reckon we should take these topics down in a week or so if references can't be found. Username nought 11:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I agree. However, to just take them down will make the section look ridiculous. It needs a rewrite. --Yeti Hunter 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we use this revision until someone does a proper rewrite:
Social and cultural events at the college include O'Week, Toga Party, Quiz Nights, Garden Party, Intercollege Ball, Port'n'Talks, Art Exhibitions, Arts Evenings, Footy Show, College Ball, College Play, Marksenfest, Variety Evening, High Table Cup Show and Final Dinner.[1]
Username nought 11:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.stmarkscollege.com.au/Students/stud-events.html College Events

Referencing

[edit]

This page has gone referencing mad. What is the big deal about this college? A page like this should be simple, it should cover brief info about the college, what it offers to the community, a bit about its extra curriculum that it offers its students, mention of notable persons related to the college and some relevant history that has shaped the college as a whole. Why does it need 54 references to achieve this? Look at pages double the size of this article and in complexity and you wouldn't find half as many references. --Echcua 04:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history and you will understand why. --Bduke 06:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to prod some common sense into those who persist in bickering over every little scrap. Probably wont work but now I can state that I have tried and can get back to real work. --Echcua 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Echuca, and welcome to the wonderful world of reasoning and appeasing with Username nought. I agree the referencing is out of control, but our unnamed friend has made it his business to challenge and demand referencing for every claim in the page. Perhaps one day we can be bothered getting a consensus together to say it's okay to condense the 25 or so refs from various parts of the St Mark's website and the University website into a single reference at the bottom. In fact, what's stopping us from doing that right now? A single link to www.stmarkscollege.com.au in the refs section, and all such inline references deleted. Because the way it is is rather ridiculous, and totally out of line with similar pages, eg Aquinas College (University of Adelaide), St John's College, University of Sydney, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, Magdalene College, Cambridge. Am I right?--Yeti Hunter 09:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes complete sense to me and should be implemented when someone has the time. --Echcua 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations improve the quality of the article. It makes it easier for readers to check references. If you remove all the links to the various pages on the colleges website and replace them with one link to the college's main page, readers will have to search through the website to check references. Username nought 13:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that quite a few of those links are doubled/tripled up. There is a lot of cleaning that can be done, even the inline citations are doubled up. You don't have to source each and every sentence if they all come from the same source, also if its being repeated you don't have to re-source it. --Echcua 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inline citations are used mainly for "material that is controversial or likely to be challenged". Nought, by making it your business to challenge every statement in this entire article, you have brought this issue upon us. Perhaps if the reader really wants to check that rooms have internet connections and shared bathroom facilities, they can go to the Homepage, then click on "Facilities". Was that so hard?--Yeti Hunter 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More History Detail

[edit]

Thanks for expanding the history section, Echuca. However I think this may be a different kind of excessive detail to the one that is generating so much debate above. I'm not sure Wikipedia readers need to know which men met in which buildings on which days to form the college - this is something they can look up themselves if they are so interested. Wikipedia is optimised for a general audience rather than specialists. I reckon the info you have added - whilst excellent - could be quite severely trimmed and become much more readable. Also, what of the later history of the college? eg student radicalism in the 1960s, pressure to go co-ed, development plans? Expanding the history section is good - let's not get carried away with detail, though! Yeti Hunter 10:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll continue working on the decades up till the early 60s, and I'll keep editing it as I go alone, making it more 'optimised' etc. I'll prob get more time next week. --Echcua 12:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Yeti Hunter has it right. There is a balance between necessary detail and the minutiae of meetings etc. Did all the meetings and where they were held alter the outcome of early planning sessions for the college. Does this information enhance the article (readability and veracity of contents)? Ozdaren 06:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read more of the history of the college. The language is very antiquated and by dint of its style seems to have been lifted from other publications. A lot of the commentary is not encyclopaedic in presentation. Little snippets of contemporary commentary really detract from the concise nature of the article before their addition. I'm not really sure they add a whole lot other than a degree of verbiage.Ozdaren 08:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the language is antiquated, paraphrasing twenty odd pages of historic texts does rub off and some of the words are great eg. teetotalism (had to look that one up, marvelous). The content will be edited into a concise format eventually. --Echcua 12:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College or Cathedral

[edit]

In the origins of the college mention is made of a 'Provisional Committee...(holding) their (meeting)at St. Peter's on December 16th, 1921 Do you mean the church next door or the school? Ozdaren 06:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the school, as several of the founders had connections with the school. --Echcua 07:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a murder be included in a college's article?

[edit]

Now that the dispute seems to be resolved, I have moved the content of this RfC to the subpage Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/RfC: Should a murder be included in a college's article. I have courtesy blanked the content of that page out of respect for the victim's family per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking. The entire thread will still be available through the subpage's history for those who have need to read through it.

