The context for this nomination is an increasingly dire trend of featured article delistings for higher education institutions. In the past year, there have been four such delistings, with two three more articles currently at FARC; if they do not survive, that will leave only five four featured institutions, most of whom will not survive the next sweep. At this level, WikiProject Higher education lacks adequate model articles to demonstrate the project's best practices and serve as inspiration for improving less-developed articles.
I have been working on improving Pomona's page for the past several months, which has included a lot of underlying work such as creating the admissions infobox. Having recently passed a thorough GAN from HAL333, I believe the article is ready to help rebuild the roster. I look forward to addressing your comments and concerns. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented at the deletion nomination page at Commons, showing that it was published in newspapers in 1903 and has therefore entered the public domain. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by Prosfilaes in that discussion, there's no evidence it was published to begin with. If wasn't published different rules apply and there's no need for renewal to maintain the copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken by Will Connell; as a professional photographer, I'm fairly confident it would've been distributed somewhere, not just stashed away as might happen with a personal photo. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reached out to the Pomona archivist about this photo seeking more information about its publication history. Your patience is appreciated, as it'll likely take him a few days to get back to me. ((u|Sdkb))talk 05:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that two galleries are excessive in the campus section, so I removed them, as well as one other image that was sandwiching. I think that the current section keeps the images that are most helpful for reader understanding of the topic "Pomona College", without including all the images that would belong in a stand-alone article for List of buildings of Pomona College or Pomona College campus. (I also moved the gates to north campus from south campus as the text indicates that they are on the northern edge of the campus).
I understand that the extent to which galleries are appropriate in articles is a somewhat unsettled question. WP:GALLERY gives some general advice, but it's not very specific and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Personally, I'm not generally a big fan of them, as they're formatted differently than other images and I wish they allowed for finer tuning. But I feel they're needed here to help convey the range of different architectural styles used on the campus and how they cohere. Including them also creates room for images of several buildings and artworks significant enough to have their own pages that would otherwise have to be cut. I have a sense given your recent image review for Inuit clothing that you feel the uses of galleries should be pretty restricted, but I hope the rationale here is compelling enough to persuade you to make an exception, or if not that you might be willing to defer to my preference as the primary article author. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by NickD below there seem to be issues with giving too much weight to the campus appearance. Adding lots of images, regardless of how they're formatted, simply exacerbates this issue. If the issue is showing different architectural styles that are discussed in reliable, independent sources, then I don't see why not "Building A and Building B are examples of architectural styles X and Y at Pomona" with pictures of A and B in a multiple image template would work. If it's not discussed in reliable, independent sources, it's hard not to see this as WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To throw in my two cents, I think the campus image galleries are desirable. It is near impossible to actually give an impression of the campus just with prose. However, there are some minor sandwiching issues in the "Campus" section that might be resolved by removing a single image. ~ HAL333 21:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to Nick-D below regarding how long the campus section ought to be, showing that it's pretty average length compared to existing college FAs. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the college gates, they are actually on South Campus, as they're located just south of Sixth Street. They marked the historical northern edge of campus in that it was the edge before North Campus was built. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The athletic section sandwiches between the table and the images. I'll leave it to you what to remove.
Hmm, that's tricky, as the removal of either would be a loss to the page: tables of varsity teams are standard for college article athletics sections, and the image is the only one of contemporary athletics at the college. I've redesigned the table so that it is significantly thinner, and the image is already thinner than average. Their combined width is now no more than that of an image with |upright=~1.5, so together, I hope that's sufficient to alleviate the MOS:SANDWICH concerns. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was taken circa 1904 and is part of the Boynton Collection, which is described here. The page notes that many photos in the collection were published in Pomona's yearbook, but I don't have access to that, so I'd have to reach out to the Pomona archivist to confirm; I can do that if necessary. Alternatively, it'd be pretty inconceivable to me that the copyright license would've been renewed, so if anyone knows which copyright renewal log to look through, we could confirm it's PD that way. Image copyright isn't my specialty, so I'd appreciate any help anyone here can give figuring this out. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above unpublished images do not need renewal to maintain their copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reached out to the Pomona archivist seeking info about this photo as well, and I will update when I hear back. ((u|Sdkb))talk 05:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not related to image review, but the "Traditions" section has a lot of stubby paragraphs. Excerpting in good and featured articles raises concerns with stability (see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_25 search "excerpt") so I've hardcopied the 47 section. However, I think some of it may be undue for this article. Also, I think the transportation section is more relevant under "campus" than "student life".
