Jump to content

Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Thomas144 (talk | contribs)
129 edits
No edit summary
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/Archive 1) (bot
 
(45 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{afd-merged-from|Soule Hall|Soule Hall|26 January 2013}}
{{afd-merged-from|Soule Hall|Soule Hall|26 January 2013}}


{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=High|NH=yes|NH-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|NH=yes|NH-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Schools|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Schools|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=mid}}
}}{{ArticleHistory
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1=GAN
|action1date=02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
|action1date=02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Line 16: Line 18:
|action2result=not listed
|action2result=not listed
|action2oldid=531987953
|action2oldid=531987953

|action3=GAN
|action3date=23:12, 28 November 2017
|action3link=Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA2
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=


|currentstatus=FGAN
|currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=education
|topic=education
}}
}}
{{Archive box|[[/Archive 1|Archive 1 (– April 2008)]]}}
{{Backwardscopy
{{Backwardscopy
|author = Surhone, L. M., Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F.
|author = Surhone, L. M., Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F.
Line 26: Line 33:
|title = Chang-Rae Lee: A Gesture Life, Native speaker, Princeton University, Phillips Exeter Academy, Yale University
|title = Chang-Rae Lee: A Gesture Life, Native speaker, Princeton University, Phillips Exeter Academy, Yale University
|org = Betascript Publishing/VDM Publishing House
|org = Betascript Publishing/VDM Publishing House
|comments = {{OCLC|699515466}}, ISBN 9786132440020.
|comments = {{OCLC|699515466}}, {{ISBN|9786132440020}}.
|bot=LivingBot
|bot=LivingBot
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{find sources notice}}
| algo = old(555d)

| archive = Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/Archive %(counter)d
== Restored content ==
| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 150K
I just restored a large portion of material that was deleted, where the editor felt (in my words) that the material was unreferenced, irrelevant, or advertising copy. In restoring content, I have left out what I agree to be advertising language or highly non-notable info (lists of houses, etc.), but have restored things like lists of academic buildings and dormitories, the summer school program, and mentions of Exeter in print and film, as I believe that many readers of Wikipedia would find it noteworthy. This means, however, that much of the restored material is still lacking in suitable references, so further citing of statements in the article is always welcome. --[[User:Ken Gallager|Ken Gallager]] ([[User talk:Ken Gallager|talk]]) 13:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
:There is still much work to be done. There are still unsourced claims, flowery language, and information that needs to be removed to have a well written ''encyclopedia'' article. Remember, Wikipedia is not just a place to dump every piece of information you can find about a subject, it must be relevant to a general overview of a subject. The neutrality tag needs to remain there until these issues are addressed. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— [[User:Ocatecir|<font color="#660099">Ocat</font><font color="#333333">ecir]]</font>[[User talk:Ocatecir|<sup>T</sup>]]</span> 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 3
== Re-restored content ==
}}{{archives}}

Material that is cited from the leading historian on Exter, Echols, and written in the exact words of that historian, is hardly "unreference, irrelvent, or advertsing copy". Moreover, people who come to this page want as much accurate and true historical information as possible. There is no reason to remove any relevant information when it is written and cited appropriately- Also, why is the founder of Facebook lumped in with historical figures of America within the intro- that does not make sense, Facebook founder is appropriately listed within the alumni list already, and why should historical information about the badge of the school's most noted fraternity be removed, it is relevant info to that section, and talked about just briefly in an appropriate manner, a page is not devoted to it.

In essence, the restored page is the most well composed and properly cited example of PEA, and no one should alter an expert's words based on their own feelings. There is no excuse to destroy cited material, and then to leave a sloppy page that doesn't have clarity to it and in need of citations. A cycle of destroying a quality cited article with the most available info about the topic, and then leaving a butcherd poor example, with less material available to the viewer, does not make sense.[[User:Exeterexpert|Exeterexpert]] ([[User talk:Exeterexpert|talk]]) 03:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed that the wholesale deletion of material by a previous editor was hasty and inappropriate. That was why I restored most of it. My comment about references still stands, however. First, there are still large sections of the article where references have not yet been provided and should be. (For instance, is the successful matriculation of Exeter graduates into the nation's top universities really due to the Harkness table method of teaching? Shouldn't there be a cite for that?) Second, while the Echols reference is clearly a highly detailed wealth of information about the school and should be used wherever possible, it is, after all, published by the Exeter Press. Some additional citation, published by an institution not linked to Exeter, about the national and international standing of the school would be welcome, and I look forward to seeing them. --[[User:Ken Gallager|Ken Gallager]] ([[User talk:Ken Gallager|talk]]) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

