Talk:College and university dating/GA2
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Will just copy what I put on the talk page a month ago.
I see this failing the focus criteria. The History section only mentions colleges or universities briefly in the very last sentence, why is there a whole section dedicated to an obscure American frat boy ritual, the technology section, and most of the others, do not relate to the topic of the article. To be honest the only section that is really relevant is the Professor-student relationships, most of the rest applies to any dating among young adults. Other issues are the headers not being particularly useful and the description of hooking up as a phenomena. Broadness (tricky to judge as there is no definition given on what this article covers, it appears to be a hodgepodge of various dating customs) could be a concern too as it seems very American centric. There should be at least some mention of the culture of college life to differentiate it from dating in other environments. There is probably more as this is quite a superficial review, but the lack of focus is enough to reassess this article.
I see focus as the big GA concern. If that is addressed then I will look at the other aspects more closely. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article has a pretty good focus. I am sure it can be expanded further, and if you show me sources discussing the issues that are no covered here, I'll see if I have time and will to expand them. At the very least they'll be useful for the next editor to take this topic up. Just saying that something should be in the article is not enough - there is no guarantee reliable sources exist on this topic. I agree it would be interesting to discuss how college dating differs from non-college one, but what reliable source discusses this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest this looks like one of those articles that combines two essentially unrelated situations and then makes an article out of it. Saying that I think these can work, but it needs to talk about dating more in the context of university/college, not just dating in general. For example, the history section talks about practices of courtship, technological advances, and marriage, but the whole college aspect of it concerns a man with a car or fraternity membership having more potential to find a mate. That is what I mean by focus. The history section should look at the history of dating at college. The writing style is too essayish too, but that is an easier situation to solve. I would think that that section would have to be re-written anyway if this was to be kept. The Lavaliering section is incredibly undue and exasperates the problem. There is no history on college dating, but a whole section is devoted to a bizarre fraternity ritual. There is no critical commentary of the ritual either, which if it is common enough to deserve a section then there should be (I don't imagine to many women's rights or basically most groups would ignore it). Note that I could not find anything in the ref supporting the claim that it is a common practise either. There is a section on hooking up, but this is hardly something unique to college and it doesn't differentiate it from "hooking up" in any other setting. The opening sentence says that "It is common for college students to seek sexual encounters without the goal of establishing a long-term relationship, a practice commonly referred to as hooking up.", but the cited reference says "Marriage is a major life goal for the majority of today’s college women, and most would like to meet a spouse while at college" so there are some contradictions. If there are no reliable sources on this topic, then I struggle to see why this article exists (although at the afd enough reliable sources were produced to have it kept - although not every article can or should be a GA). I found it quite American-centric too. It mostly focuses on fraternities (when it is focusing on college/universities), but barely mentions other aspects outside of the US (one short paragraph is all I found). The last two paragraphs are much better in terms of focus, so I think it is possible to write a decent article on this subject. However, especially after a closer look at some of the sources mentioned above, I think this one is a long way off Good standard. AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The article is just a mish-mash of unrelated topics, many of which have little or nothing to do with the title. Frankly an AfD nomination would make more sense than a GA nomination. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- It was snow kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College dating, and in much worse shape at the time [1]. Ironically it had better focus. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The original title also made more sense given the range of topics discussed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The article is just a mish-mash of unrelated topics, many of which have little or nothing to do with the title. Frankly an AfD nomination would make more sense than a GA nomination. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest this looks like one of those articles that combines two essentially unrelated situations and then makes an article out of it. Saying that I think these can work, but it needs to talk about dating more in the context of university/college, not just dating in general. For example, the history section talks about practices of courtship, technological advances, and marriage, but the whole college aspect of it concerns a man with a car or fraternity membership having more potential to find a mate. That is what I mean by focus. The history section should look at the history of dating at college. The writing style is too essayish too, but that is an easier situation to solve. I would think that that section would have to be re-written anyway if this was to be kept. The Lavaliering section is incredibly undue and exasperates the problem. There is no history on college dating, but a whole section is devoted to a bizarre fraternity ritual. There is no critical commentary of the ritual either, which if it is common enough to deserve a section then there should be (I don't imagine to many women's rights or basically most groups would ignore it). Note that I could not find anything in the ref supporting the claim that it is a common practise either. There is a section on hooking up, but this is hardly something unique to college and it doesn't differentiate it from "hooking up" in any other setting. The opening sentence says that "It is common for college students to seek sexual encounters without the goal of establishing a long-term relationship, a practice commonly referred to as hooking up.", but the cited reference says "Marriage is a major life goal for the majority of today’s college women, and most would like to meet a spouse while at college" so there are some contradictions. If there are no reliable sources on this topic, then I struggle to see why this article exists (although at the afd enough reliable sources were produced to have it kept - although not every article can or should be a GA). I found it quite American-centric too. It mostly focuses on fraternities (when it is focusing on college/universities), but barely mentions other aspects outside of the US (one short paragraph is all I found). The last two paragraphs are much better in terms of focus, so I think it is possible to write a decent article on this subject. However, especially after a closer look at some of the sources mentioned above, I think this one is a long way off Good standard. AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Delisting Concerns remain and confirmed by another editor. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)