Good observation; I merged some of the paragraphs to make them less stubby (short paragraphs is a habit of mine carried over from my journalism writing, where it's more of a norm). Regarding transcluded excerpts, I realize that they're another phenomenon with some unresolved norms. They do make it a little harder to read the article history, but the exact same phenomenon happens with templates. Overall, I'm a very big fan of them as a tool for helping prevent quality content from decaying over time, as they mean that information only has to be updated in one place rather than several, which reduces the editor effort needed for maintenance. If it'd help, I'd be happy to upload a screenshot of the article after this FAC to supplement the diff link. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I did not check licensing for any images removed from the article for non-licensing reasons. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you removedFile:Men protest opening of Frary Dining Hall to women.jpg because it is strictly speaking never mentioned in the text, making it hard to satisfy NFCC (the relevant text is He also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life, first with the opening of Frary Dining Hall (then part of the men's campus) to women beginning in 1957). I'm not enough of a copyright specialist to know how strong a connection is needed for NFCC, but since the photo was published in the Metate in 1957, I think the better option is to establish that it's in the public domain per commons:Template:PD-US-not renewed and place it on Commons. I've gone ahead and done that, noting that there appears to be no record of a copyright renewal in the logs. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of this protest in the text, so I conclude it's not that important according to reliable sources for understanding Pomona's history. It's unclear if it was ever published before 1977, and if it wasn't, it does not need renewal to maintain copyright. (t · c) buidhe 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've nominated that photo as well for deletion. We should probably try to keep discussion consolidated in one place, either here or there. Anyways, the link I put above indicates to me pretty clearly that it was published in the Metate. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the Pomona archivist to review the 1957 Metate to confirm this photo was published in it; I'll update when he gets back to me on that. ((u|Sdkb))talk 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other sandwich edits, there are more tradeoffs there between being able to include useful images and avoiding sandwiches. I've never viewed MOS:SANDWICH as the most urgent part of the MOS—like all guidelines, it includes the occasional exceptions may apply disclaimer, and instances in which minor one-or-two line sandwiches are unavoidable when retaining useful images may be a time to invoke that provision. But I'd be interested to hear from someone who takes a strong stance against sandwiches about why they're damaging, and I could be persuaded that they're the greater harm than removals. ((u|Sdkb))talk 16:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose unaddressed image copyright issues, concern about excessive images lending undue weight to certain topics. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of this college before seeing this FAC, and as an Australian have only a hazy understanding of US liberal arts colleges, so I guess I can optimistically describe myself as having fresh eyes! After reading through the article, I'm leaning oppose on this nomination, as the text has a promotional tone (including through language choices, the level of detail and how some topics are handled) and I'm not convinced that many of the sources are actually independent and reliable.
Thanks for your thorough comments, Nick-D! It's particularly helpful to have your perspective as a non-American, since FAs should be understandable to a global audience, and your comments reveal some changes that are needed to achieve that. I'll go through and address them below, and I hope I can turn you around. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it became the founding member of the Claremont Colleges consortium" - I don't understand what this means, or why is it so important it needs to be in the first para of the lead - some brief explanation of what this consortium is would help. Edit: it's also a bit odd to call this the "founding member" of a consortium - surely the consortium couldn't have existed if there had only been a single member?
Yeah, this is a bit tricky of a passage to write. You likely have a better understanding of the consortium now from having read the academic affiliations section further down, and while we unfortunately don't really have room to add all the detail from that to the lead, I did add a few words. Readers who want to understand further can always click the wikilink.
Regarding why it's due for the first paragraph, the consortium is integral to the college because of the geographic proximity and level of integration: many students take multiple classes at another consortium member per semester, eat a significant fraction of their meals at another member's dining hall, study in the joint library, or participate in joint clubs or athletics teams.
Regarding "founding member", Merriam-Webster defines it as "an original member of a group (such as a club or corporation)", and Collins Dictionary has "A founding member of a club, group, or organization is one of the first members, often one who was involved in setting it up." Pomona is considered the founding member of the consortium because it's the one whose president came up with the idea and worked to establish the other initial institutions. Claremont Graduate University was established at the time the consortium was formed, so I guess one could argue it was technically a founding member as well, but no one seems to describe it that way—Claremont Graduate University on its own website describes Pomona as "the founding member" (with the "the" indicating it makes no such claim for itself), and news coverage of the consortium takes that cue. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That text looks OK Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why highlight only successful alumni in the lead and later in the article? Surely some of the graduates have also been noteworthy for unsavoury reasons as well? (e.g. if we're going to credit this college with contributing to various successes, surely it also needs to be credited with its graduates' failures)
"Noted people" lists are very standard for higher education institution articles; they're described at UNIGUIDE and present at Georgetown University and other featured articles. I fully agree with you that, to be neutral, we need to choose alumni to highlight based on their significance, regardless of whether that significance is positive or negative. I did a fair amount of research into Pomona alumni as part of bringing List of Pomona College people to featured status, and the college (like anywhere) has a few not-so-savory alumni—Thomas J. Minar is a recent one who comes to mind. But I don't think any of the really unsavory alumni rise to the level of prominence needed to be listed here rather than at the list page. Ultimately, among really prominent people, there are just statistically a lot more of them known for good or neutral reasons than bad ones, and that's reflected here. Some of the people listed here do have more mixed reputations, though—see David P. Barrows (racist), Marianne Williamson (nutty), and Stephen Reinhardt (accused of sexual harassment). I would revert any editor who tried to remove these people on the basis of them being bad people. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why the lead only highlights successes. I'd personally delete the whole para: it's absurd to suggest that this college led directly to those people winning major honours and having highly successful careers. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is very similar to others at other college/university FAs, particularly for more selective institutions. In addition to Georgetown, see e.g. the leads for Duke University and United States Military Academy. An institution obviously can't take direct credit for the successes of its alumni, but I think it's plenty reasonable to think it often has a big influence. For instance, Pomona's most prominent alum recently, 2020 Nobel laureate Jennifer Doudna, has described her time at the college as having significantly influenced the course of her life. Of course, there are also alumni like John Cage, who dropped out in 1930 after an amusing observation described on his page, but trying to parse which alumni had impactful vs. unimpactful college years would be a fool's errand. Ultimately, if you disagree with the prevailing norm for these paragraphs be allowed, that goes beyond the scope of this individual FAC and I'd suggest that you start a discussion at WT:HED proposing a change to our guidance and the other FAs. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, so I'm sceptical about how wide a consensus this approach represents. I would like to see a reference for the university having a significant role in each of these awards and individuals' careers for this to be included. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your (very well-written) advice on FACs, you recommend pointing to an example of an existing FA that follows a practice to establish that it has consensus. I've provided multiple such examples; I don't know what else I could do. Many of the references here and at the people list page do speak to how the individuals' experiences at Pomona influenced their careers, but this article does not assert anything other than that they are alumni, so that is all that is required to meet criterion 1c. ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that they're alumni, but my concern is that this is an example of boosterism. The sources on this college seem to often refer to it as "elite" and the article notes that entry is highly competitive. As a result, it's not surprising that many of the very smart people who've studied here have gone onto good things (non FA articles on Australian universities suffer from a similar flaw - Australia has a relatively small number of relatively large universities, so not surprisingly they all have lots of notable alumni - this reflect the fact that they're big rather than they're particularly good producing notable citizens). I'd suggest that you should be aiming to produce a better article on a higher education institution than those other articles by justifying this content. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the founders of the college establish it? Were there no colleges aligned with their religious beliefs or similar?
