Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 are 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

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

GA Review[edit]

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)


Criterion[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Notable alumni[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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)

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)

Lead[edit]

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)

History[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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. I added the same data to Phillips Academy as well and planned to add more.

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