Wikipedia:Peer review/Ohio Wesleyan University/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Wesleyan University[edit]

On December 6th, DaveOinSF suggested that we go through a final peer review process for the article so that we can finalize improvements and get it to FA status. Thanks to several people and their extensive comments, we were able to improve the article tremendously from comments from the last FA nomination. Any further comments on what the remaining critical areas are will be greatly appreciated. WikiprojectOWU 03:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG[edit]

  • 206 references? Have you made use of named refs, in the event you have any repeats, so that they'll all report to one line? Have a look at citing a footnote more than once, in case that applies. I did an example for you in the Perkins Observatory section (and changed the title of the webpage to what was on the page.) I did another on the University of Delaware Huddleston site, showing you how to use named refs, and also adding in the missing publication date. I also used a named ref on Peabody. By doing these things, I reduced your number of references from 206 to 200: you can probably do much more consolidating.
    • I did double-check all references...I couldn't see repeats that could use named footnotes. WikiprojectOWU 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On book references that you use repeatedly, rather than chunking up the footnotes with repeated information, have a look at the change I just made, which is something you can do throughout. (See Hubbart). If you repeatedly reference page nos from other books, you can do the footnotes that way. Pls provide ISBNs for books.
    • I included all the other books in the Reference section. WikiprojectOWU 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When fixing the Hubbart references, I noticed several instances where you had a sentence referenced to page x, and the very next sentence referenced to page x+1. I combined those instances into one reference, from pp. x-x+1. This will help consolidate your references.
    • I double-checked and there shouldn't be other instances of this. WikiprojectOWU 03:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix all your redlinked access dates - either don't link them at all, or link them correctly so they're not red. You have some access dates not linked at all, others redlinked, and others bluelinked.
  • You don't include publication dates on news items - for example, there was a date on a News Archive item that should be included in the footnote. On news sources, make sure you also give the author, when there is one.
  • On some of your footnotes, you say the source is owu, on others, you say Ohio Wesleyan University - pls be consistent in your footnotes.
  • Some of your footnotes are URLs - please label them as you did the others.
  • Some of your footnotes have last name, first name on author first, others have the author imbedded elsewhere in the note. Use a consistent style on your footnotes. (last name, first name)
  • The lead is not a compelling summary of the article: see WP:LEAD.
    • We restructured it and it should answer the majors points outlined in WP:LEAD. Any suggestions on improving it? WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size: on FAC, some may object to 82KB overall size - I ran a prose check, and the prose is a very decent 38 KB, so the large size is due to all the cite templates in the references.
    • This shouldn't be a problem for the FA, right? WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've used cite web for news sources (you should use cite news), so all of the information needed isn't given - see the BBC news ref towards the end of the article. It needs author, publication date, etc.
    • I will fix that...I just left a message for you regarding this part. WikiprojectOWU 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't help with POV and prose issues raised on your last FAC, but they should be addressed before re-approaching FAC - I only looked at referencing, WP:LAYOUT, and WP:MOS. Good luck ! Sandy (Talk) 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From AZPR|AZ[edit]