The Inland Empire at the time was just starting to be widely settled (by Americans, at least; native peoples had been there for millennia and there's some history of Spanish colonization), so there were no colleges at all. Pomona and a bunch of others were founded roughly around the same time, with a bunch of Christian denominations getting in on the action. Occidental College, for instance, was founded by the Presbyterians the same year as Pomona. Does that help clarify? ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add that to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if you think there needs to be any more; I'd prefer not to add too much more detail on the founding era, as there's 133 years of history to cover and it'd be undue to focus overly on just that one. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the college remained almost all-white throughout its early years" - why? - was it run by racists?
Higher education in the U.S. at the time was something only the most elite members of society could afford, and due to systemic racism in broader society, my understanding is that almost the entire college applicant pool was white. Many schools explicitly denied non-white applicants, so it's mildly noteworthy that Pomona had a few non-white students; Congregationalists were one of the more racially progressive religious groups of the era. Still, I'm sure whoever was in charge of admissions at the time (which used to be a lot less competitive; see JFK's amusingly mediocre Harvard app) held some racist views that affected how they viewed non-white applicants. If you're interested in learning more, "The Erasure of Winston M.C. Dickson, Pomona’s First Black Graduate" is a very well-researched account that I'd recommend. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add something along those lines to the article, if only to note that it was common for colleges to be almost all white. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"faced the choice of whether to grow the college into a large university that could acquire additional resources or to remain a small institution capable of providing a more intimate educational experience. Seeking both, he chose a third path " - I really don't like this formulation, which is getting close to PR language. It seems misleading to say that the president was faced with two choices, when there was actually a third option. This kind of text is commonly used to promote things (e.g. to imply that the college has been led by brilliant free thinkers).
Fair point—I've rephrased the language to avoid the only-two-paths formulation. I definitely understand the hesitation about characterizing Blaisdell as a brilliant free thinker, but I don't think it's PRish to note that the Claremont Colleges have a very unique model. No other college president of the era made a similar choice, and the consortium has been widely characterized as a unique in reliable sources (example). ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. There are groupings of universities all over the world, so I don't see how this is a particularly unique model though (most of Australia's universities share resources and have combined study programs, for instance through several groupings). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the unique part is how the institutions all having adjoining campuses but are still autonomous from each other. If I work on the Claremont Colleges article at some point, I'll improve how it's described there, but for here it sounds like we're good. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Edmunds, who had previously served as president of Lingnan University in Guangzhou, China, also inspired a growing interest in Asian culture at the college." - what did this involve?
Per the source, it "result[ed] in such things as the College’s first (informal) study-abroad program—a group of 11 students who, in 1929, organized a year of travel and study in China and Japan—and the establishment of a brand new Department of Oriental Study, which would evolve over time into today’s Asian Studies Program." That history might be something to delve into if a history article is ever split off, but for here, Asian Studies is only one of 48 majors at the college, so I'm not sure if it'd be due to go into it further. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The material needs more meat to it. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"During World War I, the college reoriented itself toward the war effort" ... "it once again reoriented itself toward wartime activities during World War II" - what did this involve?
" He also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life, first with the opening of Frary Dining Hall (then part of the men's campus) to women beginning in 1957" -this is the first time that female students are mentioned, I think. Were they able to enrol from the establishment of the college, and what were their experiences like up to this time?
Yep, female students were able to enroll from the start; that's connoted by "coeducational" at the top of the history section. I presume that early female students faced the same sorts of sexism that all women of the era did. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely something can be said about the experiences of female students during the era in which men dominated higher education? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ordering a copy of the Lyon 1977 history per HAL333's comment below, so I'll see if there's anything relevant in there. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Searching through the book, I'm afraid I'm not seeing anything from before the 1950s that really warrants adding to the article. I've read before about the fact that Phebe Estelle Spalding, Pomona's first female faculty member, was paid less than her male counterparts, and I cover the weigh-in, a quite odious example of sexual harassment, at the traditions spinoff article. But neither of those factoids seem due for the main article here. Lyon talks in a few places about improvements to the women's campus, but that doesn't seem especially pertinent either. Ultimately, we're limited to covering what's discussed in the available sources. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have any luck searching for material on this topic on JSTOR, so that sounds OK. I'd suggest keeping an eye out for material on this after the FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! A lot of women's history is being rediscovered these days, so I'm hopeful that the next history of the college that is written will include information we can add. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"During the tenure of president David Alexander from 1969 to 1991, Pomona gained increased prominence on the national stage" - what did this involve?
