| Revision as of 21:16, 16 April 2009 editGypsyjazzbo (talk | contribs)55 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:55, 11 August 2009 edit undoInquietudeofcharacter (talk | contribs)3,098 edits →Tags: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| I think it should be noted that this article does not have an encyclopedia tone and was obviously written by someone associated with Colorado Christian University in order to advocate on its behalf. Misplaced Pages is not a public relations or advertising tool, and the nature of this article needs to be altered to better reflect a non-biased tone.--] (]) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | I think it should be noted that this article does not have an encyclopedia tone and was obviously written by someone associated with Colorado Christian University in order to advocate on its behalf. Misplaced Pages is not a public relations or advertising tool, and the nature of this article needs to be altered to better reflect a non-biased tone.--] (]) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Tags == | |||
| I just added cleanup, primarysources, and coi tags to the article after a cleanup effort by ]. I'll explain my issues, since it's possible to take issue with not having done so. I added cleanup tags , because the article doesn't conform to ] -- for example, there's a section on "location" with a second-level heading -- and other pieces of the ], because the lead is replete with reference tags and might not be a summary per ]. I added primary sources tags because most of the references added by WebDev1914 recently are from http://www.ccu.edu instead of reliable, third-party, published sources per ]/]. I added coi tags because the primary contributor, WebDev1914 is clearly a representative (or multiple representatives) of the web development office at CCU: name changes show this (, ), 1914 is the "founding year" of CCU, et cetera. This doesn't mean the article is hopeless and it doesn't mean I'm insulting WebDev; it just means that others of us need to take a look at the article and be sure that some inevitable POV hasn't crept in. I'd be more than happy to do some cleanup and NPOV-checks myself if no one else steps up soon. --] (]) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:55, 11 August 2009
"Christian University that exists to produce graduates who think critically, live faithfully, and impact effectively their spheres of influence." I'm removing this. Maybe it could stay if we added a qualifier, like "claims to" or "aims to" or "mission is to." JohnJohn 03:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has been extensively edited by a webdeveloper at CCU, giving it a preposterously positive and non-encyclopedic tone, which I'm working on correcting. JohnJohn (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that this article does not have an encyclopedia tone and was obviously written by someone associated with Colorado Christian University in order to advocate on its behalf. Misplaced Pages is not a public relations or advertising tool, and the nature of this article needs to be altered to better reflect a non-biased tone.--Gypsyjazzbo (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Tags
I just added cleanup, primarysources, and coi tags to the article after a cleanup effort by User:WebDev1914. I'll explain my issues, since it's possible to take issue with not having done so. I added cleanup tags , because the article doesn't conform to WP:UNIGUIDE -- for example, there's a section on "location" with a second-level heading -- and other pieces of the WP:MOS, because the lead is replete with reference tags and might not be a summary per WP:LEAD. I added primary sources tags because most of the references added by WebDev1914 recently are from http://www.ccu.edu instead of reliable, third-party, published sources per WP:RS/WP:V. I added coi tags because the primary contributor, WebDev1914 is clearly a representative (or multiple representatives) of the web development office at CCU: name changes show this (, ), 1914 is the "founding year" of CCU, et cetera. This doesn't mean the article is hopeless and it doesn't mean I'm insulting WebDev; it just means that others of us need to take a look at the article and be sure that some inevitable POV hasn't crept in. I'd be more than happy to do some cleanup and NPOV-checks myself if no one else steps up soon. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)