****I will go through this article with a fine-tooth comb to polish it, make sure of complete historical accuracy, and put in missing citations. Some of the bulk of the facts, are coming from the links at the bottom, but have not been cited within the text, and should be. I will do that. As for Echols, he is not a historian specifically asociated with Exter, thereby there is a level of neutrality to the writing, and the first offical publishing wasn't even under Exter Press, Exeter Press re-published the book, additionally, later on.[[User:Exeterexpert|Exeterexpert]] ([[User talk:Exeterexpert|talk]]) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

****Statements like Exeter being a "national institution" is relevent- because it was used in that manner, students from the various states in the Union would all go there, for the purpose of distinguishing themselves- that statemnt is fine, but when people come in and mess with Echols original comment and start putting in things like Exter being " one of the world's greatest schools" it destoys Echols intent and feels more like a statement of vanity and ego. Yes, Exeter is great and will always "objectively" be one of America's, and the world's, finest secondary schools, and anyway the topic is talked about, even most modestly, will always come off as awsome and intimidating in comparison to most high schools in America. Some people will have to deal with that fact on their own, and jelousy is not any of our problem. Also, if some attacks are being made from Andover, people intersted in Andover can do the additional research to polish up that article better, rather than attacking Exeter's in some futile attempt of "out-shinning" PEA. Having said that though, I will also try to discuss the topic with an approach towards neutrality, and not gloss over points like in the first Andover and Exeter football game, Andover was the victor and continues to hold the record over Exter in football games won. I will also maintain a nice overview of the topic, minor sections like the school tie, fraternities, even the badge of the school's most noted fraternity, is all perfectly fine and useful info for their sections they are part off, as long as the info is direct, short, and with the purpose of rounding out the complete picture of what Exeter is, and has been all about. They should stay and are fine. But we should becareful of editors coming in and trying to add every point about a minor section, or even a major section for that matter, and throwing off the continuity of what is meant to be a nice general overview of the topic of Exter. It is impossible to put in every point about a highly accomplished school that has existed for over a century. We should also be careful about "vanity placement" of alumni- I dont't think the founder of Facebook belongs with American historical figures who were responsible for buildings Exeter's reputation- not to say that Facebook isn't a fine accomplishment. So what I will do is add a closing section at the bottom of the page that discusses some of the major achievements of Exeter's most recent alumni- this will be a nice completion to the overview on Exeter and a good tie to the introduction that talks about early noted alumni. The operative word though, is "major", Facebook will be one of them, but we also have to becareful of every recent alumnus that wants their 15 minutes of fame and is adding their name to the list. Major accomplishments, and or alumni, should have some bluelink attached to them to emphasize noteworthiness. In closing, I will invest some time on this article, and you will see alot of "Exeterexpert" entries, but when I'm done, I ask that Wikipedia's administrators look over it so we don't have this cycle all over again of destroying and having to build it back up again- no article will ever be perfect, that is just a fact of life, we can only get it to a great place and then preserve it.[[User:Exeterexpert|Exeterexpert]] ([[User talk:Exeterexpert|talk]]) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


== Restoration complete==

The article has been fully cited, organized, and fact-checked. It now represents an excellent overview of the school. We can't really expect anything more than this for a Wikipedia article. Please maintain it. Thank you.[[User:Exeterexpert|Exeterexpert]] ([[User talk:Exeterexpert|talk]]) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

