Talk:University of Houston/Archive 2

GA nomination failed (11 June 2006)

For these reasons :

• Needs a bit of copyedit.
• ...comprehensive doctoral degree... what is that? like people can comprehend their Ph. D. degree?
• Why quote this "all persons having completed the necessary educational requirements to enter at a level contingent with higher education needs." if there is no source or person that said it?
• a dramatic growth should be changed.
• Today, should be changed as time doesn't exist in encyclopedias. Same for this The current UH System chancellor is Jay Gogue, who is also the president of the University of Houston.
• UH offers a full range, why full range?

Lincher 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Northwest Campus Satelite

Would this be the page to add the current proposed/cancelled Northwest satellite campus? Or would that be over at University_of_Houston_System? It seems this would be of interest. Chron.com and daily cougar have good articles on the topic. --Rgb9000 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a UH System subject, not UH Brianreading 08:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

links to homepages of the different colleges

I'm going to add them next to the name of the colleges under "Academic Colleges" Dunkerya 04:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Renu Khator info

I don't feel that this information is notable enough to be put on Wikipedia yet. After all, she hasn't even accepted the position yet! Let's wait 'til she does, otherwise it's extraneous. We won't have to wait that long to know anyway! What do you guys think? Brianreading 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a WP:RS for the info, go ahead and put it in. If not, wait for one. My 2¢. --Evb-wiki 20:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can be sourced, there are legitimate press releases from UH that can substantiate this, but my argument is that it's not really notable enough. There are no other past finalists mentioned for the position... I think it would be very appropriate, but only after it's certain that she has accepted the position. Brianreading 08:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA (21 October 2007)

Please resolve the lists problem first. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For others who are catching up, Rschen7754 means that the lists should try to be incorporated into prose and all items should be notable and encyclopedic. Brianreading 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I've reverted some edits to the infobox that removed the nobel laureates and public transit entries. The editor that removed such info seemed to claim that they did not belong or that these items were POV. I disagree with this analysis for several reasons:

1. These are standard entries within the University Infobox template. If this information didn't belong in the infobox, then why were such entries created as a standard portion of the template and have stayed that way? I'd argue that since this is a popular template on Wikipedia, it most likely has gone through extensive review. Again, these entries are NOT custom entries within the infobox.
2. If working by example is taken into consideration, it should be noted that at least one featured article (Texas A&M University), and several good articles (Florida State University, University of Chicago, University of Texas at Austin, et al.) all have nobel laureates sections in their infoboxes. If these articles meet featured article and good article standards, and have most likely been through rigorous reviews, chances are there is a consensus that it is not a matter of POV, nor is it inappropriate info for Wikipedia.
3. Concerning the Public transit entry, the University of Houston is an urban campus located near the Downtown Houston area. METRO buses can be easily seen around campus and are a notable aspect of the campus' urban environment. There are eight routes alone that pass through the campus (namely routes 29, 30, 42, 52, 68, 77, 80, and 88). Moreover, the University of Houston campus has been a topic of public concern as a part of the proposed METRO University Line in Houston. It just doesn't make sense not to mention that UH is hub for public transit access.

Brianreading 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly fine. I just didn't think that either of those two tidbits added anything to the article (or to the infobox, really). For example, I suppose it's fine to put how many Nobel laureates a university has in its infobox, but that just seems like information that's much more relevantly covered in the text of the actual article. The actual number is sort of pointless, and putting it in an infobox seems vaguely self-congratulatory. It's fine if you disagree; I don't feel so strongly about it that I'd go to the mattresses over the point.

I suppose I just think a university infobox should be a place to summarize important information: number of students, important people, location, etc. The number of Nobel laureates and access to public transit doesn't meet that threshold for me. Cheers! Esrever 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Improper subpage

Sorry, but contents of the page University of Houston/List of NCAA Division I sports have got to be removed. Subpages aren't allowed in mainspace (that is, subpages of articles aren't allowed). I recommend just providing a link to a U of H webpage or catalog that has a list of sports, per the policy that we're not a guide, but I'll leave the specific resolution of this to editors more familiar with the main article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the link and nominated the page for deletion. Brianreading 05:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging NCAA Division I sports at the University of Houston

This shouldn't be merged, as most of the sports are already covered in prose, and the more minor sports can be contributed to at the Houston Cougars article. I just think its unnecessary here. Because no other person has spoken up about this for quite a while, I'll have to assume that nobody really cares, and I'll remove the request for this to be merged. Brianreading (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination: On hold

Specific things to change for GA promotion:

• ...breaks new ground in such vital areas as... This is an uncited and POV statement in favor of the school. Research by definition is "breaking new ground."
• UH hosts a variety of theatre, concerts, lectures, and intercollegiate sports. "A variety of theater" sounds awkward and should be rephrased.
• On March 7, 1927, trustees of the Board of Education... Board of Education of what region? Houston? Texas?
• unanimously passed a historic resolution Why historic? And according to who? This sounds again like pro-UH POV.
• "Breaks new ground" appears again under "Faculty and research."
• The "Rankings" section starts off well but sort of falls apart as it goes, becoming just a series of one-sentence paragraphs. Please integrate them into more coherent prose.
• Same thing with "Facilities" - a lot of short, one- or two-sentence paragraphs.
• Frontier Fiesta, a re-creation of a 19th-century Western town, with music, food and living historical exhibits, is a major event on campus each spring semester. Kind of awkwardly put together, particularly the "with music, food and living historical exhibits" clause. "With" is sort of an odd word to use -- "featuring" ? "is a celebration that includes" ?
• embodying a decidedly non-traditional take on cheerleading - original research?
• The student body's rich ethnic mix combines with the culinary expertise of hotel and restaurant management students to produce an International Food Festival bursting with international flavors. This sounds straight out of an admissions pamphlet, particularly the "bursting with..." part. Please de-POV and rephrase to an encyclopedic standard -- tell what occurs and why it's important, not how great it is.
• "The Cougar Paw" - it talks about the history of the Paw and only subtly hints at its importance/significance ("now-adopted symbol of UH pride"). This section should approach from a different angle, stating in the first line exactly what the symbol is, when it's used, and why it's important, and then going into the background of it.
• (In "Athletics"): ...59-year history of success... A bit POV, although I admit it's less clear than earlier examples. Everyone wins at something, and so every school can point to a handful of championships as a "history of success"; this would be better stated in more neutral terms.

General things to change for GA promotion:

• All citations should use {{cite web}} or other {{cite}} templates.
• Just as a note (I fixed this when I went through), full dates should be linked to enable date preferences (e.g. June 4, 1934) but years alone shouldn't be unless the link adds to the context somehow (e.g. October 1934).
• "Traditions" is a rather sparsely-cited section. I wasn't verifying every statement in citations, and I understand that one citation can cover a lot of information, so I'm happy to take you on your word that that material is all covered, if it is; but if it isn't, it should be cited.
• "UH in popular culture" has no citations.

Not binding for GA promotion, but these would improve the article:

• "Traditions" section could probably use with an introductory line of some kind, because as it is it's an unintroduced list of a few campus traditions. I'd like to see something like "UH is home to a variety of rich traditions dating from X...", which leads you into the topic as a whole. See Wikipedia:Summary style. This was very well-done in "Campus" and "Athletics".
• "Academics" starts off with a list, which is frowned upon in FA nominations (if that's where you're headed with this in the long run). It should be converted to prose, although I sympathize with how that's hard to do in this instance.
• Certain elements of section organization could be shuffled. "Media and entertainment" and "Traditions" seem like aspects of Student Life to me, but do feel free to arrange is how it feels intuitively to you. "UH in popular culture" should be a top-level section on its own, as it is decidedly not a subtopic of "Media and entertainment," which deals with student media and organizations; it deals with outside portrayals of UH, which is a totally different subject. Speaking of which, "Media and entertainment" could probably be expanded to cover all student organizations, because there are likely some non-media groups that merit mention (though I could be wrong).
• With strong academic programs in the arts, media, business, hospitality management, law, as well as a successful athletics program, the University of Houston has seen many now notable persons pass through its halls. This is a rather stylized ("pass through its halls") and mildly POV statement; it just strikes me as more for University literature than for an encyclopedia.
• "Parking and transit" - just a judgment call, but this doesn't really strike me as an encyclopedic aspect of the University, unless it's been discussed at length or is considered important more than one might usually think (e.g. if the shuttle bus is really popular or vital in student life, or something).
• The images clump up a bit around "Campus" and "Student life" -- just something I noticed, though, I'll leave it to your discretion.
• Generally, there should be at least two subsections to a section, or none at all ("Traditions," "Media and entertainment," "Athletics").

Overall, this is a pretty good article. Almost all the things I've listed to be changed are pretty quick fixes, and I'll promote it once they are addressed. Systemically, though -- and this isn't on the list of mandatory fixes for GA, but I'll assume you're looking forward to FA -- I see sort of a mix of stylistic approaches in the article. The dominant one is strongly encyclopedic, which is good -- listing the facts, describing the importance, and giving the overview (e.g. "Demographics," "Faculty and research," the whole "History" section -- all very well done). From time to time, though, I see a slightly pro-UH, admission-pamphlet-y, sort of general-interest vein to the article's content -- like a campus guide for incoming freshman. Just keep in mind that everything brought up should be mentioned in terms of its importance and relevance to UH as a whole, not simply because it's an aspect of the University. You could write pages on end about every minute aspect of UH; since you have to make critical decisions as to what to include and what to ignore, you should explain why this material made the cut. Rather than telling the reader that UH has a Cougar Paw, a campus newspaper, and a radio station, those things should be explained in their context as important to the student body and as historical elements of the University that make it what it is. Dylan (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rereading my comments, this comes off like every single sentence needs to be justified explicitly by how important it is. That's not what I meant to say. What I do mean to say is that things like "Traditions," "Athletics," and student organizations are fundamentally important subjects for any university article. The article should give a broad overview of those subjects in relation to UH, which naturally includes their relative importance, influence, and history. I mention this because certain parts here -- like "Media and entertainment" and "Traditions" -- tend to list media and traditions, respectively, without giving the broader view of those subjects at UH in general or explaining why those listed examples are particularly important or exemplary of the subtopic as a whole. Sorry for not being very articulate about this the first time. Dylan (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dylan,

Hi, Thanks for taking the time and effort to look over our article! This sort of critical evaluation is exactly what we've been needing! I will enact your suggested revisions as soon as possible, but I do have a few concerns with a few of them.

You said: All citations should use {{cite web}} or other {{cite}} templates..

However, the citation templates page notes this:

The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, while other editors find them annoying, particularly when used inline in the text. Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to another without consensus,

This is also in the style guideline.

Again, thanks so much for your help!

Brianreading (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry about that; I humbly retract that request. However, I do find those templates easier to deal with, so if you don't mind, I'd like to go through and institute the use of {{cite}} templates myself. Dylan (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! Thanks!Brianreading (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to follow up, I believe I've remedied all the concerns you had with the article before promoting it to GA status. Let me know if there is anything else I need to do! Thanks for your help! Brianreading (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's great! Promoted. Dylan (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)