# Talk:New College, Oxford

The Notre Dame fire reminded me of the story of trees for Oxford roof beams being planted 100s of years in advance.  That turns out to be a myth.[1] but might be worth mentioning anyway.  New College is the location in question. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
[2] This is the kitsch version. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add it one of these days....
Some sources:
New College, "Trivia" page: http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/archives/trivia.html
Long Now Foundation, https://longnow.org/ideas/humans-and-trees-in-long-term-partnership/
Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn
--Macrakis (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Tony-benn.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:New College, Oxford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Robminchin (talk · contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I'm willing to do this review. On an initial read over, there are no banners or inline tags and the prose looks okay (with a few issues that I will expand on below). At an initial glance, referencing looks a bit sparse, but I've not done a thorough check to see what each reference verifies yet. Robminchin (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


### Music
#### Choir
I suggest this subsection needs to be re-written from the ground up. There are problems with the statement of option as fact and virtually nothing is verified by the citations given. Something needs to be said about the college choir to satisfy the broad coverage criteria, so I don't think it can be simply deleted. 

Something certainly needs to be said, and that would need to be similar to what is here; further, much of this is in fact correct, as are most of the citations.
The opening two sentences need citations
Added.
I'm not sure what's happening with the second reference - there seems to be an archive link that isn't to an archived version of the original url but to something similar from 2008, but the actual link is live. It would be better to remove the archive link entirely (or at least point it to an archived version of the current page).
It was a valid archive link but the url-status parameter was missing: fixed.
The claim in the third sentence that "The choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world" needs to make it clear among whom it has this reputation and to provide independent citations to support this claim.
Removed.
The citation given says the choir has a "particular emphasis on British composers of the English Renaissance, the middle Baroque, and the music of Handel" in its recordings, but does not verify that it is "known particularly for its performances of Renaissance and Baroque music".
Edited.
The citation for the number of recordings still in the catalogue is actually a discography that merely says many of them are available to buy. It does not verify the number available to buy nor, as an archived page from almost a decade ago, can it possibly verify which ones are "still available"
Let's remove this, as it's close to a cited claim below.
The final sentence of the opening paragraph is verified, but by an archived page from 2009 that may not be current. Also, "appearing a number of times at the BBC Proms" differs only in tense from the "has appeared a number of times at the BBC Proms" of the source.
Once one has appeared at the Proms, that remains true for all time. Reworded slightly, this is a basic fact and standard form of words.
The citations for the Gramophone awards are undated dead links. From the looks of the Wayback Machine, they've been dead for over a decade.
Updated the ref for the 2008 Grammy, the URL had been changed. Unfortunately the Grammy archive doesn't go back as far as 1997, but Discogs has republished "Excerpts" from Gramophone for the 1997 awards, so I've cited that.
The sentence about the organist becoming Oxford's first choral professor seems completely unrelated to anything else in this section, and isn't verified by the citation given.
The connection seems immediately apparent but if others can't see it let's do without.
The 2009 Bartlemas procession is verified, but if this was only a one-off it doesn't seem worth mentioning. It needs evidence that this is a revived tradition.
Not sure I follow that logic; if the tradition was revived for a procession, that is a matter of interest; if it's repeated, of course that would be nice too, but a different matter.
We don't want or need a list of everything the choir has done in its history here, so if it was a one-off event that has no ongoing significance then it seems undue to mention it here.
OK, I'll record that I don't agree, because it is only an active, energetic and outgoing choir that takes the trouble to revive old traditions, but am removing the item now.
Only the 2015 Papal mass is verified by the sources cited; the citation for the 2016 mass does not verify the participation of the college choir.
Removed 2016.
The Catholic Herald link is dead, but it could be retrieved from the Wayback Machine.
Archived.


#### Organ
The statement that the organ tuning is "regulated by Bishop and Son of London and Ipswich" is unverified, and not obviously relevant.
Removed.
The citation verifies that the organ was restored by Goetze and Gwynn in 2014, but the statement about registration changes and the 32 ft Fagot receiving a full-length bass are from a user comment on the news story, this not a reliable source (and the "32 ft Fagot" section is copied verbatim from that comment). If this is included, it should also be re-written to explain what it means.
Removed.


#### Organists and directors of music
It is unclear why this section exists. It seems to be straying away from focus on the topic of the article.
The College's centuries-long tradition of professional organists is an integral part of its being.
The same could be said of having a list of chaplains or librarians, or any other college officer. The argument that a tradition of professional organists is more important than these needs to be made with backing from independent sources.
Removed for now.


### Student life
#### Middle Common Room
This section needs more citations. Only the existence of the MCR journal is verified.
As with the JCR, I'm not sure we've anything worth saying here so let's do without the subsection.


#### Junior Common Room
The citation to the top level of the JCR website doesn't obviously verify anything in the opening sentence.
We're down to such a minimal statement here, that there are students and a committee, I think we'll be better off not mentioning it.
It's not clear why the student statistics are in this section as they have no apparent connection with the JCR.
As the section states, the JCR is the body of undergraduates in the college.
But the JCR has nothing to do with admissions. This would sit better in the "outreach" section.
Not sure it belongs there either. Let's just drop them.
The webpage cited for the admissions statistics does not verify the claims made in this sentence
As above.


