Talk:Patrick Henry College

Dancing

I noticed the sentence stating "as at many other Christian colleges..." was removed with reference to dancing not being allowed on campus. You are correct that it is not an easily verifyable statement since I'm not aware of any particular news articles etc. mentioning that fact, but a quick check of the Wikipedia articles on other Christian colleges PHC is commonly compared with will reveal it is indeed common that such schools do not allow dancing on campus. I think this fact doesn't really need to have a citation since it's common knowledge. It's not that it's unverifyable, it's just that providing a specific citation is difficult. Thoughts?--DebateLord 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think if this rule was "common knowledge" then this wouldn't be an issue, however Christian colleges of this type are primaraly a North American phenomona (although not exclusively), and therefore this "common knowledge" is very much restricted to this continent, and as this "common knowledge" is not universal, I feel that evidence of this claim is required. Fasach Nua 11:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the sentence said "as at many other American Christian colleges" would you then be okay with it?--DebateLord 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that outside North America, very few people know about colleges of this type, and the article Christian College is no help! I feel the idea that a college would ban dancing is very strange, perhaps putting it in context might help, by giving a short rational as to why it is banned, eg "in keeping with the puritanical ethos of many Christian colleges ..." (i don't know if that is the reason). Fasach Nua 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit 22 Jan 2007

I have undone this edit [1], I dont know the background to this, so if someone feels it should be put back in, I won't revert it twice. Fasach Nua 14:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your revert. That sentence was just vandalism and POV and should have been removed. BTW, I think you're also right about the dancing thing, so I'm fine with leaving that one part out.--DebateLord 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Alexis de Tocqueville Society

Recently I've removed several edits which added repeated references to the Alexis de Tocqueville Society. My reasons for this are primarily that ATS is only one of several such philosophical/literary clubs on campus, and as such I don't see why it merits greater mention than the others. All the other clubs specifically mentioned in the article are unique examples of student activities, while ATS is included in the phrase in the article "several philosophical and literary societies." The previous edits also were done in such a way as to make ATS the primary focus of the sections in which it was mentioned. I would be open to having ATS mentioned if someone can make a good case for why it deserves greater mention than the other societies of its type, but I think that should be done in a way that doesn't favor it over other clubs. Thoughts anyone?--DebateLord 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Washington, D.C. Lobbying

I know from many resources that apparently a big part of Patrick Henry College is the ability to lobby to senators and representatives in Washington, D.C. I however feel unqualified to write something on it because most of my resources are vague to say the least. They usually just say, "Patrick Henry students show their involvement in government by lobbying to senators and representatives at D.C." or something along those lines. So I was wondering if DebateLord or some other current student could write the section if it truly is such a big part of the college.

God Bless,

Professor Davies,

Professor Davies 07:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestion. I went ahead and added a rough draft for a "Civic Involvement" section. Currently it's just based off my personal knowledge, but I will work on adding sources soon. Any suggestions/copy editing are welcome; and if anyone can think of a better name for the section, that would be cool too.--DebateLord 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just made a minor edit by turning the Moot Court and Model UN into links, hope you don't mind. Also, the God's Next Army video in the article section at the bottom displays a great amount of information about College Republicans.

God Bless,

Professor Davies,

Professor Davies 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest Academic Clarity Edit

I notice that the latest edit to academics adds more information but I am not sure that it is fluid and/or clear enough. When reading it I feel like it seems a bit choppy with using the terms offers Government degrees rather than offers majors in Government and so on and so forth. This may just be me though. God Bless, Professor Davies 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

