User talk:LaSaltarella/Archive 3

OWU

I'd be happy to take a look at the article in the next few days. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LaSaltarella. I've read halfway through the article (through "Campus"), and so far it looks great. I found a very few, very minor problems that I fixed, but by and large the article is in excellent shape, and if the rest is of the same quality it's certainly ready for FAC. I've found only a handful of minor concerns so far:

What is the significance of the William Street Church, which is mentioned prominently in the "Founding" section? I assume from context that it's a Methodist church in Delaware, Ohio, but that's not explicit in the article. If the William Street Church is particularly important, it should be explained more fully rather than simply given a name-check. If it's not important in and of itself, the sentence should probably be rewritten to something like "In 1841, Adam Poe and Charles Elliott, leaders of the Methodist community in Delaware, Ohio, decided to establish a university "of the highest order" in central Ohio."
Is the opinion of one student in 1862 particularly important? I think that the earlier quotations about the democratic spirit and the liberality of the local people make the point about the college's ethos well enough.
~~"The Monnett extensions" is unclear to people unfamiliar with OWU's campus, or at least to me. It would be better to phrase it as "Extensions to the Monnett building" or whatever's appropriate.~~
"In the 1920s, the chapel service was dropped..." — Was it eliminated altogether, or merely made noncompulsory? The current wording might be read as the former (although I suspect the latter is what was meant).
"ties to the Methodist church were severed in the 1920s" — Were all ties severed? The article describes an ongoing "loose historical affiliation". Would it be better to say "formal ties to the Methodist church were severed"?
"In mathematics, its team has finished first at the Ohio Five mathematics contest in five out of the last ten years." Is this really of particular significance? Is there some other statistic that could indicate the academic comeback which I take it the "last twenty years" section is meant to suggest? I approve of the emphasis on academic performance, but winning a competition against only four other colleges doesn't seem all that impressive, really.
I didn't see anything at the cited webpage about the earnings of female faculty as opposed to male. Was it there earlier? Can you find a "live" page that contains that information? (If it was previously on the page cited, you may be able to use the Wayback Machine to find the citation.)
~~The caption for the "Salamanca Spanish Program" image is slightly unclear. I presume that it's an image of some location at the University of Salamanca: can the image say exactly where it is?~~

As I said, the article is in excellent shape, and based on what I've read so far I'd certainly support it at FAC. I'll go through the rest of the article tomorrow or the next day. Good work! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked over the rest of the article. Again, it's in very good shape, and again I have only a few minor questions.

~~"Disobedient students were thrown into the Sulphur Spring." Was this any disobedient student, or just those who refused to wear the "dink"? The context isn't clear.~~
What exactly does "traditional dormitories on campus" mean? Is this traditional dormitories as opposed to fraternity housing? As opposed to single-sex housing? (At some institutions single-sex dorms would be considered traditional.) As opposed to the SLUs described below? The meaning of "traditional" in this sentence isn't entirely clear.
"It took almost another 20 years before Ohio Wesleyan joined the Ohio Athletic Conference..." Do you have an exact date for this? If so, that would be better than "almost another 20 years". Ohio Athletic Conference says it was founded in 1902, which is more than 20 years after the previously given date (1875).
I took the liberty of moving the list of books by Mark Huddleston to his article — they're not really that relevant to an article on OWU. I didn't list Profiles in Excellence: Conversations with the Best of America's Career Executive Service, The Higher Civil Service in the United States because it seems to be a grant report rather than a full-fledged book (see here).
I'm not sure why Jo Ann Emerson's vote to overturn the stem cell research ban is relevant to her status as an OWU alumna: including it seems a bit like undue weight, and thus a possible NPOV concern. (And I say this as a supporter of stem cell research — I'm just not clear on why it's relevant to a listing of notable OWU alumni.)

Great idea, I'll change it. LaSaltarella 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are all quite minor quibbles — the article as a whole is very good, and I'd support its nomination for Featured Article. Let me know if you want to put it forward. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWU final thoughts

Hi La Saltarella, I have some suggestions on the History section where I think it could be clearer / improved. I have not read the other sections as closely, but can leave the comments on History wherever you want me to leave them next, and then try to look at the article more closely. Ruhrfisch 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS On the OWU talk page it still lists your old username for "Maintained by" and when I clicked on the "Please click here to leave me a new message" link it goes to your old Redirect talk page too.