== A tradition of excellence? ==

Uh ... am I the only one who finds this title totally and entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article? Barring objections, I will delete the section and put the "notable allumni" link under a "See also". <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.8.43.2|190.8.43.2]] ([[User talk:190.8.43.2|talk]]) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Please take a look at [[WP:WPSCH#Structure]] for a guideline on the "Notable alumni" (please don't move them to a See also) section. A motto isn't necessarily inappropriate although the case for it is stronger when supported by third party coverage and encyclopedic discourse about its significance in the article. &ndash; [[User:Zedla|Zedla]] <small>([[User_talk:Zedla|talk]])</small> 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Sockpuppetry and hoaxes ==

Hello,
Per [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs|this sockpuppet report]], and [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs|this checkuser request]], [[User:Exeterexpert]], an editor who has made significant edits to this page, has been confirmed as an abusive sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer. The Checkuser (see bottom of WP:RFCU link) indicates this person has a long history of adding hoax material to articles; unfortunately, they also seem to have a history of adding legitimate information as well, so their changes can't just be blindly-reverted.
I do not have enough knowledge of this particular subject to be helpful, but I suggest those of you who do, and regularly maintain this page, go back and review [[User:Exeterexpert]]'s additions, remove anything they've added that can't be sourced and verified, and add citations for anything that can be sourced but is currently unreferenced, to remove any suspicion of the legitimacy of the article.

They appear to be somewhat prolific, so if a new account shows up lobbying for re-insertion of any material you folks end up deleting as unsourced, I'd suggest being a bit wary, and insisting even more strongly than perhaps we usually do on verifiable, reliable sources for everything they try to add. They tend to cite "rare" sources that they have in their possession, so I guess emphasis on "verifiable".

I'm not checking each article I tag with this information, so if you've already noticed this misbehavior and dealt with it, feel free to mark this section resolved or something. --[[User:Barneca|barneca]] ([[User talk:Barneca|talk]]) 15:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

== Echols ref ==

Ocatecir, Edward321, and everyone else: If you're going to remove the "ref name=Echols" PLEASE go through and either update all the "harv|Echols..." references which point there OR update/remove statements supported by that reference. &ndash; [[User:Zedla|Zedla]] <small>([[User_talk:Zedla|talk]])</small> 07:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
:Roger. <span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; border:none; font-size:10pt; padding:2px; line-height:10pt; width:30em;">— [[User:Ocatecir|<font color="#660099">Ocat</font><font color="#333333">ecir]]</font>[[User talk:Ocatecir|<sup>T</sup>]]</span> 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

== Revert: mottos, other information ==

People can figure out plenty from the info box that is detailed in the article, but the information should still be presented in encyclopedic form.
I do agree that this article has some neutrality / point of view issues, but please do not delete chunks of text before discussing it first. I'd be happy to work on revising this, but let's figure out what really needs to removed. --[[User:Runnermonkey|Runnermonkey]] ([[User talk:Runnermonkey|talk]]) 05:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for not discussing. Maybe you can explain the purpose of having the information in encyclopedic form? The translation is already in the info box and explaining what the mottos "reflect" seems to be largely an opportunity for self-congratulation in this context. (Obviously, the motto "Not for self" emphasizes community; obviously, "The end depends on the beginning" emphasizes hard work.) The only explanation I can see as useful is the last one, which explains the Calvinist philosophy. How about we keep that part or expand it, and delete the rest of the stuff about the mottos? [[User:Mjl0509|Mjl0509]] ([[User talk:Mjl0509|talk]]) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Information is usually summarized in the info box and later explained in the body of the article (campus, athletics, etc.). I agree that the motto meanings are obvious, but I think for the article to be informative and accessible we should assume the reader will ''not'' know what they mean. With that in mind I'm more inclined to leave at least part of it, as you suggested. I don't think a translation is enough. I definitely agree about it sounding a bit PR-ish as it is — possibly straight from Exeter. Perhaps we can rephrase it and clean it up a bit? --[[User:Runnermonkey|Runnermonkey]] ([[User talk:Runnermonkey|talk]]) 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be down with that. Is there some way we can get more at the heart of what the mottoes are about, rather than just what values they reflect? If there's no bigger story behind them than just they reflect selflessness (which is pretty clear from "not for self") and hard work (which is also pretty clear,) I'm not sure we should explain them. I like the part about Calvinism for χαριτι θεου – is there a story of that sort behind either "Non sibi" or "Finis origine pendet"? Actually, this gets to the heart of a question here: the section claims to be about "origins and philosophy," but right now, it's just the founding family and the mottos. If there's some way we could include more information about why the school was founded and under what auspices, the section would be great. Unfortunately, I know precious little about Exeter's founding, but if someone can point me in the right direction, I can try to help with that. [[User:Mjl0509|Mjl0509]] ([[User talk:Mjl0509|talk]]) 05:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