I have gone over the peer review and it seems that the article has changed accordingly to all of the requests other than adding to athletics and traditions. However, since this is still a new college they don't have as many traditions or athletics as a normal college nor do they make athletics a major part of the student life. Is there any other reason why the article would not be reconsidered for being a featured article? Does anyone mind if I wipe out the old peer review and ask for a new one? God Bless, Professor Davies 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds awesome to me. I can't think of anything that needs significant improvement at the moment, and it would be great if we could get the article featured. Oh and regarding your comment above about the changes to the major names, I agree it seems a little more awkward than before, though more technically correct. If you can think of a way to make it clearer, go ahead edit that part.--DebateLord 15:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking for something to do (:-P), the references could do with a tidy up! Fiendishly Fast Fred 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fred, the reason I deleted the old peer review was so it could get a new one. On the peer review page, they won't look at the Patrick Henry College if it already has a long peer review. I have the old one saved and once we get a new review, I will add the old one, but for the meantime we need to delete the old one so that we can get a new one, or else no one will review this article. God Bless, Professor Davies 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that someone from the University Wikiproject has given us a B-class rating. I don't understand because I don't see how we match the criteria of a B-class article but hopefully we can figure out what is wrong and fix the article. Professor Davies 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just off hand, and this is only one thing from only a brief glance at the most recent edit, you'd want to make sure the references all follow proper format. Here's an example at WP:FOOT. Good luck. I did some very brief work on the article very early on. --Bobak 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I made some minor edits but I will have to start devoting all of my attention to it. I guess I can start by reading all the Wikipedia articles on citing references, footnotes, and anything else related. I really appreciate you telling me, it gives me something to work on while school is out. Professor Davies 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. That would be me. Don't be offended - B-Class is the highest rating an article can be given without going through a formal process. For the article to be promoted to GA, it will need to be assessed at more length, that's all. — mholland (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

I am currently putting this article on hold for the following reasons:

• The lead needs to summarize the entire article per WP:LEAD. The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article.

• The lead, while better, still needs to be improved. Taking a look at the featured articles on colleges and universities might guide you. Awadewit ^Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the article can be structured better. Generally, it is not considered good form at wikipedia to have a "criticisms" section in an article. It makes both the subject of the article look bad and those doing the criticizing look bad (also it can lead to a lot of vandalism). Thus, I would suggest that you put what is in the "criticism" section in other sections where it is relevant. Also, you cannot say that the school has been criticized by "some" - you must say explicitly who is criticizing and what they are saying. WP:WEASEL

I've decided to transfer most of it and create a new section titled "Political Views" and put the first paragraph in there. It will need to be further expanded though. Professor Davies 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a section may run into exactly the same problems. The aim is to insert the information where it is relevant in the article. I haven't seen any other university or college article that has a separate section like that. Awadewit ^Talk 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just moved it to academics since the political views are mostly related to what is being taught, such as creationism.Professor Davies 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think some of it would work there and some of what would work in the "religion" section. You need to articulate what the criticisms are exactly - break them down into identifiable issues and elements. What is an "extreme conservatism and evangelical Christian ethos"? Why has PHC been attacked for teaching creationism? That whole section is vague right now. Quotations would do wonders here. Awadewit ^Talk 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the structure has improved but within each section, the paragraphs need to flow into each other better or the sections should be subdivided more. I am also not convinced that the "Politics" section is legitimate yet. It is still too vague and small. Awadewit ^Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Related: The "Statistics" and "Traditions" sections are unnecessary because you mention that information elsewhere.

• This is still a problem and there is a bulleted list in the "Traditions" section. Prose would work better here. Awadewit ^Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion: It would probably be best to discuss the academic freedom incident in the "religious affirmations" section. That section is a little short right now and you would then be able to give some context to the event. Since that is one of the most notable events in PHC's history, it should be discussed in more detail - to have such a large percentage of the faculty resign from a college is stunning, really.

• In the infobox, you say there are 17 full-time faculty and in the article 25, which is it? Also, I'm not sure that bragging about their completed degrees is a good idea All full-time faculty at colleges and universities have PhDs - it would be weird if PHC did not have faculty that had these degrees. (And, by the way ABD does not, I think, stand for a degree. Usually it means "all but dissertation." Please check on that.)
• You need retrieval dates for your web sources. Awadewit ^Talk 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that we can remember the retrieval dates for all of our sources, so what should we do instead?Professor Davies 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check and see if they still work today and use today's date. That would seem fine to me. Just to establish a "was at least working on date" for the Wayback Machine. Awadewit ^Talk 05:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As of yet, there are no retrieval dates. Awadewit ^Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since 7 days have passed and these issues have not been adequately addressed yet and there are "citation needed" tags, I am going to have to fail the article for now. I'm sure that in a few weeks it will be ready. You can renominate it then. Awadewit ^Talk 07:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More suggestions

I am listing some more suggestions for ways to improve the article below. These do not have to be fulfilled for GA but would make the article better.

