Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of California, Berkeley/archive1

University of California, Berkeley

I just was over there and was very surprised this wasn't featured, assuming it was a pic copyvio issue holding it back. This article is long, informative and beautiful, but I have no vested interest, so you can pick it apart as you will. karmafist 22:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object: Way too many 1-2 sentence paragraphs are in this article. It may be long, but it is not thorough enough. Especially in the history section, too many paragraphs start introduces a topic, but there is no citations or supportment or thoroughness with all of the paragraphs in the history. There are several lists that should be converted to prose. Research facilities and Points of Interest should be combined into a single See also section, and there is only 1 reference for the entire 35 kb article, which is certainly not enough. The article contains way too many undeveloped paragraphs. There is somewhere around 23 of such paragraphs that have no more than 2 sentences. AndyZ 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. English could be improved quite a bit, the last few sections : 'Distinguished Berkeley people', 'Student Groups', 'Research Facilities' and 'Points of Interest' ruin the article as they are all short lists - Maybe these could all be merged into a 'See also' section?. The 'Organization' section is terribly messy, consisting of a long list which needs to be converted into prose and described in detail or either removed/merged into another part of the article. My major concern is that the article is not well referenced, 1 reference for the entire article is not good enough - what about other books, and articles? newspapers? etc. In-line citations should also be used in the form of footnotes for really good referencing. — Wackymacs 08:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object: I don't agree. I have been watching and occasionally editing the article and I feel it still contains too many vague statements, too many unsourced claims, and still too much boosterism. Mike Dillon 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object:
1. The image Image:Free speech.jpg does not have a clear source or copyright statement.
2. The images Image:Haaspav.jpg, Image:Edstadium.jpg have two contradictory copyright statements: GFDL, and Wikipedia-only.
3. The image Image:StanleyHall final.jpg is tagged as "fair use". There's no need to use a fair-use image here: it can be replaced by a photo of the current construction site, or we can wait half a year and put in a photo of the finished building.
4. The image Image:Tien Center.gif is tagged as "fair use". I can't tell from the article if this building is currently under construction, completed, or only in the planning stages. In any case, the options are the same as above.
5. What is Image:Cal-logo.gif the logo of? The article doesn't make it clear.
--Carnildo 09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, mostly for the stub sections at the bottom, the listing of only one source as a reference, and the absence of notes of any kind. As far as I can tell, University of Michigan is the only featured article on a university; I think it's pretty good. For example, it has a section on student life, which this article lacks, and that's a huge omission. Melchoir 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

1. "The University of California" is rarely if ever used to refer to Cal, Berkeley -- contrary to its listing among the various names for this campus.

2. The University of California is not "separate" from the Cal campus; it is now the umbrella organization to which Cal and all the other U.C. campi belong.

3. The passage saying that Eldridge Cleaver is why the 1968-69 year had so many police and national guard on campus is largely in error. (I was there.)

The Fall quarter (fully in 1968) had Eldridge Cleaver "guest lecturing" (almost?) all meetings of a particular course, having been granted that status by its prof. The Regents objected, soon passing a rule that no guest lecturer could lecture more than twice in a given course. Some degree of brouhaha on campus ensued.

The Winter quarter had intense lobbying for the establishment of Black Studies courses by the "Third World Liberation Front" -- which at one point involved a sit-in, I think in Sproul Hall (the administration bldg.) and police came to end the sit-in IIRC.

The Spring quarter had many people informally developing the piece of land (between Telegraph & Bowditch, Haste & Dwight) owned by the University that came to be called People's Park, by planting things, adding playground equipment, etc. Roger Heyns, then Chancellor, insisted they leave so the Univ. could assert its ownership rights and, it was said, convert the land into a parking lot. In the early hours of IIRC May 15, 1969, any people camping out there were ousted and a chain-link fence erected around that block. The next day angry speeches criticizing this action were given at Sproul Plaza. Apparently student body president Dan Siegel ended his speech with the words "Let's take the park" (for which he was later charged with inciting a riot). Many people hurried to the park and tore down the fence. On that day or during the next few days, that area of Berkeley had many police, many people milling around protesting the University's actions, a few people tossing projectiles at the police, and a certain amount of police response that included shooting live bullets. One man (James Rector, reported to have been sitting peacefully on a roof just watching) was killed by a bullet, and another (also reportedly just a bystander) was permanently blinded. National Guard troops were *not* involved, though police from surrounding cities may have been called in.

National Guard were indeed called in a year later in May, 1970 after Nixon invaded Cambodia and the Kent State, Jackson State, and Augusta State shootings led to many Cal professors' holding courses off campus and at least two entirely peaceful major protest marches on Shattuck Ave. Then-state governor Ronald Reagan in a total non sequitur announced "If they want a bloodbath, let them have a bloodbath."

National Guard troops occupied Berkeley for three weeks, during which no more than two people were allowed to walk together; if three or more did so, they often found a tear-gas canister skittling along the street toward them. The most craven government action was, apropos of absolutely nothing, that one day National Guard positioned themselves around the perimeter of Sproul Plaza with fixed bayonets pointed inward. Moments later, a helicopter flew overhead spraying tear gas all over the plaza. The students thus trapped were ones who had chosen *not* to protest, but who were crossing the plaza between classes.

I copyright my above accounts, but gladly license them to Wikipedia. Daniel Asimov Daqu 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Daqu 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]