Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of universities in London/archive1
- 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 18:31, 2 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Lead is very short; 1 paragraph isn't enough. Perhaps some of the prose from later into the article could be incorporated into a longer lead.
- The key should be made into a table.
- Not a huge fan of the giant green checkmarks in the first table. There's gotta be a better way to effectively present this information, such as a "Notes" column or symbols/colors.
- Why do the later lists only use a bulleted format instead of a tabular format?
- Quite a few redlinks in the second section.
- I don't have time to copyedit right now, but there are some grammar, capitalization, and punctuation errors. Two examples that I saw are "Higher Education institutions" (higher ed isn't a proper noun) and "South-West London" (southwest is the proper spelling).
I suggest recruiting an experienced copy editor. This list probably should have gone to peer review before coming here, and I wouldn't be opposed to its withdrawal to be put through peer review before a re-nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
- I agree that the second section should be converted into a tabular form. I also think that the list should provide more information: street address, number of students, year of foundation etc. See, for instance, List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_New_Hampshire.
- I do not understand what are inclusion criteria? Some of the institution mentioned in the list do not look like universities. The list should be either renamed to List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_London or the inclusion criteria should be rectified.
- The lead should be expanded. It should, for instance, list the inclusion criteria which I mentioned above.
Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a bit of this is said above, but my main concern is the rather subjective presentation of and lack of crucial information. In addition there are some style and grammar issues.
- What is the difference between a "major university" and "specialised universities and higher education colleges". For instance, I was under the impression that London School of Economics was a business/economics university and not a full-range university, and was sort of expecting it in the second section. Is there any reliable sources that can be sited for this divide?
- The second list needs to become a table. By merging the two sections, a full, sortable list can be created, which is much more useful for this kind of information.
- What I expect from a list like this is: name, location (for instance borough or similar), no. of students, public/private and perhaps notes. Maybe there are other things too, for instance year of establishment, faculty size etc. Rankings and accreditation actually say very little about a university, and there is academic dispute whether the rankings actually measure the quality of a university at all. There also becomes the discussion of which rankings to include.
- Why are some of the universities in italics? The key should be above the list in table format (what is the point of reading a table without having read the key, just to discover it after the table was read), and not use italics for indication.
- There seems to be an undue attention (in amount of prose) given to future universities. Why is a qualitative discussion of them worth while, where only a bare mention of the current in Name (type) format.
- Don't use relative terms like "within the next few years".
- Lots of statements are unreferenced.
- The lead should perhaps be five times the length. It also seems subjective, over-focusing on the University of London.
Arsenikk (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.