  • Wow, great job with the referencing . . . I even remember someone objecting for over-referencing on a FAC (though I don’t believe this should be a problem if the ref name attributes are used). BTW, there are typos on footnotes #57, 75 and 158.
  • Besides the referencing, I don't believe there are other (significant) style/layout problems. However, the prose is a problem:
  • In the lead, we have (w/o the footnotes):
  • Founded in 1842 by Methodist leaders and Central Ohio residents, provides that it "is forever to be conducted on the most liberal principles. misplaced modifier; the college, not the college's charter, was founded by the people
  • In 2006, Ohio Wesleyan had among the ten highest percentage of international students for liberal arts colleges, a position the school has held for twelve consecutive years. the first part is awkward writing, try rephrasing
  • The first paragraph of "Founding" is somewhat confusing due to the order it is presented in; the description of the hotel goes after the its purchasing.
  • A Board of Trustees was incorporated, a charter was secured from the legislature on March 7, 1842. run-on; split into two sentences or rewrite
    • The new intro, after we restructured it, fixed that problem! WikiprojectOWU 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The document was edited by Joseph Trimble, and gave wide powers to a board to be composed of twenty-one persons. Who is Joseph Trimble (give us a wikilink or a designation, like …Charles Elliott, leaders of the local…)? to be composed is needlessly redundant.
  • The college originally admitted only male students, and began with an 29 students and three professors. It was housed in the renamed Elliott Hall, formerly the Mansion House Hotel. Who does "it" refer to (shouldn't it be they)? It would probably be better to mention the renaming above in the first paragraph, so that we don't have to refer to the formerly… part.
    • Clarified reference and expanded the sentence. WikiprojectOWU 08:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 5, 1846, the first president Edward Thomson delivered his inaugural address. He maintained that the college was a product of the liberality of the people of Delaware and that it was fortunate that Ohio Wesleyan was founded in a community divided in religious and political opinions because the friction of a mixed society prevented dogmatism and developed energy and pointed out that the spirit of the college is the spirit of liberty. second sentence too long, split it up and make it less wordy. Place your cursor over underlined words to see my other notes.
  • Thomson and his successors her vocal in other political debates of the time — namely slavery and the expansion of the United States.[18] Edward Thomson, president of Ohio Wesleyan in 1857, denounced the argument that southern Christians "should retain their slaves in obedience to state laws forbidding manumission," saying that "the soft and slippered Christianity which disturbs no one, is not the Christianity of Christ."
  • Unfortunately, all of this is from the first couple of sections. User:Tony1 has a useful guide to help in further copyediting. Otherwise, great job! AZ t 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Ruhrfisch[edit]

I agree that this article represents a lot of work and has improved since I last looked at it. It is getting closer to FA, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. I have made some of these comments on User:WikiprojectOWU's talk page already, but am copying the ones that are still applicable here and adding a few more observations.

  • Although the lead paragraphs are read first, they should be written last. Wait until the article is about ready, then go through and make sure each header and subheader is at least mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Everything in the lead should be in the article. Footnotes in the lead paragraphs are held to a minimum (usually cite the ref in the body).
  • Be as specific as possible and avoid vague generalities (for example give the exact distance from Columbus, not about 25 miles, or give the exact day and month that the first classes were held, not just the year, and avoid terms like "currently"). What was the original name (the article says it was founded as a college - Ohio Wesleyan College? If OWU was original name, say that). The sub-article History of Ohio Wesleyan University says it was a school for younger students first, then the "College of Liberal Arts" was founded. Is this the original name? Great job on starting sub-articles, by the way. If giving statistics, give the year (as of 2004) and the exact figures.
  • Avoid duplication - for example Methodism is wikilinked three times in just the first six paragraphs, and you really don't need two pictures each of the Sulphur Spring or of Branch Rickey (so just pick the best one). Do you also need three different photos of the sports facility? I like the Student Protest / Activism photo that was in DYK - why was it taken out?
    • Fixed. It was taken out because of POV concerns by another editor. WikiprojectOWU 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent. Photos should be the same size for their format, horizontal ones the same width, vertical ones the same smaller width (you can perhaps break this rule if you need to show more detail in the photo). The photo captions refer to the "Sulphur Spring" and the "Sulphur Springs" - which is it? Make sure section headers fit the text described - classes start before the section titled Classes start.
  • Remember that you are telling a story. Put things in chronological order unless there is some strong reason not to. The second History section, titled Classes start, covers dates from 1846 to 1990, then the third (next) section is vaguely back in the "mid-19th century" (and talks yet again about the founding, something already addressed in the first section). Read and think of gaps in the story - the charter was 1842, the doors opened in 1844, but the first president was not inaugurated until 1846? Who ran the place before that? What is the Dartmouth University case (the link does not tell this) and why does it matter? Make connections explicit (I assume Elliot Hall is named for one of the founders - if so, why not say so?). What are Edgar Hall and Austin Manor? Several references are made to presidents (I know a previous version of the history was mostly organized in terms of presidents). I would include a small table of the presidents and their years in office (it would take as much space as a picture).
  • Use pictures to advance the story being told. Try to put photos in places that add to the story (so why is the photo of Elliot Hall, the oldest building on campus, at the bottom of the article and not up with the description of the founding?}. Captions have to be concise, and should add to the story. The Doric Front image is in the right place, and the caption is interesting, but too long (and yet not detailed enough to tell the whole story). What about something like this as a caption "Slocum Hall (left), Thomson Chapel, and Elliot Hall formed the "Doric Front" from 185x to 188x, when the chapel was demolished. Elliot Hall was moved in 19xx." Then mention these buildings in the history as well. If a building is important enough to have a picture, try to explain a bit about it - when built, what its purpose was and is. What about a picture of students in class to go with all the outdoor shots?
    • Fixed the article to take these suggestions into account. WikiprojectOWU 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, be aware that the authors are often the best copyeditors simply because others do not have the necessary information. For example, there is this sentence: "Between the years 1876 and 1888, enrollment in the college increased three times and music education experienced a decided renaissance, though no major buildings were built during this time." I think it means that enrollment tripled (went up by a factor of three), not that there were increases in enrollment three times in 12 years. However, since I do not have a copy of Hubbart to check, I can't really correct this. The article also later mentions a school of Fine Arts being founded the same year as the Music program. Did the Fine Arts not experience a renaissance? The raw materials are mostly there, but they still need some work. I hope this helps and would be glad to look this over again when it is almost ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point. I rephrased the language to make it clearer. WikiprojectOWU 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From BS[edit]

