Talk:University of Chicago Law School

message: There are some unnecessary sections that needs removal. The misrepresentation of sources seems to be a case. I only started checking from the first sentence of Nikomachian's version "law school is renowned for its interdisciplinary approach towards legal education", which is not supported by the source and mentions of "Thomson Reuters" or "Reuters" are also missing in the PDF despite being mentioned as the publisher of the source. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's come back to this. The lede is meant to be a summary of content in the article (not an introduction) so let's nail down the article first, and then discuss the lede. On that point, a lot of what's in the lede now (accolades and notable alumni and such) needs to also be mentioned somewhere in the article. But, again, let's come back to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for this. I mistakenly included the original paper delivered by the author to a conference in Sydney, Australia. The authorized version is published by Thomson Reuters in the Australian Law Journal,() which I understand to be a reputable source. In that article (which mirrors the PDF) you will see ample references to or illustrations of the interdisciplinary approach to legal education (search “University of Chicago”). I agree however that the citation should be updated with the volume and edition of the Thomson Reuters version.Nicomachian (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I suggest we start with the history section, since it's already pretty long and also probably the least likely to contain exceptional information that would require very careful scrutiny of the sources. I personally don't see anything in the present version, on the surface, which is promotional or overly detailed, it looks to be simply a factual summary of a university with 100+ years of history. Lorstaking expressed concern over the use of a source published by the University of Chicago Press, and I'm going to start by asking about this at WP:RSN (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#University of Chicago Press) for an independent opinion. If anyone has observed any problems with the present version of the history subsection, now would be the time to bring them up. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the history section, the statement that the school was left, "one of the best in the country" is weak on a strict interpretation of WP:NPOV - it's from a reliable source but we might want to consider exclusion as it's not particularly necessary to the flow of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - it's probably unnecessary. It would also be difficult to establish a neutral point of view from contemporary reliable sources - I can't tell from the article or the freely available sources what date is intended by "the end of [Freund's] tenure", but it was at least 90 years ago. The article won't suffer without this statement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would continue though that the rest of the history section seems germane. Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: * In the grades section, the statement, "(a designation created in 2006 by a $7 million donation from the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis).[34]" is a perfect example of a PR insert from the law firm in question and should definitely be removed, source and all. However reference to the scholarship, while it is quite a bit more detail about a school grade honour than may be entirely necessary, is fine unless we decide that article bulk needs to be trimmed back, which so far I'm unconvinced to be the case. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This information was in the previous (Lorstaking’s) version of the article. For the reasons you give, it definitely needs to be removed. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "was"? No it still exists. 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of who added it, it should be edited as Simonm223 suggests. That's the sort of promotion that's undue and unencyclopedic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Grades

message: * The employment section is a case study of why WP:NPOV doesn't necessarily need to equate to an appearance of neutrality in sourced fact. Unless the sources don't support the claims or unless there's evidence of cherrypicking, I'm inclined to keep it exactly as is; even though it's the sort of para that makes one go, "shit, maybe I should enroll." Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment

message: * I'd trim back  the publications section. "In 2018, the University of Chicago Law Review was ranked by HeinOnline as one of the most frequently cited law journals in the world.[36] In 2017, it had an impact factor of 2.272.[37] The Supreme Court Review is the most cited legal journal internationally with respect to commentary on the Supreme Court of the United States.[38] The Journal of Law and Economics and the Journal of Legal Studies were founded by Aaron Director and Richard A. Posner, respectively,[25]" seems promotional, and the Blogs and Columns section is unnecessary as a whole. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not all that different to the discussion of publications in the Harvard Law School article. I included the impact factor to substantiate the “one of the most frequently cited” claim. Nicomachian (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:OSE. Lorstaking (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OSE is an essay about deletion discussions. It doesn't apply here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OSE is also concerned with argument that "contents exist and have precedential value", not just deletion. There is no considerable justification presented that why the section requires no trimming and sections like University of Chicago Law School#Blogs and columns should be removed. Lorstaking (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to participate in this irrelevant side discussion any more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Regarding the "blogs and columns" I think the section is unfortunately titled: some of the "blogs" mentioned are notable works. But I agree with removal of the section, it's kind of getting into highlighting faculty connections with third parties, and it's not really relevant to the article on the school (but would be relevant in the contributors' own articles). The rest we should reorganize. I suggest combining the journals and paper series, they're not exactly the same thing but similar in concept. The six journals are all notable in their own right, this is good info to include. As far as student organizations I'm not sure if this belongs under "publications" or maybe the section needs retitling, but it would be better if we could list some of the notable organizations if there are any. I expect there are, but I'm not sure how to go about finding them. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Publications