== Removal of Neutrality Tag ==

I think is is fair to remove the neutrality tag from this article. I believe that the tag may be a left over from when the article had some rather subjective categories, such as a "Tradition of Excellence". From what I can see, those subjective elements have been addressed, the article apprears very objective and written approriately. I have removed the tag, but if others feel otherwise- please discuss below and replace tag if needed. thank you.[[User:Dr.Oak|Dr.Oak]] ([[User talk:Dr.Oak|talk]]) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== Quality ==

As a first-time visitor to this article about my school, I'm surprised and disappointed at how bad this article is. I'm not used to Wikipedia editing, so I won't try; but here are my thoughts.

First, the structure is terrible. There is one good opening sentence, and then the reader gets bogged down in a list of 19th-century alumni, what people who attended Exeter call themselves, and somebody named Akerman, who appears not to be listed in the Academy's records. Ask yourself: Does anyone want to know any of this? Answer: No. Should the second paragraph focus more on what is important about Exeter -- basic information that people look to an encyclopedia to provide? Yes. So let's move the list of 19th-century alumni to the alumni section, and delete the business about whether people are listed in records. Who cares about that?

Then we have a discussion of the "Ten Schools Admissions Organization," which I have never heard of -- even though I attended Exeter during the 1980s and have volunteered for it ever since. This TSAO material should either be deleted or moved to a separate admissions section. It is not general information about Exeter that people might want to read at the top of the article.

Second, there are some passages that are simply bizarre in their choice of words. I thought the Harkness method was Socratic -- or, if you will, Platonic. Not Aristotelian. Could someone with some classical knowledge please check this? Then certain groups are said to "represent" certain percentages of the student body. This again is bad diction. Either a group is, accounts for, comprises, or makes up a certain percentage of the student body, or it doesn't. Groups don't "represent" themselves. This is just one example of the article's current tendency to choose a three- or four-syllable word, when a shorter, simpler word would do. We want clarity in this article, not pomposity.

Third, and speaking of pomposity, there is a breathless focus on Exeter's connections to Harvard. I attended Harvard too, but I can guarantee you that no one cares whether Exeter's tie manufacturer also makes ties for Harvard. Let's cut this, shall we? Then we have an account of how Exeter's debate team (which I was on) gives you the "communications skills required for success at" -- you guessed it -- "Harvard." How about communications skills required for success in -- wait for it -- college? Graduate school? Life? Most of the references to Harvard can safely be stricken.

In sum, this article is unfocused, poorly structured, and clunkily written. Please consider what the average Wikipedia user wants to know, and please understand that there are other colleges in the world besides the one that this article keeps mentioning. Cut the navel-gazing, and just give us the salient facts. Exeter can stand on its own, without the promotionalism that is still too prevalent here. It pains me to say this, but as of now the Andover article is a much better introduction to its subject than the Exeter article is. Whoever has been writing this article needs to step back and let it be edited. [[User:ExeterCrew|ExeterCrew]] ([[User talk:ExeterCrew|talk]]) 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== PEA in film ==

I agree with the "triviality" tag someone put there. With the exception of ''A Separate Peace'' which was filmed there - and based on the author's having gone there - the others mostly consist of the word "Exeter" being mentioned, often in throwaway contexts. Watching those films would add nothing whatsoever to the viewer's "information" about PEA, whereas at least ASP "shows" what the place looks like, and to an extent, how their students lived in a bygone era. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] ([[User talk:Huw Powell|talk]]) 00:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. "A Separate Peace" should stay; the others should go. --[[User:Runnermonkey|Runnermonkey]] ([[User talk:Runnermonkey|talk]]) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:"A Separate Peace" should definitely stay. But I think "Trading Places" should stay, too, because it's pretty funny. Regards,[[User:MarmadukePercy|MarmadukePercy]] ([[User talk:MarmadukePercy|talk]]) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Okay, I didn't see the film, but I read [[A Widow for One Year|the novel]] by John Irving that ''[[The Door in the Floor]]'' is based on, and there is a strong Exeter content running through the book, particularly the belief of certain characters in the value of the "old-boy network" among "Exonian" alumni and some teachers.--[[User:Ken Gallager|Ken Gallager]] ([[User talk:Ken Gallager|talk]]) 12:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I have neither read the Irving book nor seen the film, but I'm putting them on my list. Thanks for the heads-up.Regards,[[User:MarmadukePercy|MarmadukePercy]] ([[User talk:MarmadukePercy|talk]]) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Removing NPOV Tag ==

After reviewing this article, I see no need for this tag, which has been there for several months. If there is disagreement, let me know your dispute and I'll do my best to address it (or better yet, fix it yourself). Otherwise, I don't see a point to having it on this important article
[[User:Pcbene|Pcbene]] ([[User talk:Pcbene|talk]]) 18:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up the fact tags and added a few refs, so I'm going to go ahead and remove that tag as well. [[User:Pcbene|Pcbene]] ([[User talk:Pcbene|talk]]) 18:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== Restructured Article ==


'''Changes That I Made'''

As this article was becoming unwieldy I made some edits to the structure. The original article only contained one level of heading. I have separated this into two levels and have attempted to group similar content. In the course of doing so, I added some new sections. I created a history section, where I grouped Origins and the Harkness gift, and added a section on coeducation. The latter is light so someone with more knowledge may want to add additional content. I also moved the information on the athletic facilities to the "Facilities" section.

I added information on which interscholastic sports are offered. I also added information on certain non-core academic programs, such as the summer institutes and conferences. I referenced the new information.

My goal was not to remove existing information. I did remove some external links that were dead or several years out of date. I also trimmed the list of books and films about Exeter as about half of the references were trivial. I expect overtime people will re-add them, so we should consider whether to have a separate page for this.

Finally, I did make some grammatical edits to make the article more easily understood.

'''Additional Ways to Improve the Article'''

Most of my changes were structural. I think there is still much work to be done before we have a quality article. Here are my thoughts:

In general, the article contains too much trivial information. In particular, there are facts that relate to the way Exeter was 50 years ago. While these would be significant for a history of the school, they do not belong in an encylopaedia entry.

The introductory paragraph is too long and contains information that is not core to understanding the academy.

In the Harkness section, the information on matriculation should probably be moved to a new "Academics" section. The coeducation section should be expanded.

The Student Body section could include information beyond statistics. For instance, perhaps this would be a good place to note activities people participate in, or perhaps it should live in a different section entirely.

Under finances, I'm not sure the endowments of ''other'' schools matter. No, not even Andover.

The facilities section contains too much information on architecture and history. If the information is that important the building should have a separate wikipedia entry.

The information in athletics that I've grouped in "Championships" seems boastful. This should really be replaced with sourced information.

The Exeter's Emblems sections contains extraneous information. Neckware and non-existent fraternities are irrelevant in this context.

I think any alumni mentioned in the article should either be those who truly stand out from the rest; or a few example of people in different fields. A don't think the people there are the best indication of the school. It includes people who may not be noteworthy when compared to other candidates.

Overall, I think the writing could be more clear and more direct. This would improve the readability of the article. I tried to do a lot today, and I'm sure some of the material I've edited could also be improved upon.

--[[Special:Contributions/91.113.82.133|91.113.82.133]] ([[User talk:91.113.82.133|talk]]) 20:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== "Best preparatory school..."==
I removed this:
"Because of its large endowment, the scope of its physical plant, the depth of its faculty and a long tradition of sending graduates to the nation's top colleges, Phillips Exeter is widely regarded as one of the United States's best [[university-preparatory school|preparatory school]]s.(ref)[http://privateschool.about.com/b/2009/02/13/spotlight-on-phillips-exeter-academy.htm Spotlight on Phillips Exeter Academy, Robert Kennedy, About.com](/ref)"

It's not clear that the source says this. Also, it's not clear that this is a reliable source, even if it did. Furthermore, it seems the inclusion of the statement violates NPOV anyway. --[[User:Mkorman|mkorman]] ([[User talk:Mkorman|talk]]) 12:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

== Dorms ==


== External links modified ==
It doesn't make sense to provide a list of the dormitories here. This is an encyclopedia article about the school, and should strive to give the reader a view of the modern school and how it developed. The name of a dormitory (and it's benefactor) does nothing to contributed to this purpose. I would suggest -- at most -- making a statement that the school has x dorms housing y resident students. If you're going to list dorms, why not also the physical plant, the faculty's day care center, etc? If a particular dormitory is important or notable, perhaps it should have its own page. It is my intent to delete this section, but I'd like to hear from other users first.
--[[Special:Contributions/91.115.172.242|91.115.172.242]] ([[User talk:91.115.172.242|talk]]) 08:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
== The lede ==


I have just modified 12 external links on [[Phillips Exeter Academy]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817695825|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
The lede now contains information which, if used at all, needn't be in the lede, and should be place lower down in the body of the piece. I refer to this paragraph: "Exeter is a member of a group of leading American secondary schools, the Eight Schools Association (ESA), begun informally in 1973-74 and formalized in 2006. Exeter was host to the annual meeting of ESA in April 2009. Exeter is also a member of the Ten Schools Admissions Organization, founded in 1966. There is a seven-school overlap of membership between the two groups." This is not essential information that belongs up top, in my view. [[User:MarmadukePercy|MarmadukePercy]] ([[User talk:MarmadukePercy|talk]]) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224110320/http://www.exeter.edu/governance/7856.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/governance/7856.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405142954/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Exeter_Bulletin/summer_05/BehindEverySuccessfulMan.pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Exeter_Bulletin/summer_05/BehindEverySuccessfulMan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117093740/http://exeter.edu/student_life/8471_8476.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/student_life/8471_8476.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150312111240/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/exeter_bulletin/fall_01/past.html to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Exeter_Bulletin/fall_01/past.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603224754/http://exeter.edu/documents/The_Original_Deed_of_Gift.pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/The_Original_Deed_of_Gift.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309090316/http://exeter.edu/documents/Exeter_Bulletin/Classroom_Portraits_Fall_07.pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/Exeter_Bulletin/Classroom_Portraits_Fall_07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601121050/http://www.exeter.edu/map/link/forrestalbowldlink.html to http://www.exeter.edu/map/link/forrestalbowldlink.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130406062028/http://www.exeter.edu/map/link/fishertheaterlink.html to http://www.exeter.edu/map/link/fishertheaterlink.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105112751/http://www.exeter.edu/student_life/7944_7959.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/student_life/7944_7959.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121224005633/http://www.exeter.edu/documents/EBook.pdf to http://www.exeter.edu/documents/EBook.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116051529/http://www.exeter.edu/summer_programs/7324_7416.aspx to http://www.exeter.edu/summer_programs/7324_7416.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090728204959/http://www.sya.org/pages/sitepage.cfm?id=22&pagename=A%20Brief%20History%20of%20SYA to http://www.sya.org/pages/sitepage.cfm?id=22&pagename=A%20Brief%20History%20of%20SYA


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:I moved the paragraph into a new subsection ("Present affiliations") within the History section. --[[User:Ken Gallager|Ken Gallager]] ([[User talk:Ken Gallager|talk]]) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::Why not delete this "present affiliations" material entirely? It's irrelevant. --[[User:ExeterCrew|ExeterCrew]] ([[User talk:ExeterCrew|talk]]) 13:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
== Competitive Admissions ==