  • Lead paragraphs: To further tighten and focus them on the key facts about OWU, I'd suggest:
    1) Drop the quote from the college charter. The first sentence already says OWU is a liberal arts college. It is unclear what else this quote adds. Is "most liberal principles" referring to political liberalism (no), or is it saying there will never be any professional (non liberal arts) instruction at OWU? The quote raises questions instead of answering them, and most importantly dilutes an otherwise strong first paragraph.
    • I did restructure the lead to take into account why the quote is essential-to welcome all groups. I will change the quote to link to American liberalism, which centers about liberty, not political liberalism. WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2) The 2 most notable alumni are people the reader will almost certainly never have heard of, so the impression is left that nobody famous came from OWU, so why mention it in the lead? I think the paragraph would be stronger without that sentence. Having famous alums is not a key distinguishing feature of OWU (or most schools), anyway.

    • Should the inclusion of names answer the question "Who is famous?" or "Why is it important?" Scientific discoveries on topics related to ozone depletion and global warming are incredibly important...unless someone finds it controversial? WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


3) The second sentence in the third paragraph sounds like it is explaining how the 200 acres were calculated. It weakens the otherwise key points in the paragraph, so I would drop it. Details about the campus can be included below.
Thanks! Bob schwartz 02:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did include it right next to the first sentence (see Cornell's FA page...it does the same thing). WikiprojectOWU 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Senators[edit]

I am not so familiar with that university, in fact I don’t even know were Ohio is (I am from Australia) but the article looks good.

  • good amounts of information
  • large amounts of footnotes
  • standard amount of wikilinks

But I am worried about all those footnotes, are you sure there is not any repeated lines. There needs to be more pictures of the college itself, and please can we make the article “user friendly” what that means make the article more understandable so it invites the readers in for more. Sorry I didn’t have time to spell check the article but I will try in the future. Could you please (when you get time) check over my article Ford BA Falcon I am trying to get it to Good article status. Recommend my article to your other reviewers. SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by more pictures of the college? There are several in the article. I would love to hear what you mean by more understandable. This is probably a neglected area that, I might focus on in the future if you have more specific suggestions. WikiprojectOWU 23:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From bobanny[edit]

Looks good – obviously a lot of work has been poured into this thing. Its main weaknesses seem to be problems typical of an article that has had a lot of editors in its development, i.e., it’s a bit clunky in some areas that should be smoothed out and has some consistency problems. The content generally seems to be all there, but it still needs a bit of elbow grease.

