Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 23 December 2006

Oriel College

Self nomination, I now feel that the topic is covered fully and meets the requirements for FA.--Alf 13:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text requires copy-editing.
  • "The original medieval foundation set up by Adam de Brome, under the patronage of Edward II, was named The House of Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford, with the first design allowing for a Provost and ten Fellows, called 'scholars', and before admitting undergraduates in the 16th century, the College remained a small body of graduate Fellows." A long, curling snake. The last statement is awkwardly jammed into the sentence.
  • "high ranking members"—Spot where the hyphen should go.
  • The link to "18th century" is extremely relevant to this text.
  • "law suit"—two words?
  • "Oriel's notable alumni include two Nobel laureates and prominent Fellows have included John Keble and John Henry Newman, founders of the Oxford Movement." Again, the integration of ideas into sentences needs attention. Perhaps "laureates; prominent"?
  • "students, the student"—in an awkard sentence.
  • Last sentence: "is"?

This embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution. Tony 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the two previous copy-edits didn't pick those up, I have fixed all those except "curling snake", which was a result of fixing the black-out effect of having four names too close to each other. I'll look at that again. I assume that the 18th century link comment is sarcasm and have removed it accordingly. --Alf 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done something about the first example. All the above examples except the last, appear in the intro, which was expanded during this article's peer review, the last appeared in the latest section, which I didn't wish to create until I had a book to reference the Inspector Morse episodes, as a bonus, the book has four other films listed as using Oriel as a location and I've added that data. I had already promised myself to nominate the article after I'd added that section, I should have checked it all over once more I guess.--Alf 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick metacomment: I appreciate the effort put in to reviewing articles, and we should certainly be exacting, but it's not necessary or helpful to make comments like "this embarrasses the many great minds that have emerged from the institution". FAC should be rigorous yet not belittling. — Matt Crypto 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I was a little harsh in that comment, but stand by my view that the prose isn't good enough. Tony 16:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - 1a, 1c and 2. The first section I checked (People associated with the College) is uncited, has poor prose (examples - "Their most famous undergraduate is probably Sir Walter Raleigh, a 16th century explorer, though he was registered at college, he does not seem to have taken up residence." and "Like other Oxford colleges, Oriel has a more or less permanent set of teaching staff, known as dons."), and uses the Summary style templates incorrectly. Fixing Tony's *examples* isn't enough to correct the prose. Sandy (Talk) 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The "poor prose" "Like other..." was the same as for ChristChurch college article, and that sentence has now been removed. There was a cite in the section for the Professorial Fellowships, I felt it uneccessary to cite obviously verfiable figures like the two nobel laureates, I've added one for Walter Raleigh's being a member, the info about him not taking up residence is in his article, I am unable to reference it myself so I have removed it. I'm not sure what you mean by the 'uses Summary style templates incorrectly" — the full list of people got too long for the article and was moved to it's own page, should I move it back instead? --Alf 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates belong at the top of the section. Sandy (Talk) 16:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the only template used in that section is already at the top of the section, the two links at the bottom link to categories and were added in the Oxford college articles across the board, is there a better way of handling those?--Alf 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support - a lot of work has gone into this article, and it shows. It's comprehensive, interesting, well-referenced and well-written. I don't buy into the above oppositions; they're ridiculously picky. Particlarly, I don't see how sarcasm is necessary, or the scathing nature of the summing-up comment. Regards, —Celestianpower 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On smaller monitors, placing one image to the right and one to the left scrunches up the text in an ugly mess. The third pair is okay, though, since they're vertical pictures and smaller in width. Gzkn 00:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I recently made the pictures larger, trying the page out in the default settings for IE6/7 and Firefox and how it appeared on the print out. I have the luxury of larger screens and I didn't think of looking at it in 800x600 they do look bad. I've reset those to default thumb size.--Alf 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, good job. Everything's there, inline citations, the prose is good and well summarised, don't see why I should object this potential FA. Terence Ong 08:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)