Wikipedia:Peer review/Rutgers University/archive1

Rutgers University

I just did a massive revision of this page a few days ago to pare down a lot of the bullshit that had crufted the article, and some sections still need a bit of work (are incomplete). I'm bringing this request for a Peer Review in the hopes of improving the article to bring it up to Featured Article standards within the upcoming weeks and looking for suggestions on what needs to be added, subtracted, revised, copyedited, and any other improvements that y'all can think of. Thank you in advance for your hard work and efforts in this regard. —ExplorerCDT 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues that immediately strike me now that I've had more time to look at the most recent changes:

There are many time/date-sensitive figures and statistics presented throughout the article that do not adequately identify the timeframe for which they are accurate or representative. The present tense is used for many of these data and that presents WP:DATE issues unless they are clearly marked.
The Alumni section is, IMHO, too long. I know there is a separate list of "Rutgers people" but it might be best to move much of this section into a new article (the list of people conflates alumni, presidents, and faculty and this suggestion may help fix that problem, too).
There are several rather-prominent red links throughout the article that are referenced as "main articles" for sections. Those must be fixed, IMHO, or removed.
The one bullet point in the "Trivia" section is quite odd-looking. I hate trivia sections anyway but just having one bullet point in any section is, IMHO, impermissible. It should be integrated into another section or omitted as unimportant and non-notable. This would probably fit in fine in the "Student activities" section either in an existing subsection or a new one.
As previously related to ExplorerCDT on my Talk page, I recommend the references be changed to use the citation templates. This, however, is a minor issue at this time and one that can definitely be put off until much later.
I would also recommend inline citations for the "Books and printed materials" cited as references.

--ElKevbo 23:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, which time/date-sensative figures/stats do you mean?

I see several in the Academics section, particularly the "Admissions and financial aid" and "Rankings" subsections. --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alumni section is a bit bloated, and I should admit I ripped the format from the Cornell article. Who should be eliminated from the article's alumnicruft?

I defer to those more familiar with the institution and its history to make the proper judgment as to who has been more important in the institution's history. --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rather prominent red links are articles I intend to start in the next day or two.
The single trivium will be moved up shortly.

Trivium is the singular of trivia? Huh. You learn something new every day. :) --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the singular/plural only after years of studying Latin (same part of the grammar tables as referendum/referenda, addendum/addenda, datum/data), but I learned something new in reading the article Trivia about the rather funny etymological bases from where the word originates. Crazy. —ExplorerCDT 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you want to learn two new things... "Trivium" can also refer to a group of three of the seven "liberal arts:" grammar, logic, and rhetoric. (No, I'm not going to sign such a nerdy and obnoxious remark). 00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation style we'll worry about later ;-). —ExplorerCDT 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a featured article expert, but you solicited my comments on my talk page so I'm going to shoot from the hip. In my mental map, Rutgers is one of an undifferentiated bunch of universities whose names I recognize and think of as being broadly in the "good school" category. But I don't know it well enough to have any real picture in my mind, literally or figuratively.

What the article fails to do is to differentiate it for me. It does make the point about Rutgers being a colonial college, a venerable old institution, and tied up with the early history of New Jersey, so I can grow some ivy on my mental picture (well, actually I already knew that from Wikipedia, mostly from the Colonial Colleges article).

I have to say that when I skimmed the article, the thing that jumped out at me was: Streptomycin? Streptomycin was discovered at Rutgers? Offhand in the great scheme of things I'd say that might be the single most important thing to date that has ever happened at Rutgers. Well, OK, maybe not quite as important as playing in the first college football game in history... Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. I agree with ElKevbo that the alumni section is bloated, and for my money there's way too much rankingcruft. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you recommend it be differentiated, or brought forward from the pack to make it stand out like, say, Michigan, Virginia, and other state universities. Streptomycin is big, and unfortunately things like that are pushed by the wayside given Rutgers' rise in big-time football. Also, which crufty alumni/rankings would you eliminate to improve those sections? Personally, I'd like to strip U.S. News and World Report since they use a rather subjective and shitty ranking methodology. —ExplorerCDT 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew what to say to make Rutgers stand out from the others, I'd take a stab at doing it. Does modern-day Rutgers show any visible traces whatsoever of its historical association with the Dutch Reformed church? As for rankings, if it were up to me, I'd leave them out entirely. I notice that other encyclopedias manage to do fine without them. That's probably too much to ask. How about U. S. News, which uses a subjective and shitty ranking methodology that correlates well with what ambitious, competitive parents seem to be interested in, and Shanghai Jiao Tong? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I could kill the rankings sections very fast by just saying it's "ranked among the best universities in the world/u.s.a." and footnote that line to death with about 7 or 8 ranking systems. —ExplorerCDT 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the thousands of institutions of higher education in America have much more in common than they do different. That the article doesn't make Rutgers a shining beacon of uniqueness is not a concern I share as long as the article accurately reflects the institution. Maybe it is just very similar to many other American colleges and universities? --ElKevbo 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]