• I would integrate more of the information from the New Yorker article which describes student life at PHC as well as some of its ideology as well as the series of articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education regarding the challenge to academic freedom. Although these articles do not always show PHC in the best light, by not using them, you could be accused of cherry-picking sources. These are some of the most reliable sources available on PHC. You should make use of them. Much of your page relies on PHC's website or people related to it (for campus buildings, etc., that is inevitable), but for the rest of it, I urge you to be as cautious and fair as possible. Also, using mulitple sources is always a good idea. Then it is not just one voice crying in the wilderness.
• The first paragraph of the "Religious affirmations" is a contradiction. Because it is impossible to be non-denominational with such a definite creed, it is probably best to say PHC "claims to be non-denominational" or something like that.

I believe you are confusing the term non-denomination with inter-denominational. Non-denominational just means that your beliefs aren't identical to a certain denomination such as Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, etc. Instead, you more likely have a mixture between those denominations. Inter-denominational means that it is provided for anyone regardless of their doctrinal beliefs.Professor Davies 20:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what I was trying to get at is that the sentence needs to be more specific as well. The school claims to be Christian, right? That can be thought of as a limiting factor here, so perhaps you should describe its position as non-denominational Christianity because it does not accept students from all denominations of all religions. Awadewit ^Talk 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• You might think about expanding the "Academics" section as the "Student life" section is currently bigger - which is more important to the school?
• Explain more clearly that TRACS is a controversial accrediting association and that PHC has not been accredited by any major accrediting institution of higher education (again, I am trying to think of the fairest way to represent the situation). Also, you repeat this information several times - decide where you want to put it.
• On 30 June 2005, the school was officially recognized by the United States Department of Education as an eligible institution, allowing parents and students to take advantage of numerous tax benefits - what does this mean? only that they can apply for financial aid? The sentence is unclear to those who don't already know.
• Infobox: How many adjuncts? Be precise or the poor adjuncts out.
• This article needs to be copyedited. There are quite a few sylistic errors when it comes to things like italicization, for example, and some of the syntax and diction could be improved.
• You might peruse the manual of style for a bit and then reformat this article.

• Ex: You have a weblink in the middle of the article to "God's Next Army." That should be in a footnote.
• Ex: More things should be wikilinked, such as the names of places in the "Campus" section.
• Ex: Don't use "PHC" in the article - write it out.
• Ex: You don't need to link to articles in the "External links" that are already used as sources in the notes. Awadewit ^Talk 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving Civic Involvement

I am going to move 'Civic Involvement' from 'Student Life' to 'Academics' because it is a requirement for the Government major. If anyone disagrees feel free to move it back. Professor Davies 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Step up the editing

As of late, I have been working on a dissertation so I have not been editing the article that much. The reason it failed Good Article status was that work wasn't put forth where the suggestions were made and I take the blame for that but now we all have to start making edits to get the article up to good article status. Most of the stuff that is needed is minor such as using better citations, which can be done with citaton templates. The only major thing that needs editing is a huge expansion on the leading paragraph. Professor Davies 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• After having gone through the whole article for general copy editing and having fixed up the leading section, I think most of that is now fine. While some of the other suggested changes still need to be made, I believe the lead is now adequate, as it contains 4 paragraphs with concise summary of the article without excessive duplication or stylistic errors. With no objections, I will take that out of the to-do list.--DebateLord 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• • DebateLord, you did an amazing job with your editing. My writing is generally unclear to anyone but me so you helped to clean it up a great amount. I agree that the lead is now up to standards, if anyone wants hints on what a good college article should look like then look at University of Oklahoma. It is a very well done article and is currently a candidate for Featured Article. Professor Davies 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Earle

