Former good article nomineeUniversity of Notre Dame was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 4, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 17, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
June 1, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
October 29, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 26, 2006, November 26, 2007, November 26, 2008, November 26, 2009, November 26, 2014, November 26, 2016, November 26, 2017, November 26, 2018, November 26, 2020, November 26, 2021, and November 26, 2022.
Current status: Former good article nominee

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Notre Dame/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 02:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


WP:LEAD
Foundations
Early history
Hesburgh Era
1952–1987
Recent History
Campus
Buildings and Architecture
Environmental sustainability
Organization and administration
Academics
Colleges
Graduate and professional schools
Libraries
Rankings
Science
Endowment
Residence halls
Religious life
Student-run media
Community development
Athletics
Football
Men's basketball
Other sports
Music
Alumni
Images

In general, this article has a long way to go. It will take a lot of research to update it and there are many other issues with the current state of the article. Considering its current state and lingering issues related to the GA1, I don't see it as likely that these concerns will be addressed within one week. I am failing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Notre Dame/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 21:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll print this out and take it on because it's waited so long. Let me give it some time to look over it before I make any comments. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. It took about two weeks to review it and do what turned out to be a badly-needed copy edit.

I will say first what is good and commendable about the article:

But that's about where the good things end.

As should be obvious from the tags I added and other work I did ...

✗ Fail: This shall not pass

I am sorry that after 11 months and two days it has to come to this, but it does. There is simply too much work needed on this article for us to reasonably expect that it will be done within a week. If all the issues here are addressed, it can be renominated.

I had decided to fail it, actually, long before I finished my editing, for two very big reasons:

I will go into more specific sins issues later. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifics

OK ...

Alas, I see this is still being done in the edits since I failed this article. Not the way for GA5, whenever it happens, to turn out any differently. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, it's geting late and I have to call it a night. More tomorrow/later today. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to work now ...

Again, I have to go to work, so more later. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resuming ...

A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. (emphasis mine)

Given that these galleries often come at the end of sections that are already amply illustrated, I very much question the need for any of them.

I think I see what whoever placed them was trying to do, but ... that purpose might be better served with a video of campus buildings, all these gameday traditions and still pictures of alumni, in their respective sections (The middle one especially, as it would be great to see and hear the band). It would take up less space in the article, help it load faster and impart the same information.

OK, that's all for tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick note: I am pleased to see that at least the Lobund section which I had flagged as copyvio has been removed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing ...

Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions

I close this review with a list of suggestions, some of which I've already made up above, which could no doubt improve the article:

Alright ... that's it, and I hereby close this review which has taken the better part of this month for me. Happy editing to all, now and in the future, who work or will work to improve this article to future GA (or, I suspect, FA) status. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Boosterism[edit]

I am suggesting that there is not a consensus that the article contains boosterism and am therefore removing the label.Jahaza (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of the booster tag. There is neither is there a consensus to remove the booster tag either, yet that doesn't justify its inclusion. I placed it because of material in the body which contains explicit WP:BOOSTER material. GuardianH (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It requires, like all things on Wikipedia, a consensus to add. You followed BRD. but it was reverted and now we move to discussion. There does not seem to be one, at the moment. This is what this discussion is for. Eccekevin (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article has an issue with WP:BOOSTER that violates WP:PROMOTION, WP:SYNTH, and other policies. Here are some examples:

It is consistently ranked and admired as one of the most beautiful university campuses in the United States and around the world, and is noted particularly for the Golden Dome, the Basilica and its stained glass windows, the quads and the greenery, the Grotto, Touchdown Jesus, and its statues and museums.

Notre Dame's dining service sources 40 percent of its food locally and offers sustainably caught seafood and many organic, fair-trade, and vegan options.

First Year of Studies is designed to encourage intellectual and academic achievement and innovation among first-year students. It includes programs such as FY advising, the Dean's A-list, the Renaissance circle, NDignite, the First Year Urban challenge, and more.

Every admissions cycle, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions selects a small number of students for the Glynn Family Honors Program, which grants top students within the College of Arts and Letters and the College of Science access to smaller class sizes taught by distinguished faculty, endowed funding for independent research, and dedicated advising faculty and staff.

In the fiscal 2019, the university received the all-time high research funding of $180.6 million, an increase of $100 million from 2009 and a 27 percent increase from the previous year, with top funded and cutting-edge projects including vector-borne diseases, urbanism, environmental design, cancer, psychology, economics, philosophy of religion, particle physics, nanotechnology, and hypersonics.

Non-Catholic religious organizations on campus include the Baptist Collegiate Ministry (BCM), Jewish Club of Notre Dame, the Muslim Student Association, the Orthodox Christian Fellowship, the Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship, and many more.

Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks.

I am unclear how rankings and factual statments can be boosterism. For example, the sentence "Notre Dame is ranked among the universities with strongest alumni networks" is factually true. Several sources, as cited, rank it as such. This is a statement of fact. Now, not all positive aspects are boosterism. It would be, if the language was embellished or it was given undue weight, but I do not see this being the case. Eccekevin (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the lede, there are two claims which raise concerns of WP:SYNTH:

Notre Dame has been recognized as one of the top universities in the United States.

