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 editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Failing GA
Rmf34 (talk | contribs)
21 edits
No edit summary
Line 163: Line 163:


{{Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA2}}
{{Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy/GA2}}

==Tuition Data==
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.

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

Revision as of 00:51, 23 October 2018

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

Template:Find sources notice

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 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) 15:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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) 05:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-sectarian"

@Guy Macon: I've reverted your removal of "Non-sectarian" from the Religion line of the infobox. "Non-sectarian," it's true, is not a religion, per se. Nonetheless, it's a useful descriptor in an infobox, informing the reader that Phillips Exeter is not Hindu, Shiite, Episcopalian, Hasidic, etc., but neither is it atheistic nor exclusively humanistic. See what they say about themselves wrt religion.
Your edit summary seemed a bit hyperbolic. Infoboxes are helpful in giving a quick overview of a subject, so we don't have to be that nit-picky. YoPienso (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This violates the RfC Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes: "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox".
There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:
This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.
This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.
This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.
In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all biographical infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.
There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that [ https://www.exeter.edu/student-life/campus-connections/phillips-church ] is exactly the sort of source that led the Wikipedia community to come to this consensus. It is far too subtle, detailed and nuanced to fit into a single word in an infobox. It would be an excellent addition to the body of the article where we have room to do it justice. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "non-sectarian" fully conveys religious engagement at Exeter as described by the source.
"Non-sectarian" isn't a "nonreligion," so the term doesn't violate the RfC.
That said, thank you for pointing out the hostility at WP toward mentioning religion in infoboxes. Even though I find the arguments supporting the decision illogical, I'll acquiesce to the community's preference. YoPienso (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hostility. It is a well thought out decision. Read the RfCs and you will see that.
It isn't religions in infoboxes that three of the four RfCs covered. It's nonreligions. The last RfC doesn't apply to schools.
It most certainly is a nonreligion. You yourself started this thread by saying that Non-sectarian "is not a religion, per se".
Merriam Webster defines "nonsectarian" as: "not having a sectarian character : not affiliated with or restricted to a particular religious group".
Nonsectarian is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Nonsectarian is a religion like silence is a language. Nonsectarian is a religion like barefoot is a shoe. Nonsectarian is a religion like off is a TV channel. Nonsectarian is a religion like never is a date. Nonsectarian is a religion like transparent is a color. Nonsectarian is a religion like bald is a hair color. Nonsectarian is a religion like total vacuum is matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are encouraged to put a proper description of the religion or lack thereof of Phillips Exeter Academy (with references) in the body of the article where we have room to do it justice. The overwhelming decision of the Wikipedia community is that you may not attempt to cram such a subtle, detailed and nuanced concept into one word in the infobox, nor are you allowed to call nonreligions religions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A difficulty lies in our definitions of "nonreligion," which isn't fully accepted by leading authorities as an actual word. (Try finding it in a reputable dictionary.)
  • I understand it to mean "absence of religion."
  • You seem to use it to refer to any religious inclination or affiliation that is not recognized as an organized religion.
But, no matter--I found by following your links that this is one of your pet peeves. Your mantra, "Nonsectarian is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby. . ." gets tiresome, and I'm not going to waste time arguing with you.
Although you do come across as hostile, I should have said "aversion" rather than "hostility." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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) 14:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • 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

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

  • 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

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.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phillips_Exeter_Academy&oldid=865295279"