#### Outreach
The opening sentence makes vague, unreferenced claims she needs to be either tightened up or deleted.
Removed.
The source cited verified the goals and existence of the Step-Up programme but not that it started in 2017. I also noticed that it is "Step-Up" rather than "Step Up".
Removed date, added hyphen.
The source cited for Oxford for Wales doesn't verify that this started in 2020.
Removed the date; we could probably rely on the access-date ("By 2020, the college had founded...") but that's untidy.


### People
#### Alumni and fellows
The reference for the first sentence names Hugh Grant and Susan Rise as alumni of New College, but does not verify 'a legacy of distinguished alumni and staff'.
Removed.
The reference for the second sentence verifies Richard Dawkins was a Professorial Fellow at New College and held the Simonyi professorship, but does not mention Marcus du Sautoy.
Removed, there is no need for any text here as the list of New College people is sufficient.


#### Wardens
The reference for this is a bit odd, being a history from 1954. While it states that "The college was governed by the Warden, who was elected for life by a majority of fellows; he had to be a fellow or ex-fellow, 30 years of age at least, a graduate in theology or law, or an M.A., in priest's orders or to take them immediately" this doesn't seem to verify the current role.
Added refs, and see next.
A section included in many articles on educational institutions is Organization and administration (c.f. WP:HED/AG). It would be more usual to describe the warden (and the governing body) in such a section, as well as the relationship between the college and the university. This would also be a place to mention that the students are divided into an MCR and JCR, without having to have subsections for each common room.
Good idea, reorganised and said that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


### Images
Only one image with a technical issue:

The image File:Oxford men and their colleges - The Cloister, New College.png used to illustrate the cloisters and chapel in the Chapel section has a copyright tag indicating it is in the public domain in the US because it was published before 1928. However, this contains the note that "If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." There doesn't seem to be any doubt that it is out of copyright as the artist, Frederick Mackenzie, died in 1854, but the tag for this is missing.
Added PD-old-100 on Commons.


### Criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Congratulations!

First college in the university to admit undergraduate students
Chiswick Chap, the citation to a college website mentions "a novelty at the time, undergraduates", but the source doesn't fully support the claim and isn't independent. Should the claim be removed? TSventon (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the concern. That it was a novelty does mean that it was a first. On independence, we are allowed to rely on the college for basic facts about itself, this is a correct use of primary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, the current wording is incorrect. I have checked the Encyclopaedia of Oxford article for New College and the Victoria County History (VCH) articles for Merton and Exeter and they show that undergraduates at colleges before the foundation of New College were rare but not non existent. That explains why the college website uses the word "novelty" rather the word "first".
The Encyclopaedia of Oxford article for New College says "Six colleges had already been founded in Oxford ... but most of these existed principally for graduates studying Theology ; undergraduates lived mainly in ACADEMIC HALLS"
The VCH says that Merton admitted founders kin from 1274 "Others of them, perhaps the majority, are boys, or youths, reading for the bachelor's degree. They are, in fact, undergraduates." According to the VCH, Exeter had thirteen scholars from 1316, including a chaplain and "The other twelve, who were to be at least sophists (i.e. undergraduates of two years' standing)" TSventon (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's been changed now anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, Robminchin said "It would be better if the claim to be the first in the university to admit undergraduate students were verified by an independent source, possibly one of the many histories of the university, rather than the college's own website."
Would the VCH be a better reference, it says "Most previous colleges had been designed to enable graduates to proceed to higher degrees. New College was primarily designed to take undergraduates through their arts course;" TSventon (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
larger than all of the (six) existing Oxford colleges combined
I suggest that this should be "about as large as" rather than "larger than". The existing source is to an old version of the college website, so it is not independent and the college may have decided the statement was incorrect and removed it. 
In Medieval Oxford Salter said "I estimate that in 1360 the six colleges which then existed would contain about 10 undergraduates, 23 bachelors and 40 masters."
Alan B Cobban references this in 2017 "prior to the virtual doubling of the number of fellowships with the foundation of New College in 1379, the six secular colleges supplied a total of only about 63 graduate fellows." 
TSventon (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) 

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap, Robminchin, The Buildings and grounds section does not mention the sports ground. I suggest adding
"The New College sports ground south of the University Parks was established in the 1880s. The Weston buildings, which accommodate postgraduate students, were built next to the ground in 1999." 

 TSventon (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a very random list. Why is it limited to graduates rather than fellows? Why is it limited to living people? Why scientists and politicians rather than other career sectors? Why these four people in particular? The selection criteria seem completely opaque and any set of individuals potentially wp:undue. Furius (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's slightly random too. It obviously should summarise List of people associated with New College, Oxford. A fairer, better summary could easily be made. The solution is not to delete the list, but to write a better one! Godtres (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)