Jump to content

Talk:University of Surrey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleUniversity of Surrey has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Photos

[edit]

Does anyone have any good and appropriate photos of the University? I think this article is noticeably missing some quality photos of the buildings and campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkejazz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get some this week and upload them to the Commons. Any buildings or places you were thinking of in particular? I'll try to get some of the Austin Pearce and Duke of Kent buildings at least. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Austin Pearce and Duke of Kent were the buildings I was thinking of too. Maybe the management school too? Thanks. Funkejazz (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken photos of AP, DK, management school and Rubix:
Photos
I'll leave it up to others to decide if/where they should go in the article and whether the AP and management school photos should replace the ones that are there at the moment. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 13:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on edits for GA review process

[edit]

Should the Media and Students' Union sections be kept and if so where should they be merged to? I'm wondering if they actually add anything to the article so should they be kept at all? Funkejazz (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Preliminary

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Surrey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good looking article with a lot of potential. Please rectify the following general issues before I conduct a full-fledged review:

  • Each alumnus and academic needs to be supported by a citation
  • All citations should be in WP:Cite formatt (WP:Cite web in most cases; i.e., with URL, publisher, access date, as well as author and date of article if available)
  • Proposed Surrey Multifaith Centre should be merged into Campus
  • Media and Students' Union need to be expanded upon greatly or merged elsewhere
  • "University" by itself should not be capitalized throughout the article
  • Fix Universities in the United Kingdom template at bottom of article to include Surrey
  • Lead needs to be expanded significantly per WP:LEAD
--Eustress (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review this article. All of these areas are being worked on currently. Funkejazz (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm patient when I see that progress is being made. Historically, however, GANs "on hold" are only so for seven days. If these issues can be addressed within that time frame, then I'd be happy to grant another week or so to work through my subsequent in-depth review. If you don't have time to respond adequately this GAN, the article can be failed an renominated again when ready, but it's really to your advantage for me to be thorough and not let an article "slide", as another editor would just request reassessment of the GA status and demote it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this process is new to me, but I think the issues above have now been addressed. Best Funkejazz (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work...here we go! (Please respond to each bullet point individually, so I can keep track where you're at and you can ask questions about specific points if needed (I'm not always right).

Review

[edit]

A good article has the following attributes: 

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
         (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
         (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
         (c) contains no original research.
  • Issues marked elsewhere.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
         (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
  • Do you really need to list the Vice-Chancellor and all the Pro-Chancellors in the infobox? I would consider this unnecessary detail.
  • Only list associations in infobox that pertain to university as a whole (e.g., AACSB is for business school only and would go on an article about the business school).
  • Major concern: The article doesn't have balance because it avoids any negative stuff about the university. Any criticism or controversies? How does the university fare in national and global rankings?
    • Good point. If there genuinely isn't any notable negativity or controversy can it still be balanced? I guess rankings might give it balance but I haven't seen a consensus reached on how rankings are introduced into wikipedia as they tend to be very controversial themselves!Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched for any controversies regarding USurrey and couldn't find anything, but just keep such information in mind for the future. However, rankings seems to be a standard inclusion in FA university articles. All rankings are have some POV (similar to all Wikipedia editors) but we seek balance through reliable, encyclopedic content. In this case (you might want to find a more updated source) I found a Financial Times overall ranking for British Universities putting USurrey at #29 (http://www.hust.edu.cn/english/link/oversea/abroad/rankBritish%20.html). Perhaps an Academics section, similar to other FAs, could include Rankings, Research, and Educational links. --Eustress (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major concern: Article seems to be missing stuff covered in just about every other university article: Athletics? Student life and culture? Student profile?
    • Again notability is the issue here. Athletics and sports are not big in UK institutions in the same way it is in US colleges so there is little interest in student sports outside those taking part on the whole. Student life would be relevant but from what I know about Surrey it would add very little to the article, to the extent that we would then be discussing removing it. Please feel free to disagree with any or all of this. I think in the general interests of improving the article in the framework of what Wikipedia is about these are not sections I think that should be added. Funkejazz (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] 
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

  5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  • No prior issues
  6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
         (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]

Conclusion

[edit]

In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one more week until the above issues are resolved. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future. Good luck! --Eustress (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate employment ranking - possible COI

[edit]

I'd like to add (into the Ranking section?) that the Uni is for a long time England's top at employment of graduates (source e.g.: http://www.dreamfoundation.eu/institutions/institution/107 or http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/18/graduate-employment-by-university-and-subject ?), but I'm not sure if I'm not in a conflict of interest, could some unconflicted editor have a look pls? 131.227.95.253 (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Football team?

[edit]

UOS has a football team, which I play for, I study in UOS. I play as striker. #universityofsurreyfootballteam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie Sinclair (talk • contribs) 19:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zep. at University of Surrey's Battersea's campus in 1968

[edit]

They performed at (as advertised) UOS's Battersea campus - "Battersea Park Drive" - at the "Great Hall" (no doubt at all, they did not perform at the "building in progress" and muddy Guildford campus - it had no "Great Hall"! Read this - https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/five-world-beating-achievements-university-12005925 Hope this helps 175.32.219.132 (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was what was needed, the previous cite was ambiguous to say the least. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Surrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

[edit]

I've made a few edits to this page recently, almost all of which have been reverted. One of them included removing an old section of material relating the university's role in the future development of 5g (written in 2012) from the lead. This prose was already included in the main body of the article, and since the lead reference had been superseded by the launch of 5g in 2016, and 8 years of global rollout, I thought it was perfectly acceptable to take this outdated line out, but apparently since it was considered by one editor to be "a major change", I was advised to take it to talk. So much for WP:BOLD.

I also removed an image from the alumni gallery, which currently holds 11 images, but conceivably could run into the hundreds eventually. I was told "Who are you to decide which should stay and which should go? If you feel stronly about it take it to the talk page". So again, I seem restricted to make any minor changes to this page without consulting talk first, a talk page which hasn't been used for over 6 months. For the record my rationale for removing the image of Liz McInnes was that she's now a borough councillor, which is a few runs down from national legislature, so compared to the other people listed in the gallery she's arguably the least notable if the gallery's length were to be curtailed. Since I recently added the Prime Minister of Thailand to this alumni list, I thought it would be acceptable to add images to the gallery and remove in equal measure. But apparently this all needs to go through talk first. I'm rather glad other articles in the project are not so restrictive when it comes to editing, otherwise it might take weeks or months to achieve anything if everything needed to go through talk. Uhooep (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't have any images of alumi on the University page, they are all on available on the relevant articles linked to in the list. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would rather there was referenced prose than a gallery, but since we don't have that yet, i'm okay with a gallery, but not an overly extensive one. Uhooep (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate list of notable alumni, all that is really needed is the existing link to that page. The list of academics is far more relevant to the main article.
Mind you, it would appear it is ony you and I that care enough to comment so lets go ahead with your limit of ten in the gallery. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Surrey&oldid=1241101776"