I'm following here the language used by the Los Angeles Times (the newspaper of record for the Western United States and RSP-greenlit, so a pretty solid source), which says that Alexander brought national standing to Pomona College. It expands: The racial, ethnic and geographic diversity of the student body also grew under his leadership, turning the prestigious liberal arts college — the largest in the private Claremont Colleges system — from a regional institution to one with a national reputation that draws the majority of its students from outside California.((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do other sources allow this to be explained? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times piece also mentions the number of new building constructions and the increase in the endowment, implying a connection without directly stating it. We already mention both those things, but directly using them to explain the reputational change would be improper synthesis. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1991, the college converted the dormitory basements used by fraternities into lounges, hastening a lowering of the profile of Greek life on campus" - why?
Are you asking here why the college took the move it did, or why the move lowered the profile of Greek life? Regarding the first, The New York Timessaid it was because the college didn't like that a minority of students were controlling so much space on campus. Regarding the second, a major role of American fraternities is to throw parties. Without a dedicated space in which to do so, frats have a diminished role on a campus. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add that to the article please. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which? ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The college's rationale for this change - it's really quite interesting. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention. I'm not sure I totally believe the college's explanation—it could be that they did have an explicit goal of diminishing the frats and just used the space argument as a less controversial excuse—so I included in-text attribution. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These efforts, combined with Pomona's longstanding[76] need-blind admission policy, " - PR language. From the sources, it seems that this "longstanding" policy was only about 20 years old.
Need-blind admission is a technical term; it means that a college does not look at applicants' financial information when determining whether or not to admit them, thereby not discriminating against lower-income applicants. It's a pretty rare practice that only a few dozen of the wealthiest colleges in the U.S. can afford and that significantly increases the diversity of a college's student body, which is what makes it noteworthy in the context of the college's efforts to diversify. Since this is the history section, I really wanted to note the specific year when the practice was first adopted rather than just using the imprecise "longstanding", but unfortunately when I reached out to the college archivist about it, the best he could find was the article from 1982 noting that the practice existed at the time. To me, two decades is long enough to qualify as "longstanding" (especially considering that if you go much further back, you get to the era when college was a very elite thing and financial aid didn't really exist), but if you have in mind another weaker adjective we could use instead, I'd be fine with changing it. The main thing we need to communicate is just that the need-blind policy wasn't new in the 2000s. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The elite angle is what I'm getting at here. Twenty out of 120 years doesn't seem 'longstanding'. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion for an alternative word to "longstanding"? ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest saying when it started, so readers can reach their own conclusion on this. Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we knew the year the policy started, but per above the archivist couldn't find it for me. We know it was around in 1982, but it could've started a decade or more earlier. I managed to come up with an alternative way to phrase it, though; is this better? ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2011, the college drew national media attention when it requested proof of legal residency from employees in the midst of a unionization drive by dining hall workers" - is the 'media attention' significant here? Surely the use of immigration authorities to harass staff members seeking to form a union is the issue.
That's true. I included "drew national media" as a way to connote the level of significance of the event, but it's probably better to just emphasize the event itself. I rephrased; does it look better now? ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A 2013 rebranding initiative sought to emphasize students' passion and drive, drawing criticism from students who thought it would lead to a more stressful culture" - is this really a significant part of the college's history? The only source is the student newspaper, which suggests not.
According to the article, it was covered more than a dozen times in The Student Life, which for a weekly newspaper seems pretty significant. Zooming out a little broader, the authoritative source for the question of what is or isn't significant in the college's history would be a scholarly history of the college. Unfortunately, the last such history was published in 1977, so for everything since then, a little editorial judgement is required. I've tried not to rely solely on the official college timeline for anything in the 21st century, as that has become less objective as it nears the recent past. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per the below, I doubt that the student newspaper is a reliable source, and it's certainly not a good marker of notability of things (if I was to check my university's student newspaper from when I was an undergraduate it would have run dozens of stories about the coffee shops and why it was outrageous beer was no longer $1 a bottle at the uni bar - neither seems likely to be very significant to outsiders looking in!) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll comment further on The Student Life where we're discussing it below. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the present campus features a diverse blend of architectural styles." - PR language cited to the student newspaper. One person's 'diverse blend' could be another's 'mish-mash'
I changed the wording to use "varied" instead. To clear something up, though, there is a major difference between a PR publication (which for Pomona is the Pomona College Magazine) and the college newspaper, The Student Life. I use Pomona College Magazine in a few places for uncontroversial or historical information, but ultimately it's a self-published house publication, and I would never rely on it alone for controversial recent history. The Student Life, on the other hand, is completely editorially independent from the college and includes as part of its mission adversarial journalism seeking to hold the college administration accountable. If you browse its Wikipedia article, its recent news articles, or the articles where it's cited here, you'll see a bunch of examples of that. The perennial sources list states that Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community, so I consider The Student Life to meet WP:RS. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'campus' section is much too long and overly detailed. Does it really matter what goes on in each building in this small educational institution?