{{Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA2}}
I see nothing describing how exclusive PEA is, typical academic backgrounds, admission requirements, or even the admissions process. How many of its students previously attended public vs. private schools? Maybe its common knowledge that admission is highly competitive, but, if so, it should be stated in the article. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Don't Be Evil|Don't Be Evil]] ([[User talk:Don't Be Evil|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Don't Be Evil|contribs]]) 14:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg Nominated for Deletion==
{|
|-
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]]
| An image used in this article, [[commons:File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg|File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg]], has been nominated for deletion at [[Wikimedia Commons]] in the following category: ''Deletion requests - No timestamp given''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant [[commons:File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg|image page (File:Portrait of John Phillips.jpeg)]]


==Tuition Data==
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 15:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I added historical tuition data to the page, it was deleted by a user with no reason as to why. is this inappropriate for this page? it was accurate, referenced, and useful. It is visible in the history. I added the same data to [[Phillips_Academy#Tuition_and_financial_aid|Phillips Academy]] as well and planned to add more.
|}


[[User:Rmf34|Rmf34]] ([[User talk:Rmf34|talk]]) 00:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
== Importance of the way the bell rings ==


==Edit war on lede==
Could someone clarify me on the importance of it with regard to academic facilities? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Weihang7|Weihang7]] ([[User talk:Weihang7|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Weihang7|contribs]]) 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It looks like there's an edit war on the lede. Any chance we can get this sorted out? Does the page need autoconfirmed protection? {{ping|Cullen328}}, {{ping|BruhRun}}, {{ping|ZimZalaBim}}, {{ping|GuardianH}}, {{ping|Browndc3}}. I'd tag in the IP editor(s) but there's too many IP addresses to reasonably tackle. Thanks.


My two cents is that the IPs have made several constructive edits (such as noting Exeter's first black student), and I've tried to improve the sourcing for that. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Phillips_Exeter_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1253524887 blanking the sexual misconduct section] was inappropriate. I also think that Exeter is a very good and extraordinarily rich school (nb: I did not go to Exeter) and that the lede should reflect that.
== Cilley Hall is named for Bradbury L. Cilley ==


[[User:Namelessposter|Namelessposter]] ([[User talk:Namelessposter|talk]]) 18:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I keep correcting this and someone keeps reverting my change. Cilley Hall is not named for Bradbury Cilley, the 19th century congressman, who had no connection with the Academy. It is named for Bradbury Longfellow Cilley, who taught Classics at the Academy and with Soule and Wentworth was 1/3 of the "great triumvirate" <ref>http://archive.org/stream/phillipsexeterac008497mbp/phillipsexeterac008497mbp_djvu.txt</ref>
[[User:Thomas144|Thomas144]] ([[User talk:Thomas144|talk]]) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:I have semi-protected the article for one month. Please let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. [[User:Namelessposter|Namelessposter]] ([[User talk:Namelessposter|talk]]) 18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:07, 28 October 2024

Former good article nomineePhillips Exeter Academy was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
January 9, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
November 28, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Phillips Exeter Academy. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Criterion

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Failed due to issues laid out below and lack of continued changes.

Current todos

[edit]

Given the amount of work I'm guessing this will have to get up to GA status (which I definitely think feasible) I think it might be helpful to consolidate larger todos here, with details provided below.

  • Incorporate more WP:RS so as to not be as dependent on sources connected to the school.
  • Revision of the Alumni section to be less of a list
  • Provide more content balance (though not necessarily length) in the history section.

Reviewer's Comments

[edit]

I have read through the article once and will now do a detailed read, leaving comments as I go through. This is a long article so please bear with me as I make my way through it and know I will probably take several days to read through it all. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumni

[edit]
  • I normally go down the article in order but one thing that jumped out to me on my initial read, and could potentially take a while to fix so I bring it up now, is this section. First the in-line citations for this section is light. I haven't checked out sources yet (beyond the scope of my 1st read) so it's possible they're covered in other references, which at the GA level is probably fine, but given the semi-BLP implications here sourcing matters so there needs to be a 1:1 source for each listed alumni and preferably sources that are not Exeter itself. Further this section resembles a list in paragraph form. I would encourage you to think about how other GA schools do this (I'd look at universities as a closer comparison here) in a way that provides context about the person and their connection to Exeter.

