Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Arkansas/archive1

University of Arkansas[edit]

Pretty concise and complete article with many subarticles that could be integrated if need be. --The_stuart 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Lacks references (just two notes from school's own website?), sports section very unappealing—needs to be consolidated and have more information added—and, in general, even if the subarticles were integrated, I do not think this would qualify as a comprehensive article. I wouldn't even refer it to peer review, as it needs the basic requirement of more substantial content at this point. --DanielNuyu 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. I agree with the lack of references (how could I tell that much of the material has not been exaggerated or outright fabricated?) and comprehensiveness. For instance, did nothing of note happen during the 20th to the 21st century, and is there no research done at the university? Also, nothing flows well from one point of the article to another (e.g. there is a passage about a park and then suddenly there is a fact about IP addresses). Please refer to the University of Michigan and Michigan State University articles for examples of featured university articles. Pentawing^Talk 07:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - Refer to peer review - I went in to attempt a cleanup on the article, but compared to the only two university articles that are featured this article does not measure up. There is no balance between sections (too much emphasis on traditions and sports, not enough on academics, history, or the campus setting). The "interesting facts" and "boring facts" sections are, in my view, completely unprofessional for an encyclopedia article (especially for one that is attempting to achieve featured status). Hence, in its current state I personally can't see this article being featured on the first try. Pentawing^Talk 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not even close. Needs references, expanded sections, more comprehensive detail, (at the moment, the emphasis is almost entirely on sports.) Although not an FA requirement, more pictures would be nice, especially of a place as public as a college campus. RyanGerbil10 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object—2a; not well written. The opening is a good example:

"The University of Arkansas, also known as the U. of A., or simply The Hill, is a public coeducational land-grant university system, and the main campus is located in Fayetteville in the state of Arkansas, USA. Founded as Arkansas Industrial University in 1871 (Arkansas is renowned for its robust programs in agriculture and business),..."

- 'and' is clumsy.
- the parenthetical clause has an unclear relationship with the previous sentence.

"Other branch campuses are University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, and others in ..."

- Clumsy repetition of 'other'; ungrammatical. Then the next sentence starts with 'Additionally', and the one after with 'Other'. Not a good look.

It's a bit listy, and there are some rather stubby subsections. Not comprehensive; have a look at the FAs on other US universities.

Tony 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn, see below ~~Object.Strongly object, contained copyvio~~ Since writing the comments below, I've discovered that at the time the article was nominated, and as of 16:23, 5 February 2006, the three paragraphs comprising the entire content of the "History and Founding" section were copied almost verbatim from the University of Arkansas's website, http://www.uark.edu/rd_vcad/urel/publications/profile/2003/525.htm . I removed it this content (in case anyone is wondering why that section is currently empty. This means that at the time it was nominated, this article did not comply with either of the two provisions that are supposed to apply to every edit: "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has problems with promotional spin ("academic programs are in excess of 200, which is more than is offered by some much larger universities"). It has serious problems with sourcing and verifiability. The editors need to understand that content does not merely need to be true, it needs to be verifiable in the sense of the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not expressing an opinion now. All of the specific problems I complained of have been addressed. Six or seven specific unsourced items I tagged with ^{Citation needed} tags have been sourced. The new History and Founding section is thin and reads as if it were a paraphrase of material from the UArk website, but it is a paraphrase and not a verbatim copy. I think it would be churlish to raise fresh issues, and so am no longer expressing an opinion for or against. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just about every concern that has been addressed has been fixed. Seems to be a sound article now. (Cardsplayer4life 03:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- See my comments above. Unfortunately, I don't share your sentiments. Pentawing^Talk 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Intresting facts" and other similarly named trivia lists tend to be bad form for featured articles. I suggest this information be incorporated into the article or turned into a section of it's own. Just using the word "intresting" is POV.--The_stuart 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am new here, but it seems to be an interesting article that I would like to see on the home page. (24.98.38.207 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]