Talk:University of Michigan/Archive 1

message: The following is a preliminary guideline when it comes to adding information concerning UM's quality. A peer reviewer, Tony1, would like claims concerning the University's alleged quality verified. Though UM is the one of the best in many things, it isn't enough to say it if there were nothing to back up that claim. Due to the nature of Wikipedia (where anyone can edit), numbers can be messed up and no one will notice if there isn't a means of finding the numbers' sources. 
The guideline:
*Any new information (notably for statistics and controversial claims) should always be cited. 
*Reason for citation policy: It doesn't matter how accurate or truthful the information is if one does not know who added the information or the source from where it came from. Such information should be viewed with dubiety. For more on this, see Taxman's commentary.
*Editors who control article content will use citations rather than initial entrant identity to determine the veracity of the content.
* Citation placement: requires one to use his/her best judgement. 
* Citation placement rule of thumb:
**Footnotes are used whenever numerical data is used only once within the article, or it comes from a source that is not used elsewhere in the article. 
**The format for footnotes can be found in the notes section. 
**Each "note" should be accompanied by a "ref" template where something is referenced. 
**The same applies to information that is lifted verbatim from a source, or to claims and information that could potentially be controversial (e.g. Ann Arbor, Michigan, is the best city in the world - what source did that come from).
**For sources which are used extensively throughout the article (the same source used in several areas of the article, be it a book or webpage), having several footnotes is out of the question. Instead, it is placed in the reference section (as you might have noticed, there is a notes section (footnotes) and a references section). 
**When citing a source, using the MLA bibliography format is a start, but Wikipedia uses another format. Use the listings in notes and references to see how the source listings are formatted.
*General observations on style/form/content:
**We should digest the information we have and write it so that anyone reading an article can understand the information quickly without having to go through a dataset. 
***For instance, one could generalize a rankings list and say that UM is one of the best in several fields. 
***Citing the source allows a skeptical reader to directly access the source and confirm the passage. 
***When we say that UM is the best at something, we have to be specific such as a program is the best due to academic reputation and/or research activities. 
***For any rankings lists, if you are going to use it extensively throughout the article, it is probably best to place it in the references section and not use footnotes.
*Key things to avoid:
**A huge data dump that will overwhelm a reader. 
**Lists. The rule here is that everything must be in prose. 
***Another limitation is article size. The max size is 35kB. If the article is larger than that, we then have to summarize and cut away information. 
Essentially, this article should provide an overview of UM. If people want to know about UM in detail, they can visit the University's website. Pentawing 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That or important detail can be covered in subarticles devoted to a specific topic, as is the case already for a few things. Wikipedia:Summary style is basically the goal, where this (or any) article properly prioritizes what it covers to cover all of the most important information, not giving too much coverage to small topics and not ignoring any important ones. - Taxman Talk 15:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, now that I've had a look at it, I think it does this quite well. I was sort of commenting in general. As for anything left before this is FAC worthy, I would say it just needs some toning down on the peacock language. The university is a good one and that is very well substantiated in the article in my opinion with enough specific stats and numbers. One could even explicitly state that part of the U's prestige is that it combines academic and athletic achievement at a level perhaps only beaten by Stanford. That that is important is a POV and that should be considered too. But there are places where there is gratuitous boasting. Part of the problem is in referring to things that are unique about the U like best at this that and the other small thing, but that might be ok because they add interest. Some of them should go if they aren't cited. I added the bit about largest number of living alumni, because that is quite often said, but I don't know if it is backed up by anything. Other examples are the article has a lot of "more than x blah blah" a lot, when it's not needed. Just say it has about 500 x and be done with it. Some negative aspects could be added also. Issues with GSI's teaching a lot of classes and sometimes having poor command of the language, intro classes are very large--I think there are several auditoriums that hold 400 or so students, many intro classes are seen as weed out classes, the intro calc and chemistry classes are considered particularly bad (relative to other classes at the U, I don't know about to other Uni's), the overall negative view of administration, including that students feel the admin thinks of them as numbers and $ only, that tuition increased rapidly while growing the endowment from <$1billion to over 4 billion in 10 yrs or so. Some of this might be covered but I didn't have a chance to reread every word. Citation and or explanation for the flag on the moon would be good too. Who put it on there again, and why/how did it get to be the one? Perhaps also mention the controversy with the Nike sponsorship selling our athletes is how it is described sometimes, and maybe reference to the basketball booster scandal. So some of this is pretty important, others are just ideas, I'll let you decide :). - Taxman Talk 14:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A suggested/preliminary manual of style for this article

message: Can someone provide a free image (e.g. GFDL-license) of a football game at the Big House? The previous image has a questionable copyright. Pentawing 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple a pictures but they are in my other harddrive, which is disconnected from my current computer. Will get that pic before the first week of October end! __earth 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michigan Stadium image 

message: According to the University's Native American Studies department, "Today the university publicly avows that its very origins lie in a land grant obtained in Article 16 of the Treaty of Fort Meigs (1817)." -http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ac/native/um/treaty/  Remember that the University was founded in Detroit before it was moved to Ann Arbor. -- SwissCelt 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty and land grant

message: With regards to the deletion of Michael Moore from the Alumni list
Did Michael Moore attend UofM for more than a semester? If so, then he is technically an alumnus of UofM. I'll look up the particulars on Alumni status... - Fritz Freiheit 19:09, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
::I thought Michael Moore was from State? __earth
:::That would explain the State hat he always has on.  But it could be just a proletarian pose, like not shaving and dressing like a slob. A2Kafir 04:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Moore

message: :The Michigan Union and Michigan League are student unions located on Central Campus while Pierpont Commons is on North Campus.
I have a bit problem with the above sentence - it says ...League are student unions located... The word union might be misconstrued as unions (like labor unions) instead of buildings. I'm not sure whether I managed to get my idea across but another way to describe the Union and The League would be sweet. __earth 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworded to "college" football-only stadium for clarification, given that a stadium size ranking at ballparks.net was fairly ambiguous about stadium types. Pentawing 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Et cetera