The length of the campus section is roughly in line with other college FAs. It's about 9500 readable characters out of 54,000 total, 17% of the page. Georgetown University is 11,000/63,000, also 17%. Florida Atlantic University is 7800/39,000, 19%. University of California, Riverside is 6000/42,000, 14%. Duke University is 12,000/62,500, 19%. Qualitatively, I think the campus can be said to have a fair amount of significance. An institution's campus is an integral part of it. Pomona's is valued at nearly US$1 billion (if I'm interpreting the difference between endowment and total assets correctly), has been assessed as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and contains six facilities and three public artworks historically notable enough to already have their own page (and probably several more where we could create pages if we wanted). We don't cover some of the more minor facilities (e.g. Renwick House, a small administration building), but I do think we ought to mention all the major ones and to describe aspects of the campus that go beyond individual building listings. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those are huge universities and/or have famous campuses. This is neither, so this depth of coverage is excessive. I'd suggest reducing the level of detail by describing the general character of the campus and its notable buildings and other elements only. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to look at it is that, per WP:BALASP, part of the due weight section of the NPOV policy, articles should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Nearly every new building constructed on Pomona's campus receives coverage in multiple non-local media outlets like the Los Angeles Times—for recent buildings, here's its review of the studio art hall and its coverage of the new art museum. Both of those buildings receive only a single sentence in the prose, which I think is about as condensed as possible. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Pomona operates under a shared governance model, in which faculty and students have a degree of control over decisions" - how? Are there student and staff representatives on the various decision-making bodies?
"For the 2020–2021 academic year, Pomona charged a tuition fee of $54,380.[219] 55 percent of students received a financial aid package, with an average award of $56,395.[167] 49 percent of international students received financial aid, with an average award of $66,125.[167]" - this doesn't make sense - it implies that all students end up receiving more assistance than the huge fees they pay!
The reason the average financial aid packages are higher than tuition is that tuition is only one of the two main parts of the total estimated cost of attendance, room and board being the other. Financial aid packages also cover room and board for students with enough financial need. You're right that this is confusing without the context; I've added the total cost of attendance to make it clearer. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More broadly, the 'costs and financial aid' section feels evasive. This college clearly has a very expensive teaching model (and lots of money stashed away) and charges high fees as a result, but the section seems to be trying to avoid saying it.
Financial aid is a super complex area; I would not envy anyone who tried to take Student financial aid (United States) to FAC. But to give you the informal, non-wikispeak gist of it, the sticker price at Pomona is super high, so wealthy students are charged a ton. But the financial aid policies are also very generous, so students in the middle of the socioeconomic spectrum are given heavily discounted tuition and poorer students often have their entire tuition covered. If you'd like to hear it from someone who's not me, I'll courtesy ping ElKevbo, a professional scholar of American higher education, who I hope can attest that what I just said is accurate. Overall, I wouldn't want this section to grow super long with details about how costs/financial aid works in U.S. higher education, as that would be undue and off-topic, but if there are small things or footnotes we could add to help clear up confusion, that'd be welcome. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The material is much improved now. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the courtesy ping: Sdkb is absolutely correct that university finances, tuition and fees, and financial aid are very complex topics especially for private institutions that have much more flexibility and more options than public institutions. I agree that this article is not the appropriate place to delve into that complexity. I don't think it's appropriate for editors to make assumptions or accusations, particularly in these very complex areas, without firm evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have professional expertise in understanding the costs of university-level teaching. Believe me when I say that the teaching model described in this article is a very expensive one. The text now explains this, as well as how it works out for students, which is good. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The college has enrolled higher numbers of low-income students in recent years,[77] and was ranked second among all private institutions in The New York Times' 2017 College Access Index, a measure of economic diversity." - also evasive. How does this compare to public institutions and large universities?
Pomona was ranked eighth among all institutions (i.e. including private and public, small and large). The cost structure at public institutions is so different than that at private institutions that I'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare them on the same scale, but I've added the rank among all institutions for completeness. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, drinking culture is present but does not dominate over other elements of campus life,[9][169] nor does athletic culture." - PR language
Hmm, I'm not sure I follow how this is PR language—university PR departments typically take the approach of never mentioning alcohol, even if they're Arizona State, since no one wants to be known as a party school. And every school's PR department touts its athletics program; saying "athletic culture isn't big here" is the opposite of a PR approach, no? More broadly, this sort of information is absent from a lot of our college pages because it's somewhat hard to source. I think we have an obligation to include it if we want to be comprehensive, though, as alcohol and sports are a major part of student life at many American institutions. The references here are to the Fiske Guide to Colleges and the Yale Daily News'Insider's Guide to the Colleges, which are independent college guides with no affiliation to Pomona. The Fiske Guide in particular is known for being willing to criticize institutions when necessary, so I'd argue it's the most reliable available source for this area. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it: this is PR language. Alternately, explain what the drinking culture comprises. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something you'd like me to try to explain about the drinking culture beyond what we already mention earlier in the paragraph? ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the para starting with 'Pomona's dining services are run in-house' as it's basically trivia. If anyone wants to know what they can eat here, surely the college's website has this.
I have to disagree that we should remove all mention of dining services from the article. Nearly all students are on the meal plan and eat nearly all of their meals from the dining halls, so it's a major aspect of student life. Dining services also employs a sizable percentage of Pomona's staff. The fact that the services are run in-house is mildly noteworthy, as it's much more common for institutions to contract out to a provider like Sodexo. This is a single paragraph pretty far down the page, so it doesn't have a huge bar to clear to be due, and I think it meets it. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia. Delete it: this is something I'd expect to see on the college's website in material aimed at prospective students, but I don't see how it's encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we ought to cover dining services in college articles is a broader question where we should be consistent between institutions. I've started a thread at the higher education talk page to garner wider input and hopefully reach a consensus. ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't give much credence to the opinion of Wikiproject members on FAs, and this kind of approach risks creating a walled garden-type approach. When I develop military history articles to FA standard, I try to ensure that they are understandable and meet the expectations of people with no knowledge of or interest in military history. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need the table of varsity sports? If so, when is it as of, and what is the reference?
