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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

---

History of Baltimore City College[edit]

In general this article is well written, very comprehensive, extensive, neutral, stable and an accurate depiction of the history of the institution. The article meets wikipedia's citing conventions and has a good amount of references. This article is easily amongst the best secondary schools and collegiate history pages on wikipedia. If there are any problems with the page please dont hesitate to notify me or make the project aware. Thank You, --Bcc07 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Referencing and WP:MOS look very sound. The only strange thing I encountered turns out to be a direct quote, incorrect punctuation and all: "The subject of chronic lamentation,—the Baltimore City College Building,—which for the past fifteen years" ... Nice work !! Now to wait for people who know the territory to read through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Some refs should be in the ((cite book)) format. Otherwise, very good and very well done. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dale, unless you can clarify further, that's not a valid oppose. It's not at all necessary to use cite templates. The footnotes are correctly formatted as far as I can tell; the method is irrelevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think this article needs a good copyediting. There are extraneous commas in some places, and many of the paragraphs don't read well. I've listed a few examples below, and made a few changes myself to the article.
• Support, although, in the interests of disclosure, I did copyedit many of the sections after my initial review. Golem88991 was very responsive to my comments -- thank you!Karanacs 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of lead does not flow well.
  • The lead focuses a lot on the location of the school rather than other things that were happening
    • I have rewritten the lead to de-emphasize the focus on location and I think it flows better at this point. Golem88991 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good job, I like the new lead a lot better! Karanacs 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:DATE, need commas after a single year (in 1814,)
    • Done, unless I missed one. Golem88991 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • was "Library Company" the name of a company? If not, it probably should not be capitalized.
    • Done. Golem88991 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • why was the building "unsuitable to house an academic institution?" This should be explained and cited.
    • It has been cited now, and I think the issue has been cleared up by explaining what the building was originally constructed for.Golem88991 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "Nevertheless" when speaking about the renaming
    • Done. Golem88991 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After introducing a person in the article, in subsequent mentions use only their surname. Thus "Professor Brooks" should just be "Brooks."
    • This does not seem to be suggested by any of Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines, but I understand the concern here so I have changed it to conform with your suggestion. Golem88991 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main argument in favor of this is WP:BIO, which discusses primarily how to handle naming within a biography article. The same rules, however, should apply whenever an article discusses a person in depth. Thanks for making the changes! 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Word choices seem repetitive, and there is a serious lack of pronouns which could help the issue. For example, in the first section, at least, you seem to overuse people's names when you could use pronouns. From the last paragraph, "Under the direction of Dr. Waters, the school day was divided into eight periods lasting 45 minutes: four sessions were held in the morning and four in the afternoon. In addition to reorganizing the schedule, Dr. Waters divided the courses into different departments. Seven departments total were established under Dr. Waters direction: " could be "Under Waters's direction, the school day was divided into eight periods lasting 45 minutes, with four sessions held in the morning and four in the afternoon. In addition, he divided the courases into different departments. A total of seven departments were established, including..."
    • The paragraph has been changed. Golem88991 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some copyediting of my own, and I think a lot of the repetitiveness has been removed. Karanacs 21:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Holliday street theater " -> should Street or Theater be capitalized?
    • It is a proper noun. Golem88991 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a citation for last few sentences of first paragraph of Reconstruction
    • Done. Golem88991 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazine and newspapers need to be properly cited (they need to be italicized). The best way to do this is using ((citation)) and replacing publisher= with newspaper=
    • I was under the impression that as long as they were standardized it was okay, i.e. as long as all paper and magezines were cited the same. It would seem to defeat the purpose of the templates if the ((cite news)) template did not include the correct parameters. Also, in the example provided on the citation template page Marine Corps News is italicized when ((Citation)) is used, but not when ((cite news)) is used. To me this seems like there is no firm rule on this. That being said, I have changed it per your request. Thanks for your recommendations and comments. Golem88991 23:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citations were correctly and consistently formatted before; I've seen the notion now on multiple FACs that certain citation templates must be used. This is incorrect, and not a requirement of WP:WIAFA; your understanding was correct. The citations were fine before, and they're fine now, but the work to change them to a specific template wasn't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose—1a. The prose needs to do justice to such an eminent academic institution. Here are samples, not the full deal.
  • First caption: S for Streets, as a title.
    • An oversight that has been corrected. I also went through and checked all the other occurrences of street names and changed the those that were not capitalized. Golem88991 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read the very same construction at the opening of a similar FAC. The readers will have to perform mental arithmetic to identify the year of establishment.
    • I don't understand this comment. It states in the first sentence that it was established in 1839. Could you clarify? Thanks, Golem88991 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of having to hit the link, tell us here "the noted educator and historian, Nathan C Brooks". Lifts the paragraph. Otherwise, who the hell is he? might be the response.
    • An appositive phrase for Brooks has been added. Golem88991 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear: "the school was given the power to grant it graduates certificates"—how did that happen?
  • What's a "commencement" in this context?
  • "In the 1860s, there was an effort to expand that power and allow City College to confer Bachelor of Arts degrees. However, the attempt was unsuccessful." Why state it in one sentence when two will do? "In the 1860s, there was an unsuccessful attempt to expand that power and allow City College to confer Bachelor of Arts degrees." Yes? Can't we have the actual years or year range? WP provides precise info.
  • "By the early 1900s, the priorities of the school began to shift"—something's wrong here: "had begun"? Or lose the startitis: "the School's priorities had shifted ...".
  • "The academic program was changed further in 1927. At that point, City College divided its curriculum into two tracks, a standard college preparatory course, known as the "B" course, and a more rigorous course, known as the "A" course." Clumsy organisation of ideas: "The academic program was further changed in 1927, when City College divided its curriculum into a standard college preparatory course—the "B" course—and a more rigorous course—the "A" course." (That's one way of doing it.)
  • "Part" --> "proportion".
  • "The "A" and "B" courses, which had lasted for over 60 years, were discontinued and ...". Remove the nested phrase—you've just told use about the A and B, and when. Remove "Then,". Hyphenate "turn-around", I think, even in AmEng. Funding from where? IB Diploma in what year? Precision, please. Tony 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, "turn around", does not need to be hyphenated in American English. Golem88991 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you refuse to hyphenate "turn-around", but you do hyphenate "map-reading"? "single sex educational system"—one hyphen necessary; "all male tradition"—one hyphen essential. Do an audit on the many double epithets. Most should be hyphenated; probably some can survive without.
    • After reviewing the MOS on hyphens, I removed the unnecessary hyphen from map reading and added any missing hyphens to compound adjectives. I may have overlooked a couple, but in general I think I have addressed this issue. Golem88991 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "150-ft (46 m) tower"—MOS breach.
    • It has been corrected and I checked for other occurrences. None was found. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "voted 11-6 in favor"—MOS breach. Read it on dashes.
    • Done. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top 1 percent"—MOS breach; read "Spelling out numbers".
    • Done and checked for other breaches, but none was found. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "present" italicised in "Principals"?
    • It was italicized to separate from the years, which were all written as numerals. That being said, after reviewing the MOS on italics I agree that it should probably be removed. Golem88991 14:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, not yet good enough. Tony 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure of how to proceed at this point. As a result of your initial comments, I undertook a copy edit of the article, paying particular attention to the suggestions of your how to satisfy criterion 1a and the comments you left in this discussion. At this point, I do not see the prose as being any more problematic than most other featured articles. I am sure we could continue to nit pick about small stylistic issues, but on the whole I do not see a problem. As you do, I would ask that you make further suggestions for improving the prose so that it "is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." Thanks, Golem88991 15:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.