Previous GA Comments

[edit]
  • Realized I hadn't looked at the comments from the previous GA Review and did so. I worry that two (related) comments from that review are still applicable. I'm reproducing relevant comments from that review here:
  • Original research: Good articles cannot contain original research, and the way we verify that information is not original is with citations. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have at least one citation, and definitely every section, but the article currently has no citations in the "Off-campus study" section and many uncited paragraphs.
  • Sources: It's okay to use primary sources in moderation, but the current article relies on exeter.edu almost overwhelmingly. Do any third-party sources have this same information?

Both of these have been addressed to some degree but not fully. For instance the first paragraph of off-campus study links to the Mountain School page, verifying that this program exists, but not that Exeter participates in it. It can offer no citation for the information about Day or the Washington program. Similarly the second citation in the second paragraph doesn't actually really support (from what I see) the information it's citing. This speaks to the second point as well which is that a disproportionate amount of the article still cites back to the school. By my count, for instance, 16 of the first 20 sources directly or indirectly were published by the school or its students (in the form of the student newspaper). Realistically some reliance on the these sources is to be expected and I would be willing to accept in still passing for GA but the percentage of information would need to be less and would need to be carefully limited about what was being cited to ensure there was no WP:Bias.

Given the concerns raised about alumni and the Previous GA review (which tie into each other) I am putting this review on hold to give you time to address these issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making note that substantial sourcing has been done in alumni and with non-school related sources. I will begin a more complete review next week. However, I would suggest that beyond the tremendous effort at sourcing the alumni section, it remains too long and too much of a list. The notable alumni article can and should list all these people. Instead this section should read like prose. By way of example more of the writing should be like the mention of Knowles which provides context and information not just a name. As an example of a good article, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is also quite lengthy but reads less like a list. Other good article schools do an even better job with this and might also serve as guides. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

I have several concerns with this section but think it might be easiest to come back to at the end.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • For a school that is over 200 years old this section is surprisingly sparse. Or rather it goes into perhaps too much detail about the founding era and not enough about other eras. Are the only three truly historical pieces that the school was founded, had the Harkness donation, and went co-ed?
  • Would suggest that the second paragraph be deleted and pertinent parts be incorporated into other sections of the article (e.g. the land into the Campus Facilities section (which when we get there I'll be suggesting be renamed).
  • The Coolidge/Mansfield quote feels like WP:Puffery
  • The Harkness section is great.
  • Introduction of co-education feels underplayed. A quick review of the Crimson article suggests that this was a popular move among students. Is there other information/context that could be added?
  • Now having said that is the inscription a big deal at the school? I am not in a position to judge/know. If it's something students/alumni/faculty readily know it should be kept but otherwise, despite being interesting and giving further coverage to the co-ed issue might not belong.

Tuition Data

[edit]

I added historical tuition data to the page, it was deleted by a user with no reason as to why. is this inappropriate for this page? it was accurate, referenced, and useful. It is visible in the history. I added the same data to Phillips Academy as well and planned to add more.

Rmf34 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on lede

[edit]

It looks like there's an edit war on the lede. Any chance we can get this sorted out? Does the page need autoconfirmed protection? @Cullen328:, @BruhRun:, @ZimZalaBim:, @GuardianH:, @Browndc3:. I'd tag in the IP editor(s) but there's too many IP addresses to reasonably tackle. Thanks.

My two cents is that the IPs have made several constructive edits (such as noting Exeter's first black student), and I've tried to improve the sourcing for that. However, blanking the sexual misconduct section was inappropriate. I also think that Exeter is a very good and extraordinarily rich school (nb: I did not go to Exeter) and that the lede should reflect that.

Namelessposter (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for one month. Please let me know if the disruption resumes at that time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Namelessposter (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phillips_Exeter_Academy&oldid=1253904913"