This page is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
higher education,
universities, and
colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the
discussion, and see the project's
article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See
the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles.
So, I based most of this off of
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress/COTW. Now, I'd ask them about how they originally coded everything and how they managed the past collaboration topics, but it turns out they haven't updated since March 2007, so I have decided to just take what we have agreed on in the discussion on the WP:Uni/Talk Page instead.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
This is a great part of the project, but it would help to have more clarification what editors can do with articles that are selected for COTF. Do they just focus on them? Are there specific things that need to be improved? The easier we make it for new contributors the more likely they are to help. —NoeticSage04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, the point of having three articles to focus on in the period of 14 days is to basically get into the mood, get into their niche, and start editing. We have a B-Class improvement drive to improve B-class articles to GA or even FA grade. We have a start/stub class improvement to at least push the article to a B-class article. And in case the random selections get boring, we try to focus on what the general consensus wants to edit next by having the ENT (Editor Nominated Topic) so that if the editor does not feel comfortable or does not feel motivated in editing random articles, at least he/she could participate in improving an article that a majority of the active editors in the WikiProject has interest(s) in.
What we're looking for:
Upgrading Start-Class or Stub-Class articles to B-Class: (Borrowed from WikiProject Florida)
Referencing and citation
Coverage and accuracy
Structure
Grammar
Supporting materials
Upgrading B-Class articles to GA/FA grade:
NPOV
Well-structured and written
Well-Rounded Coverage of University/Subject area
(See GA/FA requirements)
General guidelines
Help verify/supply new sources
Update figures. (Enrollment figures and number of awards fluctuate every semester/year. It drastically affects the accuracy of this encyclopedia to make sure the data displayed in the article is up-to-date.
Check to see if the article is following the suggested WikiProject Universities article structure breakdown
Make sure the article is NOT an advertisement. The last thing we need is a misplaced online university trying to solicit to students through our services. If it is written like an advertisement, fix it. If you cannot, notify us on the appropriate subject header on this talk page.
I'll need some help going over the translations. Google translate did very little in terms of translating Chinese to English, so I pretty much had to re-translate it myself. Since I've spent so much time on this thing, I'd like a couple pairs of eyes to look over just so we don't leave behind random grammatical/word choice errors. If someone can take a look, that'd be great. Thanks!
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs09:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
General Discussion
So how effective is this COTF program? Please list the faults and room for improvement here. I'd like to hear your feedback as well as possible ways to attract other editors to join the bandwagon.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs07:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Active COTF editors?
Why the need for a list of active COTF editors? Why need they be contacted? Wouldn't it make more sense to just ask us to include this page on our watchlist and have discussions and questions posted here? --
Midnightdreary (
talk)
13:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree. Rather than messaging everyone they should be checking the COTF page anyway if they really want to participate. Important happenings can go there. —NoeticSage19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Archived Comments from Nomination (blanked when selected for ENT)
Comments
(A school with 280,000 students deserves an article worth its size and impact on adult education) --
17reasons (
talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for a school without proper notable accreditation is questionable, especially one of their most popular programs (MBA) is not even accredited by a professional organization like the
AACSB. And for a user without a user page and without a proper talk page to bring this up, is also questionable. I will not remove this nomination as stated in nomination documentation, but the level of collaboration on this particular subject may be lower than usual.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You know, I don't necessarily see a problem with focusing on University of Phoenix - but the editor who nominated should understand that the controversy surrounding it will be one of the most important elements in its article. Considering U of P's prevalence across the country, its (inflated?) number of enrolled students and the nation-wide controversial attention it has garnered, it might deserve a larger article... it just might be a bitter pill to swallow when it's all done. --
Midnightdreary (
talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's just a classic case of "Be careful of what you wish for"...