  • Academic information should be more prominent in the article generally, since that’s the raison d’etre of a university. I had to go a quarter down the page before I found out that science was its strongest area (I think it’s strong, it’s described as a bias). There should be something in the introduction characterizing the school academically.
    • I just added more information in the profile in response to this one. WikiprojectOWU 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section is much too long, especially since there’s a separate history article (which looks shorter than this section!). Much of this belongs in that article. All that’s needed here is a concise overview, which ideally would summarize the main history article and mention some of the big moments. Another option is to give some historical content to other sections where appropriate. For example, the information on the rate of PhDs cranked out could go in the “Academics” section. History is like English: it should be used to make the other stuff better rather than confined to its own little section.
  • Sections and subsections should begin with a topic sentence to introduce the whole section. For example, the “Today” subsection of history begins with: “The new Science Center opened in 2004 to house all of the school's science departments,” which seems to hit you out of the blue with lead-up. (Other sections are great on this, like “Organizations and activities). Another problem one is “Profile” under the Academics section, which begins by bombarding the reader with stats. Start with the general, then move to specifics. Also, sections could use a general introduction as well, rather than just launching right into subsections.
    • I tried to fix this one for the sections that you brought up. WikiprojectOWU 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure could use some reorganization to better capture the themes that permeate the article. One suggestion is to change “Activism” to “Social Justice” and group those related things that are currently scattered through the article, such as university affirmative action-type policies and accessibility issues, progressive student organizations, as well as the usual political demonstration type stuff. I believe this would help counter criticism of this section that was brought up elsewhere.
  • Double check the wikilinks. For example, LGBT is linked several times, and “international” (the international house) leads to a disambiguation page. Try and make the links as useful (i.e., specific) as possible, and terms should only be linked the first time they are used (or second, because blue links should be minimal in the introduction).
    • Fixed.
  • Make sure the ‘needing copy-edit’ and ‘invalid ISBN’ labels are eliminated (justifiably, of course).(Btw, its an ISSN for Atlantic Monthly and other periodicals, not ISBN (books) as the note in the “further reading” section indicates --- you don’t need to use ISSN).
    • I fixed the ISBNs...some of the books are too old to have them. WikiprojectOWU 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a thorough copy-edit. Several technical errors, such as this sentence: “During the mid-19th century, the school focused as on curriculum and fund raising” which makes no sense as it is written. A lot of minor things, but this stuff needs to be squeaky clean for it to become featured.
    • Bluedog423 helped me a lot with that section so this is no longer a problem. WikiprojectOWU 20:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about using periods in acronyms. Some have them, like U. S., others don’t, like OWU, and some are both, like PhD/Ph.D. Personally, I say get rid of the periods. Also, upper/lower case in “the University/university,” which changes throughout the article.
  • Get rid of the red wikilinks. Either create a stub for them, or just take out the brackets if you can’t imagine someone taking the time to write a decent article on the subject.
    • Done.
  • Make sure all the internet sources cited are useful. The first one I checked was this one, and it took a bit of looking to find the OWU connection. There’s over 200 cites listed in the “notes” section, which is huge. Huge is great, but when I first saw how many were there, I wondered how much of it was padding. Generally, you only need one source per point (quote, statistic, piece of information, etc.), and if the cite serves as an example, you don’t really need more than two. The university’s pro-active support and recruitment of LGBT students has seven, and by that point in the article it’s all triple digit numbers. This can be distracting to read, and I’m guessing that by the seventh one, the point has already long been made and sufficiently supported. A bunch others have 4, which might be reasonable in some cases, but make sure they serve a purpose. As a rule of thumb, only when something is controversial or has been challenged do you need to pummel the reader with supporting evidence.
    • True. Somebody else noted that if something exists it doesn't need a reference. I read the article to eliminate unnecessary references. However, I do think that statements need to be referenced. Controversial statements have more references. WikiprojectOWU 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with this and congrats on how far you’ve already come with this article, Bobanny 10:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Nick Mks[edit]