The university's approximately 134,000 alumni constitute one of the strongest college alumni networks in the U.S.

GuardianH (talk) 04:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How exactly is the second to last claim SYNTH? It is only one statement, and it is backed up by sources, several of which contain the statement. I can see how the last statement might be, but it can easily be broken down into two sentences and SYNTH is avoided. Eccekevin (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With respect to the SYNTH, the first claim Notre Dame has been recognized as one of the top universities in the United States is trivially verifiable. The sources in the body tend to focus on specific rankings (such as U.S. News, which isn't terrible for this sort of thing but the whole claim can trivially be verified directly with USA Today The university is widely regarded as one of the very best nationally each and every year.
In the second claim, the claim of alumni strength is cited in the body to 2. It could be split into two sentences to say The Princeton Review ranks Notre Dame as having the best alumni network in the United States among private schools. And a second sentence saying Notre Dame has XYZ alumni, but I do think a sentence like Notre Dame's network of alumni, which is over 151,000 strong,[1] is ranked by The Princeton Review as the best alumni network in the United States among private schools.[2] (1 2) would work fine in terms of compliance with WP:NOR. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree, and I think that's an excellent way to phrase it to avoid semblence of SYNTH. Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Along those lines, I've made my suggested edits to the page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. I endorse those changes, and they are in line with this discussion. I think the claims of boosterism have been dealt with, and I see no further opposition. Eccekevin (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite consensus being reached, and no objections to it raised in over a month, a user has unilaterally removed this. I re-added it and linked this discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, without participating in the discussion, user has re-added tag. I removed it since this was resolved a month ago and no one has raised objections. Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eccekevin No consensus was reached regarding the tag on this page. Are you referencing another discussion? GuardianH (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read above, clear consensus. You were asked about specific issues and did not reply, nor contribute, nor object to the conclusions for over two months, hence this discussion sems closed. Eccekevin (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was not a misunderstanding. Per the tag instructions you were required to initiate a talk page discussion in addition to applying the tag. "When applying this template to an article, editors should note specific reasons on the article's talk page." You did not do this, so other editors were justified in removing the drive by tagging. Jahaza (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uncited claims are not SYNTH. Jahaza (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this article does have some problems with sourcing (it's older, and older articles tend to have these issues as things just kinda pile up). There's definitely some boosterism in the article (which is a shame, because it's the top/among the top Catholic universities in the world).
@Jahaza: Are there any instances of boosterism that led you to place the tag other than those given by GuardianH above? If we're going to fix the article, it's best to have a list of specific things to hammer down. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk @Jahaza Daniel Case did a GA Review in 2019 that is still transcluded on this talk page. Even though it's dated, much of the material he mentioned in his review persists, and he mentions boosterism as one of the reasons for the unsuccessful review. I think taking a look at his comments would be useful in improving the article. GuardianH (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A factual statement, that is the recognition of certain parties, does not constitute boosterism. There have been attempts at discussing at a project level, and those should be continued, but until a consensus is reached, it is perfectly fine if this page and others use such language. Eccekevin (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for coming to this discussion so late. It's rarely appropriate to include information in the lede that can only be sourced to one reference so I object to the inclusion of the Princeton Review ranking on those grounds. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On these grounds I agree, but there were several other sources before that were removed by the user. This can be easily rephrased incorporating those. Eccekevin (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"University of Notre Dame Folk Choir" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect University of Notre Dame Folk Choir has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 25 § University of Notre Dame Folk Choir until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Notre Dame is one of the top universities in the United States."[edit]

I'm unsure why this is being removed. It's both cited and there was specific conversation in the #Boosterism subsection above, where a source was provided and nobody has objected to the sourcing on talk. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was removed because what was cited is nowhere near what we need to justify including such a strong statement in the lede of an article as required by the current consensus about statements like this. Additionally, the discussion above doesn't demonstrate a consensus nor can a discussion between a couple of editors override that broader consensus.
Frankly, the sources included in the current "Rankings" section of the article are also insufficient to justify including this statement in the lede. In particular, nothing in that section tells readers that this super high ranking has occurred more than once which is what we'd need to support this statement. And we really need a diversity of sources that support this claim, ideally with many of them coming from scholars and experts and not just ranking organizations who have a self-interest in promoting their commercial publications. ElKevbo (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proper citations used to be present, but they were removed without discussion. I re-insrted them. This has been litigated before [[1]], but then it was removed months later without discussion. Eccekevin (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eccekevin @ElKevbo The "top university" statement also lacks the WP:DUE weight in the body to support its placement in the lede, another violation of WP:HIGHEREDREP. It jumps the gun and even so, there's no reason to put it in such a prominent place in the lede. It is better placed in the body, and its reputation section and rankings section can be expanded. GuardianH (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added the neutrality tag to reflect the concerns over WP:HIGHEREDREP. GuardianH (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brittanica[edit]

Brittanica is an encyclopedia. Summerdays1 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A vague statement presented without context is unlikely to make sense much less convince anyone of anything. ElKevbo (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding GH questioning Brittanica as it relates to UND. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories