Talk:University of Miami

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Hey all, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm declining to list the article at this time, due mostly to problems with WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• Contractions are not allowed outside of quotation marks
• Per WP:Lead, the lead section for an article of this size should be 3-4 paragraphs. The current lead IMO does not adequately summarize the article
• It seems to me that "Organization" and "Research" are usually independent of "Academics" in university articles. Is there a reason that this is not the case here? (fixed)
• Only links not included in the main article text should be in "See also" (fixed)
• Is "South Campus" a proper noun (i.e. official name with both words capitalized)? If so, the section heading should reflect that
• Information on the other campuses should come before student housing
  • all housing is on the Coral Gables campus. Racepacket (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Student life and activities" should be shortened to "Student life"
• Given the content of the "Notable alumni" and "Notable faculty" sections, it would be reasonable to combine the two (fixed)
• Per WP:UNIGUIDE, student media should not appear in External links (fixed)
• Large portions of the article are written in colloquial and conversational language, in particular the History section
• "undergrade" -> "undergraduate"
• The article could use a general copy-edit to check for clarity and flow (done)
• All measurements need to have conversions for non-US readers (done)
• Likewise, non-US readers need an explanation for what a VA hospital is, and D.U.I should be spelled out or linked
• Be consistent in using "%" or "percent" (done)
• Avoid short one- to two-sentence paragraphs (fixed)
• "rennovate" -> "renovate"

Accuracy and verifiability

• About half of the cited sources are from the university itself or are affiliated with the university - should have more independent coverage - I agree that this is important but hard to implement. Racepacket (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• The lead and the infobox give two different figures for number of students - which is correct? (fixed)
• From the numbers in the infobox, it would appear that they employ more than 14,000 faculty and full-time staff - the lead says over 13,000, the source says over 10,000. Which is correct?

• I think that the 10,000 may be non-faculty employees. Racepacket (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Citations needed for:

• The University's students represent all 50 states and 148 foreign countries.
• The University of Miami was chartered in 1925 by a group of citizens who believed an institution of higher learning was needed for the development of their young and growing community. The South Florida land boom was at its peak, resources appeared ample, optimism flowed, and expectations were high. Supporters of the institution believed that the community offered unique opportunities to develop inter-American studies, to further creative work in the arts and letters, and to conduct teaching and research programs in tropical studies. copyvio from umiami.edu website. Racepacket (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
• By the fall of that year, when the first class of 560 students enrolled at the University of Miami, the land boom had collapsed, and hopes for a speedy recovery were dashed by a major hurricane. In the next 15 years the University barely kept afloat. The construction of the first building on campus, now known as the Merrick Building, was put on hold for over two decades due to economic hard times. In the meantime, classes were held at the nearby Anastasia Hotel, with partitions separating classrooms, giving the University the short-lived nickname of "Cardboard College."
• Enrollment increased by more than 4,000 during his tenure, which ended in 1962.
• Historically, UM regulated female student conduct more than men's conduct with a staff under the Dean of Women watching over the women.
• The result was UM's first female commencement speaker, day care, and a Women's Study minor. Following the enactment of Title IX in 1972, and decades of litigation, all organizations, including honorary societies were open to women. The Women's Commission also sought more equitable funding for women's sports.
• The Stanford presidency saw increased emphasis on research, reorganization of administrative structure and construction of new facilities.
• In 1946, UM acquired the former Richmond Naval Air Station, in southwestern Miami, located 12 miles south of the main campus in order to accommodate the post-war increase in students. For two years the South Campus provided housing, dining and recreational facilities and classrooms for about 1100 students, mainly freshmen. From 1948 to present it has been used as a research facility and storage area
• There were nearly 20,000 applications for 2,000 slots in the fall 2008 freshman class. The mean SAT scores and high school GPAs for entering freshmen were the highest ever
• Sixty-six percent of UM students ranked in the top 10% of their high school class.
• UM separates the honorary aspect frequently associated with Board service by having a separate Iron Arrow Honor Society
• Combined holdings of the libraries include over 3.1 million volumes, 15,375 print serial subscriptions, 4 million microforms, and access to more than 42,800 e-journals and 479,000 e-books and databases.
• Over the past three decades, the football program has been named national champion more times (1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 2001) than any other Division I program. The football team was named in the AP Top 25 frequently during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s and many players are drafted into the NFL each year.
• The university signed a 25-year contract to play there through 2033.
• When the City of Miami, the stadium's owner, refused to rennovate the Orange Bowl, the University did not renew its lease, and the city tore down the stadium in March 2008.
• Since 1987, however, the Hurricanes have only played the Florida Gators four times on the gridiron (three times during the regular season and once for a bowl game in the 2004 Peach Bowl).

• Be very careful to avoid copyright infringement / plagiarism - a few sentences are copied almost verbatim from the university website. For example, compare "In July 1934, the University of Miami was reincorporated and the University of Miami Board of Trustees was established" (article) to "In July 1934, the University of Miami was reincorporated and the University of Miami Board of Trustees was established." (source)
• Web links should have access dates (and publishers whenever possible)
• Check formatting in references - a considerable number have doubled periods
• Refs that are included multiple times should be named using the multiple-ref formatting
• Page numbers should be included for PDFs (done)
• Refs 18, 19, 32, 34, 40, 72 are broken
• Note which refs require login/subscription

Broad

• Why do only two of the satellite campuses have subsections?

• Because the Richmond campus is adjacent to the South Campus although they resulted from different property acquisitions.

• The Research section could be expanded considerably (done)
• The Athletics section is too large in comparison to the rest of the article (done)
  • I agree and will try to consense it in light of separate Miami Hurricanes article. Racepacket (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Problems with lack of encyclopedic tone in sections. For example, "The South Florida land boom was at its peak, resources appeared ample, optimism flowed, and expectations were high" sounds like a story or an ad.
• Should avoid advertising the university - present facts neutrally, avoid generalizations and opinons

• After a lot of work, I think that the excessive boosterism has been trimmed from the article. Racepacket (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stability

• The revert warring seems to have died down considerably since this article was last reviewed, but incivility on the talk page continues.

Images

• The first image is a seal, not a crest, and is thus tagged incorrectly. Additionally, the source link is broken
• Source link is also broken for the logos in the infobox (fixed)
• The second image in the Libraries section would fit better elsewhere
• The source link for the source logo gives a different date for its first use than the article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Miami/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article's GA nomination. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have completed the review and believe the reliable source issues are still an obstacle to GA at this time. I am requesting a second opinion to get additional perspective. See my other detailed comments below:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is the fourth GA nomination for this article, and while a lot of progress has been made the article is currently unstable. Please see detailed comments below.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There are a number of stylistic issues raised in the previous GAR that have not been addressed, including one/two sentence paragraphs and inconsistent use of “%” and “percent”.
   [addressed - numbers and percent are spelled out only if they start a sentence Reworded to avoid percent figure at a start of sentence.]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The images in the Athletics section sandwich the text. You may have to delete one of them. (See MOS:IMAGES). The "See also" section is superfluous, as the links either already appear in the article or could easily be incorporated. It should probably be deleted. (See WP:ALSO). And the student paper should not appear in External links. (See WP:UNIGUIDE).
   (done)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The third paragraph of the lead contains statistics that should be referenced (grant dollars, library volumes) and the championship claim should be referenced as well. (See WP:LEADCITE). There are a few other statistics here and there (campus acreage, for example) that should also be referenced.
   (done)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   As noted in the previous GA reviews, the majority of the references are to publications of the university. Of the 126 sources, 72 of them by my count are UM publications. Even granting that articles on universities might rely on self-published sources more than those on other topics, they should still not be a preponderance of the sources. (See WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves). Of the remainder of the references, 25 or more point to various rankings sites, many of which could also be challenged as WP:RS. The article really needs more third-party references to major publications, books, journal articles, and the like. A university of the statue of UM should have an abundance of coverage in major media over the years. There are also three references to the student paper, which is questionable as a WP:RS. While there is no definitive statement I am aware of on the reliability of student papers, there has been much debate on the topic. You should substitute a stronger source if you can. All references to university-linked publications should include the “publisher=” field in the citation template. It is important information. Please also make sure that all the PDFs reference page numbers. Finally, the links on refs 22,23,24,63,72,81,58,104 show as dead on the automated link check. That should be fixed.
   more non-UM references added. All ref links checked.
   Check 78, 87, and 104. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   
   I have checked what I think was 78 and 87 at the time 17:39 on 5 Feb, and they seem fine, but maybe I have been confused by the automatic renumbering. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article seems comprehensive and covers the topics of interest at an appropriate level of detail.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The Rankings section seems a bit much, as none of the rankings are in and of themselves notable (say, top ten or even 25 national rankings). It could be reduced dramatically or even omitted. (See WP:BOOSTER). for a good discussion of rankings. The table of undergraduate admissions is also too much detail, as it does not add anything interesting to the article or support a point made elsewhere.
   (Moved business school rankings to a separate article and cut back on Hispanic Business magazine article. Some say that failure to report mediocre rankings violates WP:BOOSTER.) Other rankings trimmed
   The final sentence of the revised paragraph ("In addition to . . .") is unsourced and contains external links. You could try to work some of the info into the previous paragraph or just delete it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
   done

