# Talk:University of Wisconsin Experimental College

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Wisconsin Experimental College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: czar
Greetings. This looks like a fascinating slice of educational history. I will begin this review shortly.  – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I might not be able to start it for a few more days, but I will review it as soon as I can.  – Quadell (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. Feel free to post any suggestions in chunks so I can start addressing them without holding up the review. czar ♔ 00:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is a strong candidate, and concerns a fascinating topic. I found few problems with spelling or grammar, and I'm a picky reviewer in that area. (I did make a few copy-edits, however. If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss.) The lead adequately covers all sections, and conforms to MOS:LEAD. The formatting of the references is exemplary, and my spot-checks showed statements to be fully supported by their sources, and fully reworded to avoid any hint of plagiarism. All direct quotes are directly sourced, as required. There might or might not be copyright problems with some of the images, but that's being handled on Commons. (They will either be shown to be PD or will be deleted, and I don't think that needs to affect this nomination.) The article is comprehensive, and is admirably neutral, with only a couple wording problems in that regard. Here are the issues I found.

In the lead, "editor-in-chief-cum-University of Wisconsin President" is an awkward phrasing, in my opinion.
✓ rephrased, though I liked it as it was
The first paragraph twice refers to "a great books, liberal arts curriculum".
✓ I mentioned the curriculum twice purposefully, but I rephrased it for the second usage
I see from the Alexander Meiklejohn article that he was previously dean of Brown and president of Amhurst. The "History" section gives no indication he had any serious educational experience, but I think that's relevant info.
✓ sure, why not. Added Amherst ref
The "History" section does not cover the entire history of the college. I would rename it "Background".
✓
Were "mixed-sex living arrangements" a standard of the time, or was the refusal a standard?
✓ rephrased (the latter)
Ah, that's clear now, thanks. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
"The students were largely well-versed in current affairs, with higher scorers on entrance exams and lower grades than their UW counterparts". I thought the program didn't have grades.
✓ rephrased (entrance/high school grades)
It makes perfect sense now. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The phrase "A judge ruling over three students who joined in a socialist march" isn't clear. Was it illegal to join in a socialist march?
✓ unclear from the source itself—I rephrased
Okay, well, we can't help it if the sources don't say. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not clear: "... growing beards and their hair, dramatizing their apathetic conspicuousness, dressing up, and dressing down." Looking at the source, I understand what you mean, but phrases long "growing their hair" (out? long?), "apathetic conspicuousness" (they didn't care if they were conspicuous, or conspicuously didn't care?), and both dressing up and down, are confusing for the reader.
✓ rephrased, revoked my poetic license
It's not clear if two dates per month is a lot or a little. According to the source, the scandal was that they only went on 2 dates per month, so the addition of the word "only" would make that clear.
✓
It seems to me that the last paragraph of "Rise" belongs in "Decline".
✓ I liked how it transitioned, but point taken
I think these statements are metaphorical and interpretations, and therefore NPOV problems: "Meiklejohn was under attack" and "He was foreign to Madison".
✓ I scrapped the first as redundant, but I especially don't think the latter is a NPOV issue. It's argued quite plainly in the source. Let me know if you disagree?
I understand, and I see your point. It was really just my opinion... it's not a serious POV problem that could sink a GAN or anything. Thanks for considering it. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
What does this mean? "...and lambasted their prioritizes as opposed to education." Does this mean their priorities were (allegedly) opposed to education itself? Or that proponents lambasted their priorities, as opposed to lambasting their education? Or what?
✓ rephrased
It seems that the "Facilities" section would be more at home as a subsection of "Program". (Or at least, it should be above the "Rise" and "Decline" sections.)
✓ I had it separate because I thought it could expand a bit more in the future, but I moved it under Program for now
Grammar (fixed, I hope): A sentence fragment should not act as a complete sentence, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period. I attempted a very minor reword here. I hope it's acceptable to you. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
✓ I missed that—good call
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
All issues have been resolved.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
All issues have been resolved.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
All issues have been resolved
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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I'm putting this article on hold. If all issues are addressed in the next 7 days, the nomination will pass. – Quadell (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
All right. I think I've addressed the above. Let me know what you think czar ♔ 04:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Your improvements are excellent. I'm happy to promote this article to GA status. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)