Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oriel College

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

---

Oriel College

Self nomination, I now feel that the topic is covered fully and meets the requirements for FA.--Alf ^melmac 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.[3]" 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.[6]" 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 ^melmac 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 ^melmac 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 ^melmac 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 ^melmac 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 ^háblame 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 ^melmac 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)
• Support Interesting read, well referenced and written, no major quarrels here. KOS | talk 17:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a comment as opposed to a support statement because I have been involved in the article in a limited capacity – minor copy editing and sentence restructuring and such like. I have followed the article's progress with great interest and have been most impressed with the way that Alf has thrown himself into the article and, indeed, with the way he has addressed every single comment for improvement with immediacy and good grace. As for the article itself, the main page is obviously the first thing any of us would see before logging in, and so it would be appropriate for us to check that day's featured article as a matter of course; I can quite honestly say that, in my humble opinion, this article is now on a par with any article which has achieved the hallowed FA status and would therefore expedite its approval – naturally! Bubba hotep 22:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- consider it a oppose for now--- change to Support / Fred-Chess 08:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is The House of Blessed Mary the Virgin in Oxford bolded? Is the college still known under that name? If so, please say so, and give a reference.
  • Image could benefit from a cleanup: Image:Oriel College 1733.jpg is a rather unhappy scan, wouldn't you agree (I think it isn't actually a scan, but a photo)? Image:Oriel College 1919 Photogravure.jpg has uneven lightening, Image:Oriel College Senior Library.jpg looks slightly "foggy" (suggest improve sharpness & contrast).
  • External link to marcus-beale.com probably doesn't have to be there?
  • Sentence The first is a French beaker and cover in silver gilt, past estimates on its dating of around 1460-70[37] are thought mistaken and it being from around 1350,[3] seems slightly awkard to me, and I think the footnotes are awkward too, because Victoria County History of the Counties of England isn't actually a reference (not a crucial issue though).
  • I removed an image of rowing teams that lacked a source. You might want to check into that.
  • Fred-Chess 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Replies: Thank you very much for your time and input Fred;
  • Like some still call Christ Church 'the House', the name The House of Blessed Virgin the Mary in Oxford is used, (particularly by those who dislike the recent addition of an extra 'the' before 'Blessed') I probably can't reference that, but I can reference that it was called that on its foundation.
  • Images - Alkivar kindly did some work on improving the old prints - his skills are far beyond mine and that's about as good as it gets I'm afraid, the Senior Library one has also been improved already :s - it's very difficult to get a balanced picture in there, however, there is a decent watercolour of it, if I can get a pic of that which doesn't then pick up flash on the glass I can replace it with that.
  • External link - I'm not fussed, it has some extra photos of recent renovations but otherwise doesn't add much, happy to lose it.
  • French beaker sentence, ok, I'll think hard about that again (fourth time :)). Thanks very much for sorting out my oversights on the references already, if I understand you right it's that I've linked to the article about VCH that is iffy there? I was unable to find an online version like I could with others.
  • Rowing team image, I note you've already contacted the uploader on that one, likely to be resolved or replaced with some from this year I can take myself, shame if it can't though as they are the two teams that got the first double headship in Torpids. I have had some contact with the uploader, I'll give a nudge.

Many thanks again Fred.--Alf ^melmac 11:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I add more comment, I would like to clarify what I ment when I complained about the reference to VCH. I realize it must be hard to understand... I know that you are trying to say that the VCH states the beaker is from 1460-70, but since it isn't a reference, you might as well join that footnote with the footnote following it. Then you could formulate that footnote as such: "The older date is for example given in the Victoria County History of the Counties of England ([year]). In a modern work, such as the "Oriel College Oxford, A short guide (2006)", the year is given as 1350.". I think this would be more coherent, but I could be wrong -- you decide (I won't object if you just leave it as it is)...

Fred-Chess 12:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the penny drops :) That's an admirable solution to the bumpiness of the refs, thanks, I'll rework the sentence when I can find a better way of expressing it. I've done the amendment to the ref, I'll have to wait to get back home to add the reference about the name, I don't have books here at work. --Alf ^melmac 12:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have now improved on the first and the third image that I complained about earlier. I think they look much better; you might want to revise. The second image was too difficult for me... but the images are okay for me now... / Fred-Chess 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am very impressed with the improvement to the Senior Library and not at all surprised by the difficulty of the second, though it has helped. I already have taken creases, thumbs marks, and an ink splot out with a cloning tool but wasn't able to make it look like it 'belonged with the others', as you can see I had three 'goes at it' already, trying to get it there. You have my great appreciation for your time and dedication.--Alf ^melmac 16:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bubba has kindly found the line "The first is a French beaker and cover in silver gilt, past estimates on its dating from 1460-70 are thought mistaken and circa 1350, with later decoration, was later expounded.[37]". So bolding fixed and referenced with actual words used (from page one of Rannie, the most complete source used, no less :) ), images somewhat improved and in motion to re-introduce the rowers photo, so-so external link removed, beaker line and reference sorted.<added at 22:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) as an afterthought> as a compensation for the uneveness in the 1919 photogravure, the high resolution with zoom in is pretty fine.--Alf ^melmac 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment per the MoS, quotes should not be italicized. --Peta 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, now done, that's the first new thing I learnt today :)--Alf ^melmac 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further to the rowing pic - the uploader has now applied a self-made GFDL licence to it, so I've now put it back in. --Alf ^melmac 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.