Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Bristol/archive1

University of Bristol

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it would provide good feedback before the article is taken to Featured Article Candidates. I have been working on this article for a long time with a few editors and it is necessary for a few fresh pairs of eyes to look at it. I don't think the History section is particularly strong although one does become hyper critical of an article when considering whether it should even be nominated for FAC . Is this article missing anything which out best University articles have?

I'm not particularly good at nit-picking and having put so much work into this article and those which split off it so really need someone to rip it apart! All feedback appreciated

Thanks, Francium12 (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. I believe a number of them have the "work" field filled in but not the publisher. If you're using a source in the references, you don't list it in the Further reading section, it goes in the bibliography. Your further reading section has some formatting glitches, it's usual to list them as "last name, first name Title Year Publisher Publisher ISBN" or some similar form. Putting the entire book citation in italics is odd. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 14:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(If Ealdgyth will check the sources, I'll look at the prose). Brianboulton (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• Lead
  • The opening paragraph fails to flow. It has too any short sentences and word repetitions. This is my suggestion: "The University of Bristol, in Bristol, England, received its Royal Charter in 1909, although its predecessor institution, University College, Bristol, had been in existence since 1876. One of the original redbrick universities, Bristol now ranks among the top ten universities in the United Kingdom, according to most published league tables, and receives more applications than any other in the country. It has an annual income of £260 million, and is the largest independent employer in Bristol."
  • Second paragraph sequencing. Suggest the sentence about 23,000 students comes first in the paragraph. Also, five-star is better than 5* (see later remarks about formats of small numbers)

• History
  • The University College subsection should be a brief summary of the College’s history, rather than the summary of the University’s foundation, which it largely reads as at present.
  • University of Bristol subsection: At 1500+ words, this subsection is somewhat longer than the entire History of the University of Bristol main article. This suggests to me that there should be some transfer of material. The section at the moment is rather a jumble of facts presented in short paragraphs without too much attention to logical sequence. This section should be about a third of its present length, confined to major facts rather than small details. Some of the prose needs attention – did the King really "erect" the University? Also, phrases like "restored to its former glory" are magazine article stuff, not suited to an encyclopedia.
  • 2003 admissions row: Again, there is a problem in this section with informal language – "embroiled in a row", and "hails from" are examples. It would be better to refer to the matter as a controversy rather than as a "row". Also, a format such as 2006-07 would be better than "2006/2007". The phrase "it should be noted that" should be dropped, so that this part reads: "…7% of the school population of the UK, although 20% of the post-16 age group attend non state-funded institutions" (the term “sixth-form” won’t be understood outside the UK). Also, you need a source for the 20% proportion.

• Academic Life
  • Low ordinal numbers should be written as "seventh", "fourth", etc. rather than as 7th or 4th. Likewise, low cardinals (10 or less) should be in written rather than numeric form.
  • "good honours" needs an explanation
  • So does "average A-level score" – remember, many of your readers will be unfamiliar with the British school examination system.
  • Two short paragraphs in succession begin with: "In addition,…"
  • With so much data provided in the text, I wonder if the tables are necessary at all. I also wonder how The Independent has already given Bristol its 2009 rating – a drop from seventh to 16th, so what do they know that we don't?

• Students' Union etc
  • This is a very clumsy sentence: "From this location, the student radio station BURST (Bristol University Radio Station) broadcasts and the student paper Epigram publishes. Apart from the mangled prose, papers don't publish, they are published. How about: "This location houses the student radio station BURST (Bristol University Radio Station), and the editorial offices of the student newspaper Epigram.
  • Should it be an athletics (plural) union, an Athletics (capitalised) union, or perhaps the formal title of the union should be used?
  • Blues are not awarded for sporting excellence, but for participation in Oxford v. Cambridge contests in certain sports. Perhaps you should briefly mention the criteria for the award of a "red"?

• Halls of Residence: Since there is a daughter article, this section could be limited to naming the halls, perhaps with their dates of opening, but without historical details or the TV stuff, which would be fine in the daughter article. It might, though, be worth mentioning how many students the halls hold, and what proportion of the student body lives in halls.

• Academic Structure:
  • The faculty "edit" buttons are in what look like wrong places (Faculty of Arts button next to Engineering, etc). You probably can’t do much about this, but I wonder if it is worth having six edit buttons within the section – it’s not as if it were that long.
  • Degrees: "whilst" is a wiki-disapproved word. The prose generally in this section could do with some polishing.

• Governance:
  • Brenda Hale should be introduced more formally (Baroness Hale of Richmond)
  • What's the difference between the University Court and the "Council", how do they relate to each other, and what is their formal relationship to the Senate?
  • What are "academic ordinances"?

• Architecture
  • First sentence – redundant words: "…when it was University College, Bristol".
  • Hansom's relationship to the cab inventor is irrelevant to this article.
  • "George Oatley added to them a tower…" Who was George Oatley? The words “to them” are superfluous.
  • The sentence beginning: "The first large scale building..." is over-long and convoluted. It should be split into two. The same is true of the sentence that follows it.
  • Link armorials
  • The paragraph beginning "Goldney gardens…" has little to do with Architecture and is poorly worded in a number of respects. Ditto the following short para. I'd delete both
  • Last para muddles information about the more modern buildings with historical stuff about Georgian architecture. Prose is careless: "…were design by Charles Dyer and is seen…".

• Logo and arms: Who is Colston, mentioned for the first time here?

• People: "…a then world-record 1.9km range for free-space secure key exchange using quantum cryptography". That’s too much technical information for a general article. Just describe Rarity as "internationally-recognised optical communications expert" or some such, and leave the rest to the link.

• Since you have a daughter article listing famous alumni, I see no need at all for this section.

Generally, you have done well to assemble so much information, although in view of the eight daughter articles, there is plenty of scope for reduction. The presentation of the material seems quite hurried at times, and in places the prose is substandard. Given sufficient time and care, however, this could be an excellent series of articles.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Two quick points:
  • Occasional examples of weasel words or words to avoid are present: "Whilst spacious, the Union building is thought by many to be ugly" - who are the many? Beware loaded terms e.g. "it should be noted", "hotly denied".
  • Fairly or unfairly, like some other universities (e.g. Durham) the term "Oxbridge rejects" is often banded about when Bristol's student demographics are discussed. Given that there is a section discussion controversies over student backgrounds, this perhaps ought to be mentioned. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I did add that at one point to one of the sub articles, but of course it was reverted. What can I say - the truth hurts. I think it is relevant to the admissions controversy article though Francium12 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)