I suggest the same be done with the other threads above on the same subject, but I leave it to the editors who participated in those discussions to make the final call. --Dynaflow babble 06:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

[edit]

I regret to inform you that I am quickfailing the article due to inadequate referencing. Here are some things to work on before renomination:

  • Most of the article is unsourced. There are entire sections and paragraphs without a single citation. There is even a "citation needed" tag in the article.
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be expanded a little. There should be about two to three full paragraphs, which means more than a sentence or two.
  • Try to avoid short paragraphs throught the entire article. Any paragraph that is one or two sentences should be merged into another paragraph, expanded, or removed. This excludes the list under buildings/grounds because it is just a list rather than paragraphs of text.
  • The references need formatting. Template:cite web should help you out.

The information in the article is good, so becoming a GA is attainable. The biggest issue is the lack of references. Once that is fixed, I'm sure a future GA reviewer will help you out with any other nitpicky things they see wrong. Good luck! Nikki311 18:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? There are 46 sources in the reflist! Admittedly about half are from various parts of the college website, but that still leaves over 20 independent sources. I assume this means we need inline citations to the same reference multiple times (eg in the history section, where most of the information comes from the single Grenfell Price source). As for the lead, I'm a little confused as to what needs to be done. It is already 2 paragraphs of several sentences each, and I believe gives a good overview of the college without going into undue detail. Reference formatting obviously needs to be done. I'm not familiar with how to cite the same reference multiple times but can probably work it out.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The in-line citations are inadequate. If an entire paragraph comes from one source, cite it at the end of the paragraph for verifiability. The lead needs to summarize all the main points of the article...it needs a bit more about the founding, residential life, etc. To cite the same reference multiple times, in the first instance name the reference (<ref name=example>{{cite web|author=|url=|title=|date=|accessdate=|publisher=}}</ref>). When you want to cite the source again, all you have to do is write <ref name=example/>. Hope that helps. Nikki311 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA to-do

[edit]
  • Rewrite history section in a more concise formatcheckY
  • Inline citations (mostly in history section)checkY
  • Format citations (Template:cite web) checkY
  • Rewrite leadcheckY
  • Merge small paragraphscheckY
  • Additional pictures? (probably not essential for GA)
    • Memorial
    • Pond
    • Dining Hall
    • Downer House
    • Hawker House
    • Kermode St Frontage
  • feel free to add anything else

--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been a while, but I reckon that's that. Could still do with another picture or two (pond, downer house) but I reckon that's good enough for GA. Renominating.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doctree (talk · contribs) 21:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article is close to meeting good article criteria. In the below comments, I used "✗" to mark the three issues that caused the article to fail GA. The remainder of the comments, even if I consider the issues important, are NOT reasons to fail GA but that I hope editors will consider to further improve this article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    1) The article should be restructured to follow the college and university article guidelines. 2) Please use a more complete and current version of {{Infobox university}}. Fill all applicable fields; for example, affiliation with the Anglican Church. Use sub-templates when specified; for example, the established field should be {{Start date|1925}} rather than just the date. Failure to follow infobox instructions prevents proper parsing of details in templates. 3) Article needs editing and better organization; some examples include: 3a) The first section, Foundation and opening, is overly detailed for an encyclopedia. For example, the number of maids is not significant enough for inclusion. Some of the writing is dated and probably copied directly from the reference, such as ", A. E. M. Kirwood, M.A., a University Lecturer in English and a man of very fine character,". 3b) The first sentence under Accommodations ends with, "...three co-residential dormitory buildings on campus: (3 floors), Memorial (3 floors) and Hawker Annexe (1 floor).✗ (Added Newland to complete the sentence on 14 Aug 2012.) 3c) The first sentence under College life is, "There are eleven residential buildings at St. Mark's, including dormitories, apartments and heritage residences." That may be appropriate to begin a section on residential building but not to introduce a section on student life. 3d) The Buildings and grounds section is a list, each building name a sub-title in random order with no organization or flow.✗ The section would be more readable and encyclopdic if better organized, perhaps with sub-sections devoted to Residential buildings, Common areas, Athletic and fitness facilities, and so on with an introductory paragraph or statement followed by "children" (see WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists).
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The web link for Citation 4 is no longer valid. That citation supports that "Normally about 20% of the student body come from overseas countries..." It was archived and could be retrieved but the current page states that about ten percent of the student body are international students.✗ (Corrected the percentage and cited the current web page on 14 Aug 2012.) Some other information is outdated. There are sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability. No obvious original research was found. Primary sources are used appropriately. I note that two different systems of in-line citations are in use and hope a Wikifairy will fly by and fix that.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    A short paragraph in Student life about the immediate surrounding area would be appropraite. Include things like the distance to The University of Adelaide campus, that the college is adjacent to the cathedral, and public transportation availability.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Some more photographs would improve the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Only remaining issue is that "Buildings and grounds" is essentially an unorganized list without the bullets or numbers. That section needs to be organized with an introduction in prose and some logical organization to the description of the campus. Look in the Manual of Style under "Children" for an example of what might be appropriate.


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Mark%27s_College_(University_of_Adelaide)&oldid=1212587669"