History section comments

Sub-section headers: I am fine with Founding but have trouble with the rest of the sub-section headers (either as titles or by what is included or excluded in them). Campus expansion and fundraising When I think of campus expansion, I think of the campus getting physically larger (buy more land or maybe build new buildings). This seems to be more about growth of curriculum and courses. In addition, "fundraising" in the header is mentioned only once in the section (so is it that important?) and is spelled differently, i.e. "fund raising". Twentieth century: years of change My first problem here is that the 20th century arrives three paragraphs before (Phi Beta Kappa) and these three paragraphs are all in the 20th century (so they seem to be in the wrong subsection or this name is not good). My second problem here is that the next subsection... The last twenty years would still include 13 or 14 years of the 20th century (as of 2007). Plus this last subsection now would inlcude only 1987 on (Last 20 years), but seems to start in 1984. I have thought about the headers and have a suggestion (feel free to ignore it). Why not have a one or two word title for each subsection plus the dates? So how about something like: Founding, 1842-1853, Expansion, 1853-1929, Change, 1930-1984, and 1984-Today (I am guessing on dates). I would in any case make the last section more specific (as last 20 years is a moving range).

All fixed.LaSaltarella 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: Here are four sentences for an example of several problems:

In 1907, the United Societies of Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest undergraduate honor society in the United States, installed their first chapter on campus. Two Rhodes Scholars were selected from Wesleyan during 1905 to 1910.[32]
In 1905, the Board of Trustees decided to keep Wesleyan a college, despite the expansion of the curriculum and campus and the word "university" in the institution's name.[33] The Bachelor of Science degree was abolished, which left only the Bachelor of Arts. [The next sentence is the 1920s]

The first problem is chronological order. We go from 1907 to 1905 or perhaps 1910, then back to 1905, then up to 1920s. I would follow chronogical order wherever possible. Sometimes there are good reasons not to, but it can be confusing otherwise. The second problem is lack of specifics / clarity. I could read the first sentence "...Phi Beta Kappa... installed their first chapter on campus" to mean that this was PBK's first chapter (which it was not) rather than OWU's first chapter. Has there been a second chapter installed since (I doubt it, but the College of William and Mary had the first chapter ever, but it died out, and so it has had 2 subsequent installations of chapters - the third one is still active). Also each chapter has a greek letter designation (this is not given) so why not say "In 1907, the United Societies of Phi Beta Kappa, the oldest undergraduate honor society in the United States, installed the "Eta of Ohio ΦΒΚ" chapter at Ohio Wesleyan.[1] Other places where specifics would help would be the actual years for the Rhodes scholars so "Two Rhodes Scholars were selected from Wesleyan in 1905 and 1908. (picked years at random - look them up - this would affect the chronological order too, potentially, but just go by the year of the first one). FOrgot to sign - that bot is fast! Hope this helps, more later today, Ruhrfisch 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them taking these considerations into account. LaSaltarella 03:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize I have been slow in making more comments - busy in real life and I need a good block of time. I will do my best to finish my comments in the next 24 hours. I think the article is close to FA, just needs some polishing. You are doing a good job - keep up the good work. Ruhrfisch 05:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More History comments

I would try to make sure that years are given where needed, for example "New president David Warren increased admission standards..." needs a date. "In athletics, Battling Bishops have captured four NCAA Division III national championships in soccer and basketball in the last two decades." has the problem that two decades is a moving range (so in a few years will it still be true?). Perhaps "The Battling Bishops won NCAA Division III national championships in men's basketball (1988) and men's (1998) and women's (2001, 2002) soccer." (only a few characters longer, much more specific). Or my two concerns about "In mathematics, its team has finished first at the Ohio Five mathematics contest in five out of the last ten years." are 1) that the ref only lists four wins (not five) and 2) could it be rewritten as "Its team finished first at the Ohio Five mathematics contest four times between 1998 and 2005." I would also revise the last sentence of this section to read "As of 2007, the university is engaged in a fundraising campaign to improve athletics facilities...".

I think the paragraph starting with "The presidency of Thomas Wenzlau..." could be tightened up. Perhaps "Thomas Wenzlau's presidency (1968-1984) began with the challenge of campus unrest: Wesleyan students took over the ROTC building, demanded its shut-down, and eventually eliminated ROTC in 1970.[48][49] Students also demanded participation in departmental meetings and faculty committees, and the democratic process in the governance of Wesleyan grew in this period.[50] Wenzlau's presidency witnessed decline in students' test scores, an unusually high attrition rate, lack of adequate research to identify potential major donors and a growing "party school" image,[51] leading to a rocky relationship between him and the student body.[52] Between 1979 and 1982, the campus newspaper The Transcript frequently criticized Wenzlau for "severely affecting the reputation of the college",[53] which resulted in a Washington Post report that eventually precipitated the end of Wenzlau's presidency.[54]".

Buildings: My first suggestion is to include all buildings listed in the main article in the List of Ohio Wesleyan University buildings. You can then wikilink each building's first appearance in the article to subsections of that list (i.e. Elliott Hall). That allows the article to be brief about buildings described, while still allowing a link for those interested in learning more. I also wonder about the choice of buildings and worry it might run into WP:Recentism problems, as it seems most buildings built in the past 50 years are mentioned, but none are mentioned between the purchase of Elliott Hall in 1842 and building University Hall in 1893. I would argue that for a very new University the decision to build a second or even third building is a much bigger event than building dorms 110 years later (Thomson and Bashford Halls). Not all buildings need to be mentioned obviously, but some are omitted that probably should not be.