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is looking much better than it did two weeks ago. Talk about a hot topic, you have to tread lightly with the editors as edit wars and vandalism are common. There was a lot of erroneous information on the page leading to confusing and conflicting thoughts about the content. Referencing and citation, is improved, a little more work to be done on the formatting. Other start class issues have been improved. Attention needs to be given to B class issues, specifically NPOV, and well-rounded coverage. I did not even begin to look into the heart of the Criticism and Controversy sections, other than obvious and false information about the schools accreditation. As to the accuracy of any of the other sections, I have no idea. The regular editors guard this information so much, trying to change any of it is challenging. I think at the heart of the problem that this University is the prime property of a major publicly traded company and some people do not think profit and education should go together. (See Discussion question below). There are editors on the site that seem to focus a lot of editing efforts on for-profit educational institutions like this one and their contributions do not always have a neutral tone.
Medicscout (
talk)
15:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Post discussion/questions here.
Since this school has inherent difference from traditional colleges, (working adult education, large online student body, no research focus, profit/shareholder return orientation), should the outline used be modified from the structure in
WP:UNIGUIDE? Working NPOV into this article will be challenging and will find resistance.
Medicscout (
talk)
15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I do not believe UOP should receive any special treatment, especially when many other universities offer online courses and degrees in their respective distance learning programs. NPOV should be in every article. Resistance will be greeted with the standard Wikipedia treatment. I don't think we'll have any problems.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think this school will be much more enjoyable to work on than UOP. Referencing and citation needs some work, there is a Notes section randomly in the middle of the article. I am working on the structure to comply with
WP:UNIGUIDE.
Medicscout (
talk)
15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Post discussion/questions here.
General Discussion
Post general discussion/questions here.
Sorry
Sorry I am late in choosing the next COTF. My birthday was on the 30th and the 31st I was sick all day. I'll work on this when I get back home. (I'm in the middle of a lecture at the moment...lol)
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
contribs20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)reply
As would I. I really think that we ought to limit the collaboration to just one article per fortnight (or even per month), with the stated goal of getting some piece of B-Class (or lower) article ready to pass the GA process at the end of the collaboration.
Esrever(
klaT)20:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I've moved the COTF stuff into the new COTM stuff... I know... not very specific, but I'll be putting up the ten articles for you guys to work on pretty soon, and make sure the new page is on your watchlist... :)
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
guestbook ♦
contribs20:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)reply
As indicated by Madcoverboy, COTM program was not launched properly when I had my WikiBreaks. I have therefore extended Berkeley's COTM period until the end of this month. If you have any questions, please discuss it here. Thanks.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
guestbook ♦
contribs04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)reply
NEXT COTM ??
It's been past "spring break" and there's still no activity.
I'm also disappointed in the selections. Nearly all the previous COTMs have been American schools -- I would like to see Canadian, Australian, and British ones added to the nomination list as well.
The last 10 picks by the moderator were all exclusively American (except one). That is disappointing, and shows an Americentrism where there ought not to be.
Keitherson (
talk)
06:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)reply
A couple of things I'd like to point out. I am no longer the moderator for the COTM due to time conflicts. I have stated that in
WT:UNI months ago. The program had picks from all over the world, including
HKU,
University of Kent,
King's College London, and other universities in India, China and Thailand. This does not include nominations which did not receive enough votes to become a topic for the old COTF program or the COTM program. Please thoroughly review the selections before you start attacking random people you have not worked with, you have no background on, and probably will not work with. Have a good day.
- Jameson L. Taitalk ♦
guestbook ♦
contribs08:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm interested in reviving COTM. If you don't have the time, I'd gladly take stewardship over it until you'd like to spearhead it again. Since the "current" COTM from Dec/Jan still hasn't been nominated for GA status, perhaps we could add a secondary objective to future COTM announcements that is easier to attain, like improving some stub or start class articles. That would be particularly useful for editors who would like to participate but just happen to know very little about the one big article that's on its way from B to GA status. Let me know what you think. -
Mabeenot (
talk)
02:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Jameson L. Tai has entrusted me with the Universities COTM. The Nov/Dec 2009 edition is up and ready for editors to contribute. We've also added a second article (start-class) for anyone who prefers working on improving less-advanced articles. Also, be sure to vote for the next COTM. -
Mabeenot (
talk)
09:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)reply