Following the request at my talk page, I took a look at this article, even though its subject is not my speciality. My remarks:

  • There seem to be many references. Unless there is some kind of controversy about every statement, I'd get rid of some minor ones or at least combine different refs to the same work.
    • Controversy did exist related to several topics. On others, it was recommended that every fact should be cited{user:Indrian). WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people seem to have problems with language style. Even though I didn't read every sentence, this should be fixed as much as possible, which shouldn't be too much of a problem.
    • This is a critical area for the article and any recommendations on who might be willing to help will be appreciated! WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, there is an (alleged) POV problem. I'm afraid this is bad news. I can obviously say nothing about the content, but discussions should really be settled before trying FA.

That's it for now. Maybe I'll throw in some more later. Nick Mks 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • That was about one section and a consensus was reached almost a month ago on how to eliminate it. WikiprojectOWU 22:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Lovelac7[edit]

Hope you had a good holiday. Here's a few quick comments, in random order. I'll add more later if I think of anything:

  • The history section is particular is still too long. Spin some of it off to the daughter article. That's what I did, and now History of Michigan State University is an FA as well.
  • I never thought I'd say this, but there are too many footnotes. It's hard to read and harder to edit. My suggestions:
    • Some of your footnotes link to as many as six references. (See #110). Try to make it one source per footnote. Pick the most reliable and unbiased source of each of these long footnotes.
      • True, there is a history for these footnotes being the result of thorough documentation for everything said on a controversial claim earlier in the article's history. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you scale back some of your sections, you can take out some of the references, and vice versa. Again, don't let this research go to waste. Just move it to a daughter article, improve the readability of this article and the reliability of the others. Specifically:
      • That Hubbart book sounds like a good read, but I don't think we need so many footnotes alluding to it. Pick out the two or three most controversial statements, and cite them. Move everything else to the daughter article.
      • You can move a lot of the stuff about the city of Delaware to that article - footnotes and all.
        • Which parts in particular? I did take a look - all parts in that section deal with Delaware in the context of town-gown initiatives. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need references to things that aren't controversial. Is there any doubt that VP Charles Fairbanks went to your school? If not, just wikilink to his article.
      • Will double-check and remove the redundant references. WikiprojectOWU 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start from the top and look for redundant wikilinks. Pell Grants and a cappella are both linked twice within their respective paragraphs. Selby Field is linked in three consecutive picture captions.
  • Try to make all of your paragraphs roughly the same size. In particular, go out of your way to avoid one or two sentence paragraphs. There's nothing wrong with such a thing per se but these short paragraphs are the result of multiple editors starting their own paragraphs in their own voices. Many anon edits add paragraphs like these, and they often read something like, "In addition the OWU (fill-in-the-blank) club is an important part of life at OWU." The Branch Riley and Norman Vincent Peale sentences also fall into this category. Mergre these into cohesive paragraphs.
    • Fixed. I tried to make the roughly the same size. WikiprojectOWU 19:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got for now. It's getting late here in Samoa, so I'll talk to you more later. Lovelac7 11:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Bluedog423[edit]

Here are suggestions I left on the user's talk page on December 25, 2006 after performing a brief copyedit of the History section. I am copying it here so that it is more readily available for everybody else since most of these issues have not been addressed:

  • 1.) Footnotes come at the end of punctuation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation. Sometimes, there is a reference cited in the middle of a sentence without any punctuation. I personally like them at the end of sentences instead of after a comma because it just looks messy, but it doesn't seem to be against the manual to put them after commas. But definitely can't just be after a word.
  • 2.) The profile section is a bit too long. Mainly, the details about Ph.D. graduates are really not that important. People care more about things like aspects of the student body. Also, an entire paragraph that includes quotes (which definitely aren't interesting at all and thus ought to be paraphrased even if they were significant) about females in academia is completely unnecessary and harms the focus of the section. OWU stats are not even that much different than the national stats, so I would consider dumping that whole paragraph. Things like SAT averages are not even mentioned, and that's the kind of stuff people who read the article care about. Also, the information under student life should probably be under the profile section, as it is a profile of the student body.
  • I fixed that section and moved the text from student life into this one. WikiprojectOWU 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.) Don't start sentences with numerals. e.g. "59% of Ohio Wesleyan students" should instead begin "Fifty-nine percent...."
  • 4.) The student life lead section is very choppy and is a bombardment of facts at times. Try to make it more cohesive and flowing.
  • I tried to improve it but if it still needs work, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5.) When you are quoting something you use "quotation marks" not italics.
  • 6.) You don't need to provide a source to state that something exists. You need references to back up claims. In this following example, the references add nothing except now we can be certain that they exist, yay: "The Daily Bulletin[125] is the student-run daily bulletin. Other student publications include the weekly The Transcript,[126] the electronic Connect2OWU,[127] @Wesleyan,[128] an online magazine published four times a year, and several academic publications, such as The Civic Arts Review[129] and The Historian,[130] a journal of contemporary and relevant historical scholarship." If you say something like, "The Transcript has a daily readership of 5,000" then that should be cited. But merely stating that it exists doesn't require a reference.
  • 7.) Sports are not capitalized. e.g. chess, hockey, skiing, etc. I shouldn't be finding things like this at this point.
  • 8.) Alumni section is still a bit choppy. Consists of short, stubby paragraphs.
  • 9.) Organizations and activities still seems like a list. I'd suggest to choose the most significant things and expand on them slightly. What impacts the most OWU students? That's what should be focused on.
  • 10.) Going along with my point 9, things that impact very few students probably don't deserve mentioning. Although sometimes it is appropriate to give a brief summary of a few representative organizations; and I can deal with that. Likewise, aspects that are mundane probably can be deleted too. For example, do we really need an entire paragraph stating that commencement exists? Probably not. Is a sentence about midnight breakfast really necessary? We have that at my school, too. Does that really add anything to the article? I think there are a lot of random organizations mentioned and facts presented that can be deleted. Add more subarticles if you want to have this information somewhere. This article is supposed to include the most imperative things about OWU. If you had 15 minutes to explain OWU to somebody, what would you include? I do not think it would be that the Pell grant averages are similar to "Vassar College, Reed College, Colorado College and Hampshire College.[113]" Things like that are not important. Stating the percentage is fine, but anymore than that is beating it over the head. Plus, naming those colleges tell us nothing as they could have been hand selected. If you said this is among the highest 100 institutions in the nation, that actually gives us information.
  • I removed some of the unnecessarily mundane traditions. Same with some of the student organizations. BryanD reworded the Pell Grant discussion, so let me know if it still further work. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11.) Flow is sometimes an issue. The article should be telling the reader a story that they can easily read from start to finish. The main sections that need improvement in this regard are "Organizations and activities" and "Traditions."
  • I read the entire article to watch for flow. Where necessary, I made changes. If there are specific examples that jump out at you, let me know. WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12.) Also, the lead could probably be a bit longer for an article of this size. A couple of more sentences would be appropriate. Maybe include a sentence about activism or traditions or the profile something. Those seem to have more information in the text than recent construction, for example. The lead is supposed to summarize the article; not add new information. Everything contained in the lead should be contained with the text of the article as well (I may have been at fault at this point, though, in my article too; but you should strive to be even better than past FA's!)
  • I added a sentence a few days back about academics and I will another one regarding activism, traditions or profile something. Thank you again for your very helpful suggestions!WikiprojectOWU 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's it for now. Good luck again! -Bluedog423Talk 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Posted by/on Bluedog423Talk 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ohio_Wesleyan_University/archive1&oldid=1138564349"