Nathan, both of the edits that I have noticed that you posted have greatly helped the clarity and grammar of the article. However, you need to be careful that you maintain WP:NPOV and WP:Tone. The edits are mostly good but there needs to be a completely neutral point of view. For example, in the Soulforce edit you made a change so that it said, "though, as is a common practice with the group, two protesters attempted to enter the campus without permission and were accordingly placed under arrest." The statement "is a common practice with the group" needs to be verified with a reference. All the other edits on the Soulforce section were very beneficial so don't be discouraged. Just remember, if you add any information and it does not have a reference that can cause others to think that this is a biased article. Professor Davies 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article does indeed appear to be well written, with easily understandable langauge and syntax usage.

2. Factually accurate?: Article sourced to an impressive (46) citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article covers a wide range of issues related to the school, as noted by the article's length, and overall structure of the table of contents.

4. Neutral point of view?: I see from talk page discussion there has been some NPOV issues, but it looks like through restructuring of some text this has been addressed. Might want to look out for this in the future, as well as overall balance.

5. Article stability? Article does appear to be stable.

6. Images?: This is the real issue here. Some of the images are on the WikiCommons, so that is okay. However many of the images do not have a detailed fair use rationale, and that is needed. Others seem to be taken from the School's Web site, which has an obvious copyright at the bottom of the Web page. Though the images themselves do not have a copyright caption on the Web site, that does not matter - the images are still copyrighted because of the mention at the bottom of the Web page.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — NOTE: Though this article did "fail" the GA nom at this time, because there is very little here to address before it could be a Good Article - I would not be opposed to some minor fixing of the issues as noted above, and then a resubmission back to GA nom within a short while. I will also go ahead and fix the article talk page with the {{ArticleHistory}} template, so other reviewers in the future can easily see the Peer Review processes that this article has been through. Again - good job overall, it should really not take that much work at all to get it up to GA status soon. Yours, Smee 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for using images that don't meet up to fair use standards. I added all the images that fail to meet standards. I am currently trying to find images to replace those.Professor Davies 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. You might want to familiarize yourself with WikiCommons, and try uploading some images there, instead of uploading them here. By default if they are accepted at the Commons as usable there, they can be used here. Other than that this article is moving nicely towards GA - and hopefully the new {{ArticleHistory}} template will make it easier for the next reviewer. Smee 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Okay, all the images are now fixed. Prof deleted one of the fair use images from the college's website (the student in class one, which wasn't really central to the article anyway). The other fair use image of the debate team was actually taken by me though used by the college on their website. I however still retain full rights to it and I uploaded the original version of the image with proper licensing. The bobtism picture was also taken by me, though uploaded by Prof with my permission, and I added a statement to that effect on the photo page. Finally, I added a detailed fair use rationale to the student center photo, so that one should now be fine as well. Everything should now be ready to go from a copyright standpoint. Sorry for the confusion, for at least part of which I am to blame.--DebateLord 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, if these are all free-use images, they should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, and used from there to here instead. This would by default mean we would have no problem using them from Commons to Wikipedia. Smee 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

So wait, are you saying that all images in an article have to be on Wikimedia Commons rather than Wikipedia itself in order for the article to qualify for good article status? You're right they probably should be there, and I can certainly upload them all later (this afternoon at the earliest), but I don't see why just the fact that the images were uploaded to Wikipedia and not the Wikimedia Commons should stand in the way of its good article status. Right now, there are no copyright problems with any of the images, so I would think we could proceed and worry about which Wikimedia Foundation site they are hosted on later.--DebateLord 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DebateLord, he is just saying that it is always better to have them with Wikimedia Commons because then no one can dispute them. All of your images are fine as for copy rights, just if they were with the Commons then no one would be capable of saying anything because of the fact that it is more reputable than a claim that they are original pictures. However, it would not stop us from getting a successful Good Article status if they aren't on the commons. It would just mean that the reviewer would have to check and make sure that we aren't lying. Professor Davies 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Professor Davies is correct, having all the images already on WikiCommons, by default makes this part much easier for the reviewer(s). And since they're all free-use qualifying anyway, this is possible - and will make it easier in the future to upgrade the article's quality potentially further... Smee 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC).

Good article review

Just to notify you that I am undertaking the latest review of this article, and expect to post the result in the next 12 hours. One of the things I will be checking is whether the concerns of previous reviewers have been addressed, so if you have any outstanding tasks, you have a few hours' grace to perform them :) --Fritzpoll 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There, I uploaded the two free use images that weren't from Wikimedia Commons there and switched the links. So now all free use images in the article are from Wikimedia Commons, and both fair use images (including the logo) have detailed fair use rationales. You people certainly know how to keep a guy busy don't you. ;-) Hope every thing's fine now.--DebateLord 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review: On Hold

I have now had time to review this article, and believe it broadly meets the criteria to be listed as a good article. There are, however, some points in the test that need addressing before it can be passed. Some of these are likely to seem very pedantic, but do bear with me!

Lead

• The New Scientist is not a newspaper, it is a magazine.  Done
• In the lead, final paragraph, "The young institution has also experienced internal controversy, when in March of 2006, one-third of the..." - two things: "young institution" is a little odd/ambiguous, would "institution" alone suffice? Also, I think the commas are a little out. Try replacing that portion with "controversy when, in March 2006, one-third..."  Done
• Note throughout that dates need not be written "Month of Year", merely "Month Year"  Done
• Be careful not to include so much information in the lead that it does more than summarise the article. See WP:LEAD and later comments. COnsider rewriting the lead to provide a concise summary that doesn't "upstage" the article. Done

History

• "has been a magnet for" - this phrase is somewhat informal. Might I suggest "This school has been the subject of media attention..."?  Done
• ", which was founded by the Homeschool Legal Defense Association," - this information is given in the lead, and its inclusion here is redundant.  Done
• "Initially, the interest seemed to..." - it either did or it didn't! :)  Done
• The article repeats the fact that the faculty must sign a policy. It only needs to be mentioned once.  Done

Religious Affirmations

• What is a bedrock Christian doctrine? It sounds as though you mean at the core of all Christian belief. Would all dominations agree with the quoted statements as being "bedrock"? If not, then please remove them, and simply provide a reference.  Done
• "Left of center publications such as New Scientist..." - I'm not sure this is a fitting description of the magazine in question. Its Wikipedia article, for example, does not include any mention of it having a political bias. Clarify or reference as appropriate.  Done
• "author views as "false scientific teaching" at Patrick Henry College--"false" in that, while the claims..." reads better as "author views as "false scientific teaching in that, while the claims..."  Done
• Please reference all quotations. Done
• Inclusion of the controversy here is redundant - now the third time including the lead that it has been mentioned.  Done
• Can the link on "recent radio phone in" be removed and replaced with an inline citation for this sentence?  Done
• Repetition of information in the lead. Done

Campus

• wikilinking "Home School Legal Defense Association" not required here  Done
• Reference for "Lake Bob"  Done
• References for the final paragraph, particularly about the delays  Done

Academics

• Denial of accreditation - remove weblink and change it to an inline citation. Is it necessary to mention this here again though?  Done (removed redundancy)
• PhD only needs to be wikilinked once, and can you direct it straight to Doctor of Philosophy, please?  Done

Student Life

• "young institution" - "recently established"?  Done
• Place quotation marks around "bobtisms"  Done

