Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C./archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:08, 24 March 2014 [1].

List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C. edit

List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria of featured list status, as it outlines the colleges and universities of Washington, D.C. in the manner of other featured lists of colleges and universities, to include List of colleges and universities in Michigan. As always, I am open to suggestions on how to improve the quality of this list. Caponer (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments...
    • The intro mentions some law schools that aren't obviously members of listed universities. Obviously GWU Law School is part of GWU, but Columbus School of Law is part of Catholic, and there's nothing indicating this. Perhaps a parenthetical should be added.
    • It looks like three of the defunct schools merged into active schools, I feel like this should be noted somewhere. Like a "fate" column.
    • Gallaudet is a noted school focusing on the deaf (to the point of being officially bilingual in English and ASL); this should be mentioned in the intro.
    • The addresses... I'm not sure what they really add to the article. If we're listing colleges in a state, like with the Michigan list, the city is relevant, but that doesn't matter for DC, and the specific address in this list seems to be overkill. Especially since this is just the address of the main office, and ignores the fact that most of these occupy many city blocks.
    • The accreditation for the Paul H. Nitze School and St. Paul's College reads "N/A", or "Not Applicable". Why does accreditation not apply to these? Or is it supposed to read "none" instead?
    • It looks like the Pontifical John Paul II institute should instead link to John Paul II Institute, as this is specifically on the unit in DC. Likewise, maybe its local name ("Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America") should be used, with a footnote that it's not actually part of CUA.
    • The table is unnecessarily squished. Please find a way of getting it to full width, though getting rid of the address column would help. I tried adding a {{br}} after the images but it just made a lot of whitespace.
    • There is a 'The' in "The Catholic University of America", but not in "George Washington University", despite GWU branding themselves that way. Should the "The" be dropped? Either way, Catholic needs to sort as C, not T. Same issue with The Institute of World Politics.
    • Accreditation seems useless as an alphabetical sort, and I suggest it be made an unsortable column, unless we sorted based on number of accrediting institutions.
    • Why is the David A. Clark school of law listed separate from UDC? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Golbez, thank you for your suggestions and comments. I'll address these in full this weekend. -- Caponer (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, but the intro seems to only concentrate on the Carnegie schools; the four non-Carnegie schools don't seem to be noted at all in the intro. Maybe a small sentence or paragraph explaining their existence? And as for Clarke being listed separately, if it is listed separately by both Carnegie and DOE... I'd like other input on that but that would seem to warrant a separate inclusion, if we were sure we weren't doubling up on enrollment numbers. With a note of course explaining why it's included. --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your re-review and suggestions, Golbez! I've added a sentence to the lead regarding the non-Carnegie institutions. As for Clarke, its numbers are not included in the enrollment totals in both the DoE and Carnegie statistics. -- Caponer (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Almost ready to support, but it would be helpful for the reader to have in-line-citations at the end of each of the factual assertions in the Explanatory notes section, to assist with verifiability. Otherwise, very well done and most obviously encyclopedic and educational high quality page. — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, as always, thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. I've added internal citations to the explanatory notes. Please take a look at these and let me know if these will work. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My thanks to Caponer for being so responsive to my comments, above. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Might sound like a redundant question but could Note 2 and 3 not be merged? seems like the exact same information. Aureez (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aureez, thank you for taking the time to review this list and comment here--it is much appreciated! While Notes 2 and 3 are utilizing the same source, they are referring to different types of data listed under each respective column. The notes are meant to be tailored for each type of data displayed in the columns below. Please let me know if this will be alright as stands. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So "School control and type is based" wouldn't make it less redundant? Aureez (Talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aureez, I reconfigured and reorganized the templates to make it happen. Your suggestion has been implemented! Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr. edit

  • "Washington, D.C.'s oldest post-secondary institution is Georgetown University, founded in 1789.[2][3][4] Georgetown University is also the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.[2][3][5] " Citations are a bit excessive, I don't think you really need three on each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Each sentences now only has two citations. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as of fall 2012." -shouldn't that be "in the fall of 2012"? Sorry, I'm not American so it might be common to word it like that!
Done! I've modified the sentence to read "as of the spring of 2013" as the data was actually from spring of 2013 and not fall of 2012. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The University of the District of Columbia is Washington, D.C.'s sole land-grant university.[8] Washington, D.C. has two historically black colleges and universities " Washington, D.C. repeats a bit here, perhaps reword as "The city has two historically black"..
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington, D.C. has three medical schools: George Washington University Medical School, Georgetown University School of Medicine, and Howard University College of Medicine. It has six law schools, " -has also repeats on me a bit here too, perhaps change in second instance to "There are" instead of "it has".
Done! Good catch. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eighteen of Washington, D.C.'s post-secondary institutions are accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA). Most are accredited" -again repetition of accredited, change the second wording.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! The second use of accredited has been modified to "officially recognized." Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive citations in Defunct institutions. Two max would suffice in any column, four is staggering hehe.
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would look better aesthetically if you could blue link those red links with some stubs.
Working on this as we speak. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with publishers in references, not sure you really need to link on every occasion. There's enough blue text in the article already!
Lightened the blue links a bit! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you for your thoughtful reviews of this list! I've addressed all your concerns, and appreciate you taking the time to conduct this thorough review! This is always appreciated! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for addressing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_Washington,_D.C./archive1&oldid=1138486205"