Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs) m fix |
Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs) GAR |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
:::Kind of wished you had discussed the move with me first, Gimmetrow. I would like to keep a copy in my userspace for future reference. '''[[User:Miranda|<font face="verdana"><font color="#007BA7">miranda</font></font>]]''' 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::Kind of wished you had discussed the move with me first, Gimmetrow. I would like to keep a copy in my userspace for future reference. '''[[User:Miranda|<font face="verdana"><font color="#007BA7">miranda</font></font>]]''' 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: Then move it back. Doesn't matter to me. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
:::: Then move it back. Doesn't matter to me. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::I have put the article at GA review. If information on the acting program and regional theatre, probably a small paragraph of about 4 sentences, is added I will withdraw the nomination. The article is very very good otherwise, and I will fully support its GA status if you do this as it will then be comprehensive. [[User:Judgesurreal777|Judgesurreal777]] ([[User talk:Judgesurreal777|talk]]) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:23, 29 May 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Template:LOCErequest Template:Archive box collapsible
GA review
Comments on how to improve this article are located here. miranda 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Infobox
I've removed a few of the fields from the infobox as it is stretching so far down in the article and squeezing the history section. Almost all the infomation is in the article elsewhere (sometimes in the lead, per WP:LEAD) so hasn't been lost. I have no problem with anyone adding them back per WP:BRD, it's just featured articles such as Michigan and Duke have much less. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The infobox definitely needed to have some of the fields removed since some of them were of little, if any value. However, I think the "Motto in English" field should be put back, since the motto in English is already in the infobox, just without the field, so it won't be taking up anymore room. I'm going to add that back unless someone has an objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Featured articles such as Michigan and Duke have used it the way it was, and it's obvious that it's Latin.152.2.133.109 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with you about it being obvious that it is Latin. To someone who doesn't know anything about Latin they could easily think it was Italian or some other language. And just because the Duke article dosen't have the field in its info box is meaningless. Lots of other good university articles do have the field in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- You may wish to read the motto article linked from the template. Moreover, I tend to go with the opinion of FA reviewers. Trying to assume good faith, but it's rather tendacious editing. Please sign your comments too. 152.2.133.109 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- First of all it is in good faith, as I am trying to improve the UNC article as I am sure you are as well. And I do appreciate all your efforts as I would like to see the UNC article pass the GA nomination process as much as you do. However, it’s funny to me that you complain about signing comments when you’re using an IP address. Furthermore, there are other featured articles such as Georgetown that do at least say their motto is in Latin. I also went back and looked at Duke’s article since you keep referring to it and it turns out that the Duke article also said their motto was Latin from November 2006 until May 23, 2008 when Artichoke2020 decided to change it. And I believe Artichoke2020 was the exact same person who changed it on the UNC article around the same time. Unfortunately, it appears that Artichoke2020 has left us and is unable to defend his own edit. I’m so glad you’re so adamant about defending it though. Somehow I don’t think I’m the one engaging in tendacious editing. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Featured articles such as Michigan and Duke have used it the way it was, and it's obvious that it's Latin.152.2.133.109 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Latin
Universitas Carolinae Septentrionalis is correct. An alternative could be Universitas Carol. Septent. denoting the abbreviated form of North Carolina, I suppose. Remember the seal says "Seal of the University of North Carolina", and sadly in Latin it isn't as simple as just removing a word. If there is a large amount of debate I would just remove any Latin rather than have an edit war as it isn't especially important. Alternatively, write the UNC Classics Departments or check this book (or similar ones) on Latin grammar.
Greenough, James B. & Allen, J.H. "Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar." Dover Publications. ISBN 0486448061 (2006 version) — 152.2.133.109 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
GA comment
I'm not reviewing the article, but adding a comment to whoever does; there should be a mention of the theatre program and the fact that a regional theatre is present on the campus, and that there is a large undergraduate and highly respected graduate program in acting on the campus, which currently gets no mention in the article. That should be included if this is to be GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not all colleges have mention of a theater program. If you would like, I am sure that you could add that section. However, I am not going to base a pass/fail on an issue such as the UNC page not having a theater program mentioned. That's equivalent for a basketball fan saying that this article doesn't mention Dean Smith or Michael Jordan and should fail for that point. miranda 19:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. {{sofixit}} would be an appropriate response to this comment; failing to list this article as a GA would not. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Michael Jordan is there... :) 152.2.133.109 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I have promoted this article. Great job. miranda 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- There was no article review done, so this cannot be passed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I have promoted this article. Great job. miranda 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So does this article have GA status or not? Gimmetrow 01:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- From the review page above it says
- "Went through the article. Extensive progress has been made. Thus, I am promoting this to GA. miranda 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"
- but Judgesurreal777 removed the tag. Can an article be delisted so quickly? HolomorphicHamster (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you reviewing the article off the talk page? Do the normal thing and actually review it where everyone can see and not somewhere else. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. If you look at the template, the GA review box at the top of the page has a link that creates a new page where a review can be placed, and that isn't on the talk page either. It doesn't mention in the GAN instructions that the review has to be on the talk page, and the review seems well commented and in order. Maybe I've missed something, but I can't see a problem. HolomorphicHamster (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems there is confusion about the location of User:Miranda's review, so it is temporarily transcluded below. HolomorphicHamster (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made a subpage. And, no. Judgesurreal777 shouldn't have deleted the review. I do this on my GAs all of the time. There is no Wikipedia standard on placing reviews. Also, Judgesurreal has conflict of interest in removing the article based upon a comment here prior to my assessment. miranda 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the page to a subpage of this article leaving the redirect from Miranda's subpage. I don't personally care where the review is, but there should only be one copy, and I think the GA idea is to keep the reviews with the articles. Gimmetrow 02:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kind of wished you had discussed the move with me first, Gimmetrow. I would like to keep a copy in my userspace for future reference. miranda 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then move it back. Doesn't matter to me. Gimmetrow 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have put the article at GA review. If information on the acting program and regional theatre, probably a small paragraph of about 4 sentences, is added I will withdraw the nomination. The article is very very good otherwise, and I will fully support its GA status if you do this as it will then be comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then move it back. Doesn't matter to me. Gimmetrow 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kind of wished you had discussed the move with me first, Gimmetrow. I would like to keep a copy in my userspace for future reference. miranda 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the page to a subpage of this article leaving the redirect from Miranda's subpage. I don't personally care where the review is, but there should only be one copy, and I think the GA idea is to keep the reviews with the articles. Gimmetrow 02:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)