message: is making a lot of noise about the list of clinics, so let's get this section out of the way. Yes, Lorstaking, we need to do more suppression. We'll get to it.
I suggest that we should have some kind of introduction to the list of clinics, with a reference, and a wikilink to legal clinic. I suggest:
Realistically we could expand on the mandate of each one, since they all have their own separate website. I don't have time for that at the moment. I propose eliminating the two "supervised field placement" clinics, they're effectively third-party internships. That would also resolve the copyvio issue with that section's introduction. Thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying you would prefer that the list of clinics was presented in paragraph format? Otherwise I don't really understand your comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that would work from a readability perspective. Bullets work fine here, it's seven items. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  can we agree to implement the edit above as a stop-gap to purge the remaining copyvio, and then continue discussing the layout afterwards? Would appreciate your input on that aspect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Nicomachian (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any more feedback coming, so let's proceed.
Under the Academics section, please replace the list of clinics with the proposed text above. Please remove the subsequent list of "third-party" clinics. Then, please revdelete all revisions up to the last hidden revision under criterion WP:RD1: the descriptive intro to the second list is inappropriately copied from the school's website. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

text: but there is some vertical space now, caused by the image and the columns below. Is there anything that can be done about that? I decline to use RD1 for this minor infraction. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I see that whitespace, that's not ideal. It's a photo of the D'Angelo Library that's causing the issue, so why don't we move the image to the "architecture" section instead? I think that that would be a good way to expand the section if we can write up a neutral description of the library and its building in particular; what's in the academics section now is a bit of an unintentional advertisement.  what do you think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the offending image for now. There is already an image in the architecture section, so let me know what you want to do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Academics

message: I think we've come far enough here that we should tackle this now, or at least get started. What's in the lead right now largely needs to be removed, it's too advertorial and not at all a summary of the article. Remember, on Wikipedia, the lead is not really anintroduction to the article, but more like an abstract (from the manual of style: "a concise overview of the article's topic"). Articles which are rated as Good and Featured Articles usually have no references in the lead, because no new information is presented that isn't also stated in the body of the article somewhere. Here's what I'd like to start with:
*Paragraph 1: this is a good start at a summary, so let's leave this in the lead and use it as a basis to expand.
*Paragraph 2: much too advertorial for the lead. It has good references, so let's create a new "reviews" subheader and move this text into it. I'm not sure where that should go.
*Paragraph 3: this would make a good intro to a list of alumni, you know, kind of like the List of University of Chicago Law School alumni we created a week or so ago. How about we move it there, references and all?
*Paragraph 4: I think there's a split to be made here. The first two sentences describe notable aspects of the school's influence, but I'm not sure where it should go. Maybe someone else has an idea. From there, the rest of the paragraph would suit as a good intro to the "notable faculty" section.
Following that, my preference is for a three-paragraph lead: one that names the topic and establishes notability and context, one on the institution's history (and perhaps its architecture and notable faculty/alumni), and lastly one on basically its current status (degree offerings, brief description of programs, graduation rates, etc.). What do others think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, although I'm not sure the current version of the lead is emphasizing (or at least providing an overview of) the right bits of the article. For example, who became the first Dean and who laid the cornerstone probably doesn't warrant appearing in the first paragraph of the lead. Should topics like employment and rankings appear before architecture in the lead, given that is how the sections are arranged? I'll play around with it now; let me know what you think. Nicomachian (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you've done; I'm not very good at writing ledes but I wanted to take a crack at it to get things going. There's a few things we might have to tone down NPOV-wise in what you wrote but I'll have a better look at it later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead (again)