These are not insubstantial changes, and the changes to the lead to reduce redundancy are quote inportant. If you could put {{done}} by each point as it is completed, that will let me track progress easily. If you have any questions please drop a line to my talk page. Good luck - you're nearly there! --Fritzpoll 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gotten a good start on incorporating your suggestions. The only big one remaining is further reducing redundancy with the lead, which I will work on next. Regarding the student center, I wasn't able to find a reference explicitly mentioning the construction delays, though I know the college has published things about that in the past (the place where I think it is on their website is currently inaccessible). However, it is a well known fact to anyone connected with the college (there was even a groundbreaking ceremony in May 2006 when construction was supposed to start), and I don't think it's absolutely critical to reference that fact.--DebateLord 21:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am just going to delete the part that says it was delayed because I don't believe that adds anything to the article as part of an encyclopedia. It doesn't seem major enough, the only big deal was that they were delayed until they could get enough donations. I think it might talk about it at the support/giving to PHC tab on the site but that section is temporarily down so I am not sure. Until then I will just take down the delayed info. If anyone finds references for it, I will put it back up. Professor Davies 00:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been called away until Tuesday, when I will make my final review of this article. Please make sure you adhere to neutral points of view with any additions that you are making. Best wishes --Fritzpoll 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and marked all remaining changes as done. I had left the removing redundancy in the lead unmarked because I wasn't sure if it is adequate or not, but after reviewing everything I think most of the redundancy issues have been addressed. There is still some minor overlap between the article and the lead, but I think it is more in the form of summary and actual redundancy, and I can't really think of a way to rewrite it to reduce overlap any further. Hopefully the changes we've made are adequate, and I believe all other outstanding issues have been addressed, so the article is ready for final review.--DebateLord 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist

DebateLord, why did you move the New Scientist information to after the reference used for it? " The New Scientist article protests what its author views as false scientific teaching in that, while the claims of macroevolution are presented in the classroom, those claims are typically viewed from a critical perspective." was moved to after the article, which talks about Patrick Henry College and the teachings of intelligent design as true and evolution as false.

Actually I moved the reference to immediately follow the quote which is from the referenced article. The review said to make sure all quotes in that section were referenced, and even though that reference was already there, it did not directly follow the quote. The following sentence just contains additional description of the New Scientist article, which is why I thought it would be better to have the reference before it after the quote.--DebateLord 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I am leaving right now, but when I get back I will help you find a reference for the Student Life building. Professor Davies 22:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - On hold for another 12-24 hours

You've done very well - I reverted a recent edit because it overextended the lead. Such information can be reintroduced later in the article, but I can't be too involved in the editing.

Remaining problems are few:

• Some remaining redundancy:

• The lead tells me twice that the college was created for home-schoolers  Done (removed duplicate information)
• I think there might be too much detail on the Home School Legal Defence Association in the lead, given that it is not the focus of the article.

 Done (moved HSLDA info to History section)

• In the lead, the references to debating,etc. should be removed - I think they are unnecessary here, and are repeated later on.  Done (didn't remove entirely but cut down to a very brief mention)
• Why is the New Scientist mentioned in the lead? If this must remain, this should be wikilinked and all susequent instances of the word un-wikilinked.  Done (removed)

• References:

• Please, as previously requested, when referencing something, avoid using weblinks, and use inline citations instead - otherwise these will not appear in the references. There are several examples of this throughout the text. Done
• Example: Why is "Biblical Worldview Policy" weblinked in the first usage, and referenced in the second. Remove the weblink  Done(removed weblinks there and for God's Next Army)

• Miscellaneous:

"In a dispute in March of 2006, five of the college's sixteen faculty members—Erik Root, Robert Stacey, Kevin Culberson, Todd Bates, and David Noe—resigned in protest, claiming that the President's interpretation of the college's Biblical Worldview policy— which all faculty must sign — restricted academic freedom.

There is no need for all these hyphens, and I think they need to be removed and the sentence rewritten (possibly as two sentences) to improve clarity. Done

"Farris' resignation took final effect..." - just "effect", not "final effect"  Done

"with about a dozen Asians" - how many? Too vague. Remove or reference  Done (changed to some as the exact number is unknown)

In the section Campus rewrite the sentence to avoid placing brackets around the explanation of what Lake Bob is. In Student Life you also do not have to explain again that Lake Bob is a retention pond. Remove this redundancy.  Done

In addition, the Student LifeSection, pictures are appearing on the left and right of the text at te tope, making the text hard to read. Please fix this. ' Done

You have 12-24 hours to make this change before I have to finalise my review on this article, but the changes are minor, I hope! Any questions to my talk page --Fritzpoll 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, made all those changes. Hope that's sufficient.--DebateLord 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review Final Result:Pass

This article displays good prose, and is exceptionally well-referenced. All the concerns that I indicated above have been quickly amended. I think the article is broad in its coverage, and well-focussed.