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The rankings section is a bit boosterish, as discussed in 3b.
   Rankings discussion cut back.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Numerous reversion issues and copyvio deletions since the GA review began render the article too unstable for GA at this time.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The image file:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg in the Athletics section has a fairly weak Fair Use Rationale for a logo. The logo in the infobox, file:Umiami prime logo.svg, has the correct logo rationale. You should either use the same logo and/or rationale or find an image that has not been used in the article already. The same can be said for file: University of Miami logo.png. The PD claim as a raster image is not very credible here. The logo rationale is more appropriate. (See WP:LOGO). (or just work from the rationale for the infobox logo). The source links on these files do not work. This was mentioned in the last GA review, also.
   athleics logo removed. I am unsure what the protocol is if an accurately identified source no longer provides the image. I have changed the URL to the current location of the seal image.
   Check the logos. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC) (done)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   In general, the images are good quality and appropriate. The tables (except as noted) are particularly well done and add interest to the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A lot of work has been done adressing the issues identified in this and the previous GA review. The references are much improved, and aside from formatting issues, are in pretty good shape now. There are other minor issues still open as noted above. Unfortunately, numerous changes over the past few days due to reversions and copyvio deletions makes it impossible to evaluate the remainder of the criteria. The article fails criteria 5, and therefore the GA standard, at this time for that reason.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, I think Racepacket should just stop sending the article to GA repeatedly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The above comment is not the second opinion that was requested, but rather a comment from a recent UM graduate. I agree that it is important that Wikipedia articles should be objective and that college articles have more WP:BOOSTER problems than other articles. Both before and after GA2, we put a lot of work into removing that bias. I also agree that Wikipedia articles should not have excessive dependence on the website of the subject. However, this article cites to a wide variety of sources including Time Magazine, the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the South Florida Business Journal, the Sun Sentinel, a non-fiction book, a graduate dessertation, and official reports that are merely hosted on the UM website. Hence, I would invite a second opinion regarding sources. Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Per the request of the reviewer, I would like to provide another opinion for the article. I'm inclined to agree that the article still uses too many sources from the university itself. This is usually okay for demographics or details about individual schools within the university. Yes, it is going to be difficult to find additional sourcing, but articles can be found through Google news archives or perhaps a university database. I'd recommend looking to other GA/FA university articles to see how they get their sources to determine if they can be applied to this page as well. About the above comment about continuing to nominate the article, I disagree. Some articles can have difficulty getting through GAN the first time, and there is no need to be discouraged if it fails again (I've had several GANs fail and although it wasn't the greatest feeling, helpful comments can assist in improving the article further). Address the other issues raised by Nasty Housecat, and continue to search for additional sources. Consider asking for assistance of the WikiProjects listed on the talk page, including WikiProject Universities, as there are probably experienced members who can help with gathering sources (especially if it means another GA for the project). If you have any questions or need assistance please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will place the review on hold to let the nominator continue work on revisions. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. We will continue to work on the noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well (I was asked to comment here). Also, many of the footnotes are not properly formatted, and need to be filled out with publication details. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The UM website is now less than half of the citations:

Citation sources^*

Source	Count
miami.edu	62
newspapers	16
books & dissertations	5
other	51
Total	134

^* does not reflect references moved out of the article after 2/4/10

I am sorry to have to say the article is not eligible for GA at this time due to the stability issues noted above. I respect and acknowledge the amount of work that went into improving the article for this review, and do think it is much improved from where it started out. When the article stabilizes again and the copyvio issues are resolved, I hope you will not be too discouraged to try again. Best of luck. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)