Jump to content

User:Philtweir/Academic Communities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a working draft for an Academic Communities WikiProject - it does not yet exist!

Goals

[edit]
  • Identifying a framework from already developed articles to improve basic articles on Academic Communities
  • Providing a talking shop for common areas of interest, such as College Choirs, formal dining, to improve coverage across the board
  • Engaging editors who are familiar with the relevant topics
  • As articles about less well-known colleges often enjoy moderately high view rates, but are often stubs or proportionally undermaintained, reducing the effects of vandalism and misinformation
  • Conversely, as highly developed articles may deal with standard subject matter inconsistently, providing links between articles to assist editors in identifying beneficial approaches employed in other mature articles.

Scope

[edit]

Wanting to add a college?

[edit]
If your zooming past, this WikiProject does include

  • constituent colleges of a collegiate university
  • Oxbridge model colleges[1] (i.e. Oxford colleges, Cambridge colleges and 'Oxbridge-style' colleges)
  • otherwise, historical colleges of this style (pre-20th century)

but not

  • anything which could be classed as a University or College (US sense)
  • dorms
  • residential colleges not otherwise fitting the above criteria
  • fraternities or sororities

[edit]
  • We will also aim to include articles whose relevance lies entirely, or predominantly, within a college, excluding biographical, choir and boat club articles, which, at least for the moment, represent a substantial number of articles that may be dealt with effectively elsewhere, each being notable in at least two WikiProjects and to some degree tangential here. Particularly, we do wish to include articles about buildings, quads and novel societies which derive their notability primarily from the college.

If that doesn't cover what you're looking for, read on...

Since different countries use the same words for different concepts and as a scale of grey exists, we have to use a rather lengthy definition for a relatively straightforward idea! As the meaning of "college" varies substantially internationally and as there are highly similar principles in action in continental Europe under different names, we use the following extended definition:

For this WikiProject, we use the term Academic Communities to refer to tertiary education institutions fulfilling the following criteria:

  • does not grant degrees
  • is linked to a university [is explicitly and officially affiliated to a formally-recognised degree-granting institution(s)]
  • has students [the overwhelming majority of its live-in members are members of that (or those) institutions]
  • has staff [full-time employees overseeing the management of the community]
  • has tutorials or supervisions [provides some substantial degree of academic and welfare support]
  • is (semi-)independent [runs (semi-)autonomously from the affiliated institution]
  • isn't a small House (for reasons of practicality) [significant number of residents, say, at least a few dozen]

The following may also apply:

  • independent ownership
  • existence of a fellowship (academic staff who are members or affiliates of the institution)
  • existence of a supplementary teaching programme
  • separate funding system

If the institution you reckon should be included does not match the wording of these criteria, but you feel it fits within the spirit of them, please suggest it on the talk page.

To Do

[edit]
  • Develop rating system for articles
  • Extend articles on college related activities (e.g. supervisions, formal dining)
  • Translate articles on Pavia colleges (Collegio Borromeo done) and Salamanca colegios mayores
  • Identify all relevant collegiate universities for inclusion

Articles

[edit]

Articles to include

[edit]

Please feel free to list Academic Communities-related articles here.

Collegio di Spagna at the University of Bologna

Colleges of the University of Melbourne
Colleges of the University of Oxford
Colleges of the University of Pavia
Colleges of the University of Sydney
Colleges of the University of Toronto

... other universities, similarly (in practice, this would likely be replaced with a standard 'new articles' section, though this directory once filled out, might still have a place somewhere) General articles

Sample Categories

[edit]

Sample Templates

[edit]

Assessment

[edit]

For the moment, articles should be graded by hand, until such time as this actually becomes a WikiProject. When sorting, please take a moment to add College-related articles to the appropriate place in the directory ("College: ARTICLE X"; for an example, see the above listing of Traditions of Trinity College, (Toronto)). For efficiency, articles assessed within the relevant university WP may be classed accordingly, provided (WPX) is added (X sub'd appropriately); for internal consistency, these may need reclassified later.

Subsidiary articles, that is, those whose significance is lent entirely by the relevant college and are not choir or boat club articles (too many!), should also be listed and assessed here.

Articles FA elsewhere should go into A.

Examples

[edit]

Please note that we are not currently performing any independent assessment; this is simply a platform on which to build recommendations for future articles or suggestions for development.

Sample Article

[edit]

Please see User:Philtweir/Academic_Communities/Sample for a potential article structure (derived from Oriel College, Oxford).

External assessments

[edit]

A

[edit]

GA

[edit]

B

[edit]

C

[edit]

Start

[edit]

Stub

[edit]

Lists

[edit]

Unrated

[edit]

Unwritten

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of literary movements

To sort

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Tapper, Ted; Palfreyman, David (03 Nov 2004), "Understanding Collegiality: The Changing Oxbridge Model colleges", Tertiary Education and Management, Springer Netherlands {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Discussion

[edit]

Copied from User:Philtweir/WikiProject Residential Colleges

I would support either a WikiProject or a task force, although you'll need to make it abundantly clear that these are only residential colleges based on the Oxbridge model, rather than the American usage. Otherwise, this project/taskforce will be inundated by non-notable articles about residence halls. Perhaps naming the project "WikiProject Independent residential colleges" or "WikiProject Residential colleges (Oxbridge model)" would be in order. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thank you for the input! That sounds sensible, particularly, not having a great deal of experience with the American model, I wouldn't be too sure how to deal with those, so it would be up to others to deal with the inevitable deluge. The name suggestion seems the most effective - 'Oxbridge model' is probably the more open-ended option (as, for example, some such colleges are University-owned or governed). By the way, I should disclose that I have lived at two of these colleges and indeed still am at the second. Since this term is used in academic literature (e.g. Understanding Collegiality: The Changing Oxbridge Model ) I can't see anybody objecting...--Philtweir (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a proposal Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Residential Colleges (Oxbridge model) and will see if I can gather some more interest. Please make any necessary improvements! --Philtweir (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect that Oxbridge model may be misinterpreted (in UK and elsewhere) and also have come across a number of closely comparable institutions in non-English-speaking countries that have developed independently of Oxford and Cambridge. However, in a flash of inspiration, thought of Academic Communities, which suggests living, studying and academic staff, but in closer quarters than anything that would normally be spoken of as a university (which would naturally get redirected to Universities). It is also a bit too narrow to attract boarding schools, or anything else below tertiary level, and is sufficiently uncommon to encourage editors checking the (explanatory) definition before including an article. That might solve the US-Commonwealth conundrum too. While it may confuse those who consider a university faculty to be an 'academic community' or a group of undergraduates in the same class, these should be few enough that a well written introduction should avoid too much work being generated through reassigning articles, in contrast to a storm of dorms! --Philtweir (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Philtweir/Academic_Communities&oldid=422387447"