Comments for future development would be that if further information is added to the article, you ensure that it is necessary (since the article is fairly hefty as it is) and that you then perhaps consider breaking the text up with further sub-headings to maintain clarity. You should also endeavour to write a couple of stub articles for the red wikilinks before seeking a higher grade.

Overall though, I believe this article meets the good article criteria and so I'm promoting it. Congratulations. --Fritzpoll 07:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! I will certainly see what I can do with your other suggestions before seeking featured article status. Thanks for all your work.--DebateLord 13:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Debate Edit

The article notes PHC's success against schools like Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, etc., on the NPDA circuit. This is inaccurate, as none of those schools compete on that circuit. They all participate in APDA, another circuit of which PHC is not a member school.

Stanford also says on their main debate page that they are active on the NPDA circuit. http://www.stanford.edu/group/debate/about_us.html and on the NPDA website they are listed under former participants (the article was talking about in 2003, PHC won these awards). I have e-mailed PHC asking about why they have an article that has claims which I have struggled to find adequate support for. It could be a misprint or a mistake but I am trying to find out so that this article can be as reliable as possible. Thanks for pointing out the err in my addition. Please continue to make the article even better.Professor Davies 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The cited article is extremely inaccurate. Harvard and UPenn have never participated in NPDA, and the last time Stanford went to NPDA nationals PHC did not yet exist (as mentioned above, they are chiefly an APDA squad). Moreover, the article cited here implies that the awards mentioned were at NPDA nationals. Clearly they are not, as NPDA has no novice division and there are generally closer to 500 than 50 teams competing (the tournament breaks to partial quadruple octafinals). Also, PHC demonstrably did not win first speaker at NPDA in 2003. It's fine for PHC to be proud of their debate program, and it seems like they actually have been quite successful in NEDA and at least somewhat successful in NPDA (as I recall, they cleared one team at NPDA nationals last year). But what is the benefit of making stuff up? Binkyping 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Language Filter

I reverted the language filter edit, I don't know that it could be classified as direct vandalism but since there is no citation, I am not sure if it is attempting to mock the school's conservative behavior or if the example given is quite necessary. If anyone feels I am wrong then put it up there with a citation provided and without profanity that is unnecessary in a strictly encyclopedic sense.Professor Davies 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New Peer Review Request

I just requested a new peer review of the article as we've made a good amount of changes since the last one and I think this article is almost ready to be nominated for featured status. Any suggestions would be appreciated.--DebateLord 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

100% placement etc.

The bit about a 100% placement rate and "the majority" being accepted to first-tier law schools, etc., has a citation that doesn't work. I think this should be deleted until a citation can be found that can support this statement, since the rigor and quality of this college are quite contentious. I kept the bit about Harvard Law in since its citation actually does work, but now it reads quite strange and it should be fixed to sound better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.84.89 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the citation doesn't say exactly what the paragraph says, I disagree with deleting it, and concur with ProfessorDavies' undo of this edit. I know for a fact there used to be a page on the PHC website saying exactly what the paragraph says and I think it used to be listed as a citation, but the page must have been removed because I am unable to find it. I'll hunt around for a replacement source, but considering these facts have been verified in the past and this paragraph has been part of the article for a very long time, I think it should stay for the time being.--DebateLord 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update - Actually the page I was thinking of was already linked as a reference, but the link was dead. I replaced the old URL with a link to the saved version of the page on the Internet Archive, so now that reference is good again. So now these facts are once again referenced and this should no longer be an issue.--DebateLord 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Satanic Music

Under the SL section, a prohibition against "black metal and satanic music" is noted. I'm not sure if this is true. I'm pretty sure that, as far as music is concerned, the college leaves what is listened to at the descretion of the student. I'll have to check in the handbook to be sure.

Note: I've just checked both handbooks. There is no specific prohibition against Satanic or Black Metal in college policies. I'm removing the sentence.

Recent Vandalism

Thanks to the anonymous editor above who caught some of the recent vandalism, however I've gone ahead and reverted the article to the last clean version since there were numerous vandal edits that were still in place. On a further note, I've said this before but let me say it again: All attempts to change the name of Lake Bob to the "Farris Sea" will be regarded as vandalism and will be promptly removed. That contradicts both sourced articles and actual reality, and is therefore will not be tolerated. I check this article regularly for vandalism, so don't even bother trying.--DebateLord (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Advent Film Group

I was thinking that "Come What May" may not be worth mentioning in the media section. True, the film is feature length, but frankly, the demographic that it appeals to is so limited that the effect of the film will be almost nil. Aside from which, no one has ever heard of Advent Film Group and it wields no particular influence on anything. I realize that authorities in the school may be excited about the film, but I frankly don’t see why it’s relevant to anyone who does not attend PHC or participate in the home schooling community. Byjupiter (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Granted the film is small, but it is still a feature film based on the college, which considering the article already talks about individual news articles and a television documentary is at least as significant in terms of the college's media exposure. And it is only mentioned in two brief sentences, so I think cutting it would just deprive the article of possibly useful information without gaining anything.--DebateLord (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is, the film has limited appeal. For example, we have not referenced any mentions of PHC is Dr. Veith's blog, even though I'd wager that its distribution is double what that of the movie will be. I realize that it's garnered a lot of interest and excitement on campus, but that doesn't neccessarily mean anything. Those articles, on the other hand, were all from local, national, and international institutions that have a broad reader base and a large degree of influence in their respective fields. Advent Film Group does not. Furthermore, based on the preview, it doesn't particualrly seem to represent PHC life in any sort of realistic fashion. This, of course, is both up for debate and stems from an incomplete knowlege of the prodcution. Byjupiter (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is possible, but the film has also raised media attention elsewhere and regardless is a significant thing in the college's history. We also don't know what impact it will have, so I think it's best to keep it for now.--DebateLord (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. We should hold off until after its release, and then make a judgement call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byjupiter (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

In terms of paring down the lead, it seems to me that the final paragraph there of is repeated almost word for word in the controversy and history sections of the article. Perhaps removing it would make the lead more succinct and take the article one step closer FA status.Byjupiter (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done the deed. If anyone has a problem, then revert it and we can talk about it. Byjupiter (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Soulforce Account

Okay, since my earlier removal of this sentence was contested we should discuss it here. I do not think the detail someone added to the end of the Soulforce account, "battling intense rain and a hail storm" which "caused [them] to end [their] vigil." is necessary or contributes anything to the article. The point of that section of the article is to give a succinct account of the incident, not describe it in exhaustive detail. As such, I fail to see how the weather is relevant to the article. As it stands, I think including that description really only serves to create sympathy for the Soulforce people and I would thus also question its neutrality. First I think it is an exaggeration, since in fact the weather that day was dry for most of the day and only rained toward the end when the Soulforce left. Second, the sentence is sourced from the Soulforce website, and the way it is written is clearly intended to invoke sympathy for the marchers. Thus, I think it would be more neutral (and more concise) to keep the original wording of the article, simply saying they left after 4 hours and not elaborating on the weather.--DebateLord (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that mentioning the fact that a storm drove them back to their bus is ok. However, words like "battling" and "vigil" tend to cast an aura of nobility around the protest, which does make it appear to be less that neutrel. Byjupiter (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on that suggestion, I deleted the Soulforce quote (though kept the reference) and changed the end of the sentence to, "they protested for approximately five hours before leaving because of inclement weather." Same information, more neutral wording. Hopefully that resolves that.--DebateLord (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Revising the History Section

In light the recommendations above, I think it may be worth talking about how we’re going to reorganize the history section.

My suggestions are this: • Remove “Media Attention” from history, placing articles and documentaries of note in the appropriate chronological section • Remove “White House Interns,” placing it under “Civic Involvement” • Remove other headings, replacing them with Chronological headings (ie. “Founding, 1998-2000” etc.) and then rearranging the information into the appropriate sub-section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byjupiter (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We may not actually need the White House interns section at all since I think that might be mentioned elsewhere. That section was only recently added and wasn't very well written or sourced.--DebateLord (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the White house interns section