I guess we don't strictly need it, as we could list the teams in the prose instead, but I think a table is a neater way to present the information. I've added a reference. The sports offered by an institution don't typically change year to year, so it doesn't need an ((as of)). Overall, athletics is a major part of American higher education, and I've been pushing recently to deemphasize our coverage of it, but a table seems warranted. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely needs an as of. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be some confusion here. ((As of)) is supposed to be used for information that changes frequently enough that it's likely to become outdated if not regularly updated. The sports teams hosted at a college don't change around every year—comparing to 2004, it appears that only one new team has been added at Pomona-Pitzer, and when a college sports team is dissolved, it's the kind of thing that makes The New York Times and causes grudges among alumni that can last for decades (welcome to the weirdness of American sports haha). ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note c needs a reference
The reference for it is 136, the college bylaws. I tried to signify that by having the sentence end a term limit of 12 years.[c][136] rather than a term limit of 12 years.[136][c]. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for it is at the end of the sentence in the article body, consist with WP:CITEFOOT; the explanatory footnote is part of the sentence. I asked a little while back for clarification about whether there are any rules about the ordering of explanatory footnotes and references. It appears that there are none, so I hope it's alright to use the schema I've established for this page: if a reference supports only material within a footnote, I put it within the footnote, and if it also supports material outside the footnote, I put it at the end of that material in the body. Does that work? ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is overly reliant on Pomona College's website and sources associated with the college (for instance, various pages for each year of the college's existence are key sources for the history section and the student newspaper for various statement). I doubt that these sources meet WP:RS given their lack of independence. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last point alone, I recall either a de facto or de jure—might actually be written out somewhere—convention that primary sources are okay for statistical information (which it seems is the main use of them here—though I would have to look closer), mainly since often times it is the only source of that information at all. Aza24 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant convention I'd say is WP:ABOUTSELF, part of the verifiability policy. This discussion at WT:HED from two months ago is relevant. It's the nature of college pages to have a lot of basic factual information be available mainly through primary sources, and sometimes the available secondary sources were so transparently lifted straight from the college that they seemed less reliable than the direct source. However, for controversial or qualitative information, I tried to be scrupulous about using secondary sources, and if I slipped up on that anywhere that I haven't addressed yet, please let me know. Regarding the specific sources you raised, I spoke to the reliability of The Student Life above. For the timeline, it appears to be largely derived from Lyon's account, which editors at RSN seemed to consider reliable (but to which I unfortunately don't currently have access). As I mentioned above, though, I consider it much less reliable for the recent past and haven't used it as the sole reference for anything in the 21st century. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not convinced. The website of something obviously isn't a neutral source on that topic, and the history section relies too heavily on the college's website. I'm highly sceptical that the newspaper of a small college (even one with very high standards of education and students, as seems to be the case here) has high editorial standards: can you provide sources which attest to this? Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the timeline, as mentioned above/below, I'm acquiring the Lyon 1977 history and will convert some references to that. Regarding The Student Life, the main area of interpretation left after the WP:RSSM guidance is whether or not it can be considered an example of a "reputable student media outlet". To me, the main distinguishing characteristic is whether or not the publication is editorially independent from the college administration; as mentioned above, The Student Life meets that criterion. Of course, being independent doesn't necessarily guarantee that a paper has high editorial standards. For that, the paper says it abides by the Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics, and it has won quite a few awards in the past few years, indicating that it's living up to its aspirations. Its alumni have been quite successful—for instance, the spring 2019 editor-in-chief, Kellen Browning, is now a technology reporter at The New York Times, and if you go farther back you find Pulitzer winners Mary Schmich and Bill Keller. I can't find external news coverage that specifically praises the paper's editorial standards (the most recent L.A. Times article about it mentions some of its policies but without judgement), but still, putting all that together, I think you'd have a difficult time arguing that the paper doesn't qualify as an example of a "reputable student media outlet". ((u|Sdkb))talk 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: see my reply to HAL333 below on obtaining The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969; the references I've added from there hopefully address your concern about the timeline. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While this book attracted positive reviews by historians at the time (all the reviews in JSTOR are positive), I note that it was written by the college's recently-retired president and seems to have been published by the college directly (which is rather unusual, given that a university press would have had higher standards). Do modern sources consider this still a useful source? Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes, modern scholars of higher education consider it a useful source, since ElKevbo is such a scholar, and he commented in support of its reliability at the reliable sources noticeboard discussion that found it to be reliable. I agree with what you wrote above that we should be cautious about leaning too heavily on subject experts when determining how to write articles accessible for a general audience, but when it comes to determining which sources are reliable, leaning on subject experts is precisely what we should be doing, as they are the people best qualified to know what is or isn't reliable. I acknowledge it isn't ideal to have to rely on Lyon, but the fact that he was a professional historian and that the reviews of the book uniformly praised his ability to write in a detached and objective manner (see quotes/links at the RSN thread) are major mitigating factors.
