Talk:Traditions of Pomona College/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm going to be taking a look at this GAN. Any section marked with a  Working tag means I haven't finished, but feel free to start making changes as soon as they appear! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Cup dropping

• The citation linked only mentions the tradition in passing and describes none of the details.

Mascot

• The first paragraph needs a citation
• Her Campus is not a reliable source. It's run almost entirely by undergraduates with little experience.
• Reference 20 (LA Times) only references Cecil in passing, and does not say what the source does

Pranks

• The link to "The Prankster's Rules" is dead.

Defunct traditions

• "Since then, it has largely disappeared from living memory among current students." Needs a citation
• "and it is likewise unrecognized by most current students" needs a citation.
• It doesn't say why the Oxy bonfire is no longer in action.
• When is "shortly after Pomona was founded"?

 Working

References

• All references need to be archived using this tool
• Any reference from the LA Times needs to have "|url-access=subscription" attached
• Citation from the Chronicle of Higher Education needs "|url-access=registration"

 Working

Final comments and verdict

I'm going to cut to the chase. Out of 84 citations, only about 18% (I counted 16, give or take) are from sources that are unaffiliated with Pomona or other related colleges. Of these, at least one doesn't say what the citation seems to suggest that it does. This lack of independent sources is concerning, as is the collection of uncited passages, such as when Claremont McKenna College is called Pomona's "main athletic and ideological rival".

Additionally, the tone and setup of the article just doesn't meet GA quality. While several traditions are mentioned, many are afforded only a sentence or two, with little acknowledgement to the tradition's notability. The section on 47 is good! It describes the relevance of the number to campus life, and to the greater world. That is not matched by the very next section, which is effectively uncited.

I'm going to have to ✗ Fail this article for the time being, and hope that it comes back later with a tighter look at the scope. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, thanks for taking a look at the page. This is my first GA nomination (although I have one FL under my belt), and I have been waiting several months for it to be reviewed. I read in the instructions that often nominations are brought up to standard during the review, so I anticipated that any issues identified would have a chance to be resolved, not result in an immediate fail. It seems I did underestimate how strictly some of the criteria are applied, though (and I'm not sure what happened with ref 20, I think I meant to use a different one there). Still, I am willing to work to address the issues if there is some possibility of the article passing.

To provide a quick reply on the overall setup, this page is a bit of a mix between an article and a list; there's too much detail on some traditions for it to be called "List of Pomona College traditions", but some sections are more akin to list entries (and some, like cup dropping, have very little sourcing available, so I'd be alright with removing them). How do you suggest moving forward? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I personally disagree, independent sources are less required for list-type articles than on prose articles, so another reviewer would be likely to cut some slack there. Although there is a reasonable concern here that a lot of detail that's not covered in secondary sources may not be encyclopedic. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers are allowed to fail an article if it is a long way from meeting one of the six good article criteria. Here are my main concerns:

• Sources.
  • "Voices" is a student blog run by the admissions office. The official website says that it is "a window into student life" and primarily for prospective students. That is not a reliable source.
  • Her Campus is run entirely by undergraduates with no adult editorial oversight. Their standards for admission are actually significantly lower than most school papers.
• Original research/use of citations.
  • Two instances of the citation not matching up with the line in the article were already mentioned.
  • [24] doesn't mention Sequoia National Forest or Chennel Islands National Park.
  • There is no source for "the college's main athletic and ideological rival".
  • The only source for "spiblings" is a student publication at a rival college that mentions the term in passing.
  • No source specifies whether the north or south gate reads which quote.
  • Nowhere does it say that enrolling students walk south and seniors walk north.
  • [74] never mentions that the arch connects Sixth St. to Bixby Plaza.
  • No sources saying that certain songs are unrecognizable to current students.
• Broadness and focus.
  • How exactly are you defining "tradition"? Sponsor groups, which appear to be bestowed from above by the university, are in an entirely different category than an arch that no freshmen can walk through.
  • There's no explanation for why Pomona and Pitzer share a mascot.
  • Diversion into a description of the greater sage-grouse.
  • Diversion into Harvey Mudd's prank culture.
  • The controversies of the Walker Wall are not appropriately addressed.
  • What songs are still sung by the choral program?
• Neutrality.
  • "Often noted for its goofiness" links only to sources affiliated with Pomona College.
  • The notability of certain pranks seems confined to an article published in an alumni magazine.
  • See again "main athletic and ideological rival".
  • I'm not even going to touch whether "highly selective" is relevant to the body of the article.

It doesn't help that the only GA for a college tradition article was promoted over a decade ago (and should probably be reassessed), but in its current state, this article is nowhere near GA status. Rather than a few specific issues that can be ironed out, the main problems are intrinsic to the article. My recommendation would be to start with defining what a "tradition" is in the context of this article (how long it's been in effect, is it student-generated or passed on from admin, etc.), then looking for reliable sourcing on the matter. And, of course, making sure that if you tie a citation to something, that it actually says what you say that it does. Best of luck. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, many of those issues seem addressable, but some—particularly requiring sources unaffiliated with Pomona—don't seem surmountable. The last major scholarly history of the college was published in 1969, and until a new one comes out, writing an article on its traditions with a reasonable level of detail is going to require using non-independent sources like the Pomona College Magazine (the alumni magazine). Although I'd argue they're still reliable enough to support most factual, non-controversial claims, I understand the wariness around having the article lean so heavily on them. Regarding scope, per the lead, the article defines tradition broadly such that it includes varying levels of institutional recognition, so I don't see a major problem with some coming from students and others from the admin.

It appears that there is no way currently to get this article to GA status (and Buidhe, I very much doubt it'd be seen as within scope at FLN), so I'll just hope for better sourcing to become available in the future. Thanks again for your thorough comments, which have certainly led to some improvements. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)