Talk:University College, Durham

University College, Durham has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 19, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
January 10, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 17, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 21, 2020	Good article reassessment	Kept
Current status: Good article

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

North East England

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Reassessment[edit]

University College, Durham[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Deadlink in themselves are not a reason to delist and we do not have any consensus that the article is not broad enough to meet the GA requirements AIRcorn (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article is neutral, stable, illustrated and largely well written, I don't think the coverage is broad enough to warrant good article status (the history section, for example, seems underdeveloped – compare and contrast with the one for Hatfield College, Durham) and some sections do not have enough references, while a number of the reference links are dead and have been for some time, and other references are lazily written. Overall it has the appearance of an article that once had high potential but has since been badly neglected --Fat Larry's Ghost (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it's missing by the way, Hatfield's history section is slightly larger, yes but that might be a sign it might want a GA review, not the other way round. This isn't a featured article, and it's just about a college not an entire university, so it won't be to the same scale as a university one. It seems to have sufficiently good coverage to meet GA criteria, possibly slightly weak on the history section. I disagree that it's been badly neglected, if there only seems to be a few deadlinks, so it might be helpful to fix some of the issues? Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced (dead link) claim removed[edit]

I have removed the following footnote:

<ref>Unfortunately, undergraduates Ian Stewart and Simon Prosser caused so much damage to the infrastructure of the building in their first year that a new renovation is required. Estimates have so far been between £100,000 and £200,000. {{cite web | last = Durham University Estates and Buildings | title = S Block Refurbishment Moatside University College | url = http://www.dur.ac.uk/its.web-demos/estates/designs/demo3/projectsinfo/full.php?id=36 | accessdate = 11 October 2006}} {{Dead link|date=April 2012|bot=H3llBot}} </ref>

The link is dead, and I was not able to verify the content. Please provide a credible source before reinstating it.

TSawala (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Additions[edit]

Can we put in a "notable alumni" section as Hatfield have one already? I think we should also mention Lumley Castle and the Lumley run. Maybe also the June Ball?

4 June 2006 - I have just added Hunter Davies to the notable alumni - he has a Wikipedia entry of his own (stub) and I tried to make a hypertext link to it, but seem to have failed...

I'm not convinced about the Lumley Run's merits for inclusion in Wikipedia but I agree with your otuhr suggestions. --Strib 10:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Making Changes[edit]

Removed details of staff and individual members of the College. Removed "Castle Song". These matters seem to be inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry.

Please do not make major changes to an encyclopedia entry without first engaging in a discussion of the proposal on the talk page. I have reverted the page for the time being. 81.156.177.109 18:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I suppose this is why newbies are so dislked on the 'net. I just added some stuff on the colleges accomodation.

No, you did well - Be Bold! I think that what the unnamed user at 81.156.177.109 was referring to was jumping straight in with major deletions to a long-standing article (...but don't be reckless) - but still, sometimes that needs to be done. Wikipedia is formed by people making the changes they think are required. Occasionally those changes will be for the worse, which is easy to undo; but if no-one makes changes then the article will never progress towards its eventual, theoretical, perfect state. For what it's worth, I rarely totally reverse other peoples' changes unless they're clearly in bad faith - if someone thinks a change should be made, they usually have a point; so even if edits occasionally do make an article worse, I still find it's usually better to write something new that addresses the previous editor's concerns, rather than just take it back to the state before they got involved. TSP 18:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who's who section[edit]

Could this be made more generic, rather than discuss the current incumbents of the post. This is meant to be an Encyclopedia. Out of the list given, the only person significant enough to the college to be mentioned by way of his own person is John Atkin MBE.

Indeed. It's looking more like a prospectus at the moment.

GA Review[edit]

This article is a current good article candidate. In accordance with the good article criteria, I have reviewed it and put it on a seven day hold. This means that it has problems which prevent it from becoming a GA right now, but problems which should be able to be cleared up within seven days.

Well written: Fail. The article needs copyediting, eg "To the west of the courtyard, is the medieval Great Hall, to the still used as a dining room by the students, was built by Bishop Bek in the thirteenth century." In the head section, Professor Tucker should have his title. Non-notable trivia should be purged, ie the section about Smenergy. On the plus side, the article follows a logical and hierarchical structure, although perhaps the library should come before the 'Student Body', and the 'Undercroft Bar' and 'Castle Society' be subordinated to sub-headings beneath 'Student Body'.

I've had a go at proof-reading this though, to be honest with you, the prose are almsot entirely my own so I'd be more than happy if someone else re-read it - its always more difficult to proof read your own stuff. I've left the bit in about Smenergy for now - it is a defining factor of the bar within Durham. --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just reads in a bizarre way. You're learning about the history and the buildings etc and then you are told how some of the students in 2006 most like to take their vodka. I would argue that it is non-notable and very unencyclopedic. Chrisfow 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda guess it could be called trivia. --Robdurbar 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable: Pass. Most assertions are referenced. One problem though. The Wiki guidelines on referencing state that anything likely to be challenged should be referenced. "For two hundred years this was the largest Great Hall in the United Kingdom; however, it was shortened by Bishop Fox". That's a big claim probably open to counter-claims - and an anachronistic one given that the United Kingdom did not exist until 1800.

