Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Chicago/archive1

University of Chicago

After an exhaustive redesign of this article, I am extremely pleased with the results. The University of Chicago is a highly underrated American institution, and what is here in this article cannot possibly do it justice. However, it is still one of the stronger college/university articles on Wikipedia, and therefore I would like to formally nominate it as a featured article. Crimson3981 23:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: This FAC was incorrectly made. It was named after a redirect, and therefore did not link properly from the talk page. I have corrected the error, and reproduce the editors' comments below. --Danaman5 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. No references. RyanG e rbil10 23:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No clearly defined reference section (I see a lot of what appears to be footnotes, but they must use the standard footnoting format seen in other Wikipedia articles). There are also several lists within the article, notably in the academic divisions section, as well as several external links scattered throughout the article (which by convention must be in the external links section only). Furthermore, this article is placed under active peer review on the same day it is nominated for FA. Which one are you trying to do? Pentawing^Talk 23:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Peer Review This article is just not ready to be considered for FAC. Move this to WP:PR and incorporate suggestions and recommendations from other users to improve the article. AreJay 01:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, the article was already and still is on peer review; the nominator appears to have nominated the article to both PR and FAC. AndyZ _t 12:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, no references. I also noticed that most of the images had no source or fair use rationale (and a lot of the would likely not be a fair use.)--Fallout boy 09:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. A few hours ago, this article was rife with academic boosterism and peacock terms. Much of the butt plumage seems to have sprouted recently. A sentence which, a month ago, read "Historically, the university has been particularly noted for its unique undergraduate 'core curriculum,' and other educational innovations introduced by Robert Maynard Hutchins during the 1930s" became "The University is noted for its rigorous undergraduate core curriculum, designed to foster critical skills in a broad range of academic disciplines, including history, literature, science, mathematics, writing, and critical thinking." Oh, and no mention of Hutchins. The accomplishment of producing the first winner of the Heisman Trophy, which, we are informed, is football's "most prestigious" award, was inserted into the lead paragraph, as if this were equally as important as Fermi's reactor or the Chicago School of economics. The word "university" had been capitalized throughout the article, as though the University of Chicago were a deity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object--Xtreambar 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. No reference. Under active peer review which will make the article violate WIAFA attribute 2 (e).--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The article just isn't stable enough yet.Spikebrennan 17:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]