Fixed. LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This last part is based on my reading of multiple drafts of the article and the History of Ohio Wesleyan University article. There are several places where I would move items earlier in the History section, and a few where I think inaccuracies or at least false impressions may exist in the current revision. I will also say I am not an expert on OWU, nor do I have access to the print only refs cited, so I may be worng. These are, as always, suggestions. When OWU opened, it was an academy for 2 years before becoming a University. This is mentioned when the academy closed in the 1920s, but I think it needs to be said at the beginning too. Also, the first college of the university was the college of Liberal Arts established in 1844. I think it is inaccurate to say "By the end of the 19th century, Wesleyan had added a College of Liberal Arts (founded in 1844)..." as adding implies there is something in existence to add to, but this was the first college. It needs to be mentioned earlier, in the Founding section.

The College of Liberal Arts was added to the preparatory academy already in existence of by 1844. LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also am not sure that "Poe and Elliot wrote a charter emphasizing "the democratic spirit of teaching" and formed a Board of Trustees early in the following year" is correct. Wasn't the charter given by the Ohio state legislature?

Poe and Elliott wrote the charter, which was approved by the State of Ohio. LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Given the deletion of the Sulfur Spring picture (glad to see it is back), would it make sense to mention it too, say "...the Mansion House Hotel, a former health resort with its Sulfur Spring,... "?~~

Great, thank you! I added it. LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraphs: When everything else is done, look at the lead paragraphs and make sure every header or subheader and the most important things are at least mentioned in them (even if it is just a word or phrase). There should be nothing in the lead that is not in the article (it is a summary, much like the abstract of a scientific paper). I am not sure the members of the Ohio Five have to be listed here, for example.

I double-checked everything mentioned in the lead and everything should be mentioned in the article as well.LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Let me know when it is up for FA and I will weigh in (and ask if anything is unclear or you want me to look at something again). Take care, Ruhrfisch 04:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Really, really helpful comments! Thank you again! LaSaltarella 18:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - You are very welcome - I just weighed in at the FAC. The concerns I raise will be familiar and I would have raised them here were it not already in FAC. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am replying on the FAC page as I think that is the place to do so. Ruhrfisch 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWU FA

Thanks for the invite. But I'm not sure how much help I can be. Most of my dealings in Wikipedia are media based. I was however able to scan through the article and the only qualm I have at the moment are the high number of fair-use images. You currently have 26 images. I do not know the exact cut-off number that will begin the onslaught over images, but I can tell you that my Star Wars FAs have only five images each. My Pilot (House) article has one. You might want to reconsider which images contribute to the article and which images are not needed. The Filmaker 19:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and remove any images that I see as being unneeded. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. The Filmaker 19:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, The Filmaker! Appreciate the suggestions and your help! I kept some of your edits regarding images that you felt were unneeded though I reverted, per your request, some that I felt were strongly related to the content of the article. LaSaltarella 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Jefffire

Firstly, excellent, excellent article. The only problem with the article I can find is that it is considerably longer than desirable. However it should simply be a simple matter to partition it into a number of sub-article (such as Student Activity in Ohio Wesleyan University, for example, but that's best left to people with knowledge about the university.

Incidently, it sounds like a great place. Jefffire 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jefffire! The size is due to the good referencing. Without the references the article is a very decent 40K. LaSaltarella 20:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

Thanks for the recommendation! I was in need of a good read. The article is really good, and I commented on the superb pictures in it - they are truly brilliant. Well done for all your hard work :) к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 20:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OWU FAC

Thanks for the message. Great work on the OWU article. Went through it in brief and have found it good enough to support its FAC. All the best and keep up the good work. --Ajaypp 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Congratulations on the FA approval for Ohio Wesleyan University. Great work and persistence! Cla68 08:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add my congrats - you did a marvelous job getting lots of editors involved and the article shows it. Congratulations! Ruhrfisch 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- YOu are very welcome, keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 16:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto... I was going to change my vote to support, but it passed before I got a chance to do so... Balloonman 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

I saw what problems Ian Thorpe had with its images on the Main Page recently (at one point it was on the Front Page and had no images at all as they were all copyvio, now there is a picture of the Olympic pool there). When I saw you request OWU for the Main Page (I watch the requests as I have an article in the queue) I decided to check some OWU images and found several with problems. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but figured it was better now than while it was on the Main Page. Ruhrfisch 15:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Your comments and contributions have been nothing but very helpful throughout the peer review, nomination process and I am confident that will only improve the article this time again. I am not familiar with all policies and all potential pitfalls of various aspects of the article, so this alert is much appreciated! LaSaltarella 21:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to help, even if it is getting rid of images. Some of them, if you are on campus now or in the future, should be easy to duplicate if you have access to a digital camera. Ruhrfisch 04:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]