Overall, I think its pretty clear that Lyon's account is the most definitive available history of the college. Our only alternatives would be The Story of Pomona College (Pilgrim Press, 1914; only covers the very early history, and author has just as strong ties to Pomona as Lyon), Granite and Sagebrush: Reminiscences of the First Fifty Years of Pomona College (Ward Ritchie Press, 1944; author was a Pomona astronomy professor), and Pomona College: Reflections on a Campus (Pomona College, 2007; author is a Pomona art history professor, and the book limits its scope to the history of the campus). If we were to go with none of those, our only remaining option would be to rely entirely on newspaper coverage, which would not be sufficient to write a comprehensive history section, as newspapers don't take a broader historical perspective, and to try to piece together coverage to derive one would be inappropriate synthesis. ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The test here is whether recent reliable sources cite this work. I tend to think it's an OK source, but would like assurance given its authorship and publishing details. You've convinced me about the student newspaper being a reliable source, but I won't rely on it to demonstrate notability of aspects of the college and its history given it's targeted at the college's staff and students. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the first pages of the Google Books results, here are some recent books that cite Lyon's history:
Wang, Dong (2007). Managing God's Higher Learning : U.S.-China Cultural Encounter and Canton Christian College (Lingnan University), 1888-1952. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN9780739157473.
Symons, Van Jay; Wilson Barnett, Suzanne (2000). Asia in the undergraduate curriculum : a case for Asian studies in liberal arts education. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN9781315500645.
There are a bunch more examples available; let me know if you'd like me to list more. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To counter one of the points, I really do not believe that this article has a promotional issue. The anti-female protests are mentioned and pictured. And I do not believe that any notable notorious people attended Pomona. If they did I am sure that they would be included. ~ HAL333 00:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, that ended up being a lot. Apologies for the length, but I hope I've managed to address your comments in enough detail, and I'm happy to continue discussing any lingering concerns that remain. Thanks again for taking such a thorough look at the article. I recognize that there's an added layer of trickiness with reviewing something outside your normal wheelhouse, and I truly appreciate it and think the article has benefited from it. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shifting to oppose given the responses to some of my comments. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I spent several hours yesterday addressing your comments about the article, so it's extremely dispiriting to see that you now have a less favorable view than the one with which you began. Looking through the comments above, I think I've managed to address the vast majority of your concerns. The two outstanding issues seem to be the weight given to the campus section and the existence of the paragraph on the dining services (if there are others, please let me know and/or reply above). For both of those, we seem to be at an impasse: I've explained why I feel the content is warranted, you disagree, and I cannot in good conscience make edits to the page that I consider clearly detrimental just to win your support. Something you advise in your essay for when this happens is to try to determine if it's a big issue or whether you can agree to disagree. In the spirit of that, what needs to happen to, if not win your full support, at least get you to a neutral? - ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think that my comments are reasonable. While I'm happy to agree to disagree on some content (especially material on alumni, but I really think that you should be aiming higher here rather than falling into the rut other articles have fallen into), you are ignoring some pretty basic and easy to action requests, and - to be blunt - I'm irritated by the attempt to use a Wikiproject to dispute what I think is a reasonable comment. The underlying theme is that you seem unwilling to move away from boosterism (especially through excessive detail) about this college. The sources clearly illustrate that this is an excellent educational institution that punches well above its weight, but the article lays it on a bit thick. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering some of my queries above; I've now actioned them in the article. I was waiting for clarification, but it seems that may have come across as reticence to make changes, so my apologies for that. Regarding the dining hall thread, apologies about that as well—this is my first FAC nomination, so I was unaware that seeking input that way isn't considered appropriate. I've trimmed down the paragraph on dining services in a way I could live with, which I offer as a compromise. And I appreciate your willingness to agree to disagree on the alumni material. Please let me know if there are any particular remaining roadblocks, and thanks again for all the effort you've put into this review. ((u|Sdkb))talk 07:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer of this article, I think the prose and scope are up to snuff. The one thing I would like to see is the integration of available and relevant literary sources on Pomona, such as The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 and what JSTOR has. I will support promotion to FA if that is done. ~ HAL333 00:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it looks like I'll finally have to pony up and purchase a copy of the history; I probably should've done that a while ago haha. It may take a little bit to arrive, but I'll reply once I've received and mined it. Regarding JSTOR sources, are you thinking of anything specific? Looking through what's on there, it seems to be a lot of quite dated historical documents, e.g. [2]. Limiting the search to the past 25 years turns up stuff like [3], which is already covered by other more thorough sources, [4], which is interesting but doesn't seem to contain anything I'd want to add to the article, and [5], which I can't access but presume is too niche/technical to add much. ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much on JSTOR, but there may be a few bits. After skimming a few articles, here are a few things I found:
It was founded by the "Southern California Association of Congregational Churches" [6] You may be able to squeeze some other stuff out of this one, like info on Phi Betta Kappa at Pomona.
Looking into Phi Beta Kappa more, it does appear that having a chapter is significant. I've added a line on it. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is another article on Oriental Studies that may (or may not) be helpful for the history section.
Looks like it was published before the expedition took place, which somewhat limits the usefulness. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article on the minstrel show connection may be able to replace primary sources.
It wouldn't do any harm to add it, but it doesn't look as comprehensive as the Los Angeles Times account, which is the main reliable source I'm using for song controversy (the Pomona College Magazine article isn't as reliable, but is kept because it's potentially useful to readers who want more detail than what's in the L.A. Times piece). I recall coming across an essay at some point cautioning against choosing sources just since they come in a more academic-y format, which is something I try to keep in mind. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article on the school's (former) herbarium.
Pomona's physics building was somehow notable enough for Science to publish a whole article on it.
"Article" might be a bit generous of a label; it appears to be one paragraph long haha. ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the JSTOR stuff is sparse and I don't expect you to cite a lot of journal articles. But I do think you could find a few things.