Cheeers for the heads up on this one. It was acutally covered by the next reference, but I've inserted it in twice to cover. --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in coverage: Pass. The article covers all the aspects of the college which I would expect it to cover.

NPOV: Fail. Subjective words. eg "Other impressive ... parts of the castle", "The stunning Tunstal Chapel", "a mysterious group of Castle students", "The college has a strong artistic tendency"

Well the Tunstal Chapel is pretty stunning. Removed or re-worded most of these. I hadn't noticed the 'mysterious group' bit... --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, isn't the bit about it being the 'most prestigious' college in the opening line a subjective and pretty loaded phrase. Whilst it is the oldest and is one of the more traditional colleges, I don't think you can quantifiably claim it to be 'the most prestigious'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.4 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: Pass. The article is stable.

Pictures: Fail. The uploader of the Castlecroft logo needs to prove somehow that they own the copyright, so that they have the right to release it into the public domain. The copyright probably belongs to the SU or JCR - even the designer of the logo does not own it if they sold it to the SU/JCR/bar.

Using the logo of the Undercroft is fair use I hope? --Robdurbar 10:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is, although I am no expert. I think there is an argument to be made that the use of this image may "replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media" (Fair Use Policy Section 2), since anyone may now use that logo (as Wikipedia content is automatically licensed under GDFL) and they could rip it off in a negative way, or rip it off for their own profit. Policy Section 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose". Finally, the policy states that the picture must be tagged with the appropriate fair use tag, if you are claiming fair use. Currently, you have claimed the copyright yourself, which is illegal. Chrisfow 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the tag because I believed that the uploader intended it to be tagged that way... my impression was that this was normal practice. But I'll remove it anyway. --Robdurbar 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These problems stand in the way of GA, but are easily rectified. Well done so far to all who have contributed, it is a good read, and I hope to come back in seven days (less?) and award GA! Chrisfow 23:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA[edit]

Well done for these changes, Rob. I am pleased to elevate this to GA! Chrisfow 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Rob, thank you for your copy edit; here are a few more areas I think need work:

~~As the "Masters" section is basically a list, it should be placed at the end of the article, just before "Notable alumni".~~

Righty-o --Robdurbar 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lowe Library is the college's library" - Reads as trite. In particular, I'd like to see this section expanded, if you have access to sources.

I'm not sure what other expansion could occur here; perhaps I'll rework it as a subsection, or expand into 'acadmeic resources' section - could then mention one or two other features od the college. Robdurbar 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the oldest University building in the world, dating back to 1097" - This is backed by two refs, however neither supports the 1097 claim. One states the Uni. building to be the oldest of its kind in the UK, the second in the world. The second makes the first redundant, but you still need to back up 1097.

Researched this more and other sources appear to state earlier than 1097; not sure where that figure came from. The first source only states that it is the oldest in the UK; the second mentions it as the oldest in the world. --Robdurbar 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Regular JCR meetings are held to discuss and vote on important issues." Maybe remove important, and restructure to include examples..." - held to discuss and vote on issues such as..."
"The Castle Society was formed in 1947 by Castle Alumni, as the Durham Castleman's Society" - I've ce'd this, but the meaning is still unclear to me. What's the diff/connection between 'the Castle Society' and 'the Durham Castleman's Society'?

Sorry, claridifed. It changed its name (i.e. was founded under the name of 'Durham Castelman's Society' and later becaem 'Castle Society'. Robdurbar 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvously, the citation request for "Hornby went on to be a notable antiquarian and priest at York Minster." needs to be met.

Does the stained-glass window not work as a source? It proves he was notable enough for commemoration. Robdurbar 13:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't back up the claim that he was a notable antiquarian. Do you have access to any of the sources listed in his own article. + Ceoil 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do as of Monday 15th; the stuff could either be removed in the hope that it can be reintroduced, or left and then deleted if not sourced within a week or two. Robdurbar 11:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have more, but I'll add them in manageable chunks. I do understand the hard work and commitment it takes to bring an article this close to FA, and that peer review can be unsatisfying. But with a little more effort, I think your there. It's just polish from here on in. + Ceoil 02:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

I came here in response to a request to the League of Copyeditors. I'll work on the article over the next few days. If you have questions about any of my edits (or have suggestions) please don't hesitate to ask. Raymond Arritt 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed Body[edit]

University College is not actually a listed body under the cited act, if you take a close look at the website you will see that it is not included on the list. AlexD 13:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Durham Listed Bodies[reply]

Hello - it is listed now. I contacted the DFES and they apologised for the omission. You can see from the link above that it is now listed.--95.146.49.118 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University College, Durham. 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: 18 January 2022).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University College, Durham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on University College, Durham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unsourced material[edit]

I removed a section on the Cardinal Club which was unsourced, as per WP:V. @Timmillea: restored it saying that they were there, which sadly is not a verifiable source. I suggest that User:Timmillea reverts this as I don't want to get into an edit war. Bellowhead678 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]