It would be cool if Wikimedia had a program that gave 10 or 20 bucks to editors so they could buy copies of the more obscure books for work on Featured Articles. Maybe some day. ~ HAL333 16:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those JSTOR suggestions! I've looked through them and made changes accordingly. I was also able to obtain an e-copy of the Lyon history, and I've gone through the history section to add references to it to support pretty much everything through 1969. I'm keeping the timeline refs around since they're easier to access than the book for readers who might want to learn more, but they're no longer being leaned on to support major historical facts. I hope that's sufficient to address your concerns; let me know if there's anything else, and thanks again for your thoroughness! ((u|Sdkb))talk 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find myself agreeing with the concerns raised by Nick above, particularly with regards to a tendency towards promotion and the use of non-independent sources. In addition I have some further concerns:
Thanks for taking a look at the page, Nikkimaria. Regarding non-independent sources, Nick and I seem to have come to agreement above; the timeline is (unless I missed something) no longer being used to support anything in isolation, we've agreed The Student Life can be considered reliable, and (if my examples of recent citations to it are sufficient) I hope we've found agreement on The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 as well. Are there particular facts where you have concerns about sourcing? If so, please let me know and I'll do my best to address them. Regarding promotionalism, I'll address your specific points below, and I'll also give a broader overview for you and Nick of how I've sought to keep the article neutral (update: might not have a chance before this is archived). Together, I hope that'll be enough to win your support. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the past few years this school has received significant media coverage related to sexual-assault issues; I was surprised not to see this addressed
I mention the Campus Advocates in the student life section, but I had left out the 2010s protests since the reckoning over campus sexual assault is more of a national trend than something particular to Pomona. On reflection, though, I think it'd be fair to say that the protests at Pomona have been a lot louder than at many other institutions, even if there wasn't a single catalyzing incident akin to the Emma Sulkowicz protest or the Duke lacrosse case, so I'll add a mention. I'll also add a mention in the student life section of the 7C Empower center in addition to the advocates. I'd be hesitant to add too much more due to recentism concerns—as I put it in the hidden note, if a bomb exploding on campus in the 60s only gets one sentence, the latest protest doesn't warrant three paragraphs. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Googling the topic shows quite a lot of stories on the issue over several years (e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12]). Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "college of the New England type"? This seems to be a pretty central concept of the founding, but it's never elaborated
Most of the Congregationalists that were settling in Southern California in the late 19th century grew up in New England and attended college themselves there, so they looked to institutions such as Williams, Harvard, and Yale as models to which to aspire. This was made pretty explicit in their choice to name the streets of the city of Claremont after New England colleges, something discussed on the city's page. I've tweaked the wording so that it's no longer using a quote. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of code of conduct?
Pomona has a student code of conduct, but there's not too much that's distinctive about it the same way as, say, the honor code at Haverford College. The place where it's mentioned so far is the paragraph on alcohol policy; I'll add a mention there that infractions are handled by a student judiciary. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the college's budget allocated? The Finances section is overall very short
The lead is quite short relative to the length of the article
Looking at MOS:LEADLENGTH, the recommendation for articles longer than 30,000 characters is three or four paragraphs. This page is currently 41,786 characters with a four-paragraph lead, but admittedly they're fairly short paragraphs. When I was crafting the lead, I tried to ensure that each section of the article is touched upon at least a bit. If there are any areas where you'd particularly like to see me add more detail, let me know and we can discuss how to cover them. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article's organization results in significant sandwiching of text between images/tables
I've rearranged the layout to remove the sandwich in the admissions section, which was the major remaining one. For the athletics section, see my reply to Buidhe (ctrl+f "athletic section sandwiches") above. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to have been surveys assessing things such as campus climate, student satisfaction, etc - is there a reason this data was not included?
Yes, I found a whole bunch of surveys when looking up various data. To get to the alumni satisfaction one, go here, then click the satisfaction tab at the top. The reason I didn't include it was, frankly, that it felt promotional to add a line saying "10 years post graduation, 94% of alumni reported being satisfied with their education". But I suppose data being positive isn't a reason to omit it. If you feel it'd be a plus and others don't object to it, I'd be willing to add it. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the college have a land acknowledgement statement, or other initiatives around recognizing traditional lands?
I can't find a formal land acknowledgement statement on the college's website, but this article quotes the college's president making a land acknowledgement statement as part of his remarks. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any metrics regarding faculty achievement - grants, publications, bibliometrics, etc?
The college regularly puts out press releases about faculty achievements (recent example for Stephen Ramon Garcia), but I'm not aware of any systematic metrics on that hosted by Pomona, and the lack of such information at other college pages indicates to me that no external organisations are collecting the data. It would be excellent information to include, so if I'm wrong about that, please let me know where to look and I'll add it. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation formatting needs cleaning up - some books include locations and others don't, some citations are missing info (eg FN248 is missing date, FN379 is missing date), etc. Also, if Lynn is to be cited, it shouldn't be a Further reading entry
I added a date for FN248. 379 is Zmirak currently, which has a date; did you mean to mention something else? ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
((FJC Bio)) is an attribution template meant to indicate that text from this public-domain source has been incorporated, which doesn't appear to be the case here; it's not a citation template. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a lot of trouble getting that template to work properly as a citation, so the fact that it's not meant to be a citation might help explain that haha. I'll replace with standard CS1. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I think we need to work on improvements to this article outside FAC; once that's done a Peer Review would seem appropriate before considering a re-nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I am currently in the process of replying to Nikkimaria, and I've addressed comments from HAL333 and Nick-D that I hope may impact their !votes. Would it be okay to leave this open for at least a little longer to let that happen? ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, actually, I'm okay with this being archived. I'll take it through a peer review and then come back here for a fresh start. ((u|Sdkb))talk 01:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
