Revision as of 21:10, 24 March 2010 editStudent7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers72,738 edits →CDIO: pov-"pushing" IMO← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 26 March 2010 edit undoStudent7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers72,738 edits →Honor code: have to take the bad with the good. Can't ignore one in favor of the other. The quantity BTW is horrific. And those are the ones that got reported.Next edit → | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Well, there is an alleged article in the Navy Times, March 22, about the honor system having its worst year (2008-2009) ever. 172 cases. Most treated lightly. This needs to be in here if anyone has access to the print version or online version. I don't. ] (]) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | Well, there is an alleged article in the Navy Times, March 22, about the honor system having its worst year (2008-2009) ever. 172 cases. Most treated lightly. This needs to be in here if anyone has access to the print version or online version. I don't. ] (]) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Disagree. This needs not to be in here. An encyclopedia article is not interested in the state of individual years in any specific aspect of the institution. It is interested in the general history and characteristics of the institution. Encyclopedia is the key word. Essay-type material such as beefs about individual failures to meet the honor code are not encyclopedic. Sorry. Stick to the point. If the gunnery officer asks you how many yards to the target he wouldn't be interested in whether the observer is having a good or a bad day.] (]) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | :Disagree. This needs not to be in here. An encyclopedia article is not interested in the state of individual years in any specific aspect of the institution. It is interested in the general history and characteristics of the institution. Encyclopedia is the key word. Essay-type material such as beefs about individual failures to meet the honor code are not encyclopedic. Sorry. Stick to the point. If the gunnery officer asks you how many yards to the target he wouldn't be interested in whether the observer is having a good or a bad day.] (]) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
::If the article is going to imply how wonderful the honor code is and how wonderful that so many attest to it, it needs to provide specifics, much as a school that claims to be "academic." The latter either needs to provide good examples, or failing that, bad examples. These are quantitative, not subjective ] type material. Either the peacock material goes, or the truth needs to be in there. You can't censor out the bad once the wonderfulness issue has been raised. ] (]) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)nd t | |||
==Citation improvements needed== | ==Citation improvements needed== |
Revision as of 20:53, 26 March 2010
Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers
Links from this article with broken #section links :
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Naval Academy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
United States Naval Academy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Secession
I eliminated a factually inaccurate claim that Lincoln disbanded the Maryland legislature. In fact, Governor Hicks originally refused to even call the legislature into session in order to avoid a debate on secession. Later the legislature met and did not propose secession. The arrest of some legislators came after this meeting and the decision was originally made by military leaders, not Lincoln. In any event, it does not seem appropriate to discuss the various political and military machinations that went on in Maryland in this particular article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
- This discussion is transcluded from Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article needs some improvements for it to keep its good article status.
- Several sections and paragraphs are uncited, including:
- Most of the paragraphs in "Description"
- Several paragraphs in "History"
- "Campus (The Yard)" is unreferenced
- Most of "Halls and principal buildings" also
- All of "Faculty"
- And so on.
Please keep this page updated with the article's status, thanks. Gary King (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- No improvements made since this review began, so it is being delisted. Gary King (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Green Bowlers
There was a report in 1942, that a tiny group of USNA alumni (from 1907 or thereabouts) had banded together to form a secret clique to ensure that they each made admiral. It was called "The Green Bowlers" and apparently received quite a bit of publicity. See Time letter for one. Probably other refs out there.
Anyway, inspired by this piece of information an entire class of then-brand new grads (1945 I think) decided that they were going to be the "Green Bowlers" (the identity of the others being credibly secret!) and showed up for alumni meetings in, appropriately, and anything-but-discrete, bright-green bowlers! The idea was quite funny at the time. Don't know where mention would go. The first "real" group, which encountered extreme suspicion and publicity, should go somewhere. The second is more for fun than anything else.Student7 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, student (where?), I don't think you are taking WP seriously. I didn't either when I started, but this encyclopedia is read by quite a number of millions at home and abroad and articles such as this represent our country. Would you expect read about the British military academy and see a bunch of "in" jokes there? This isn't a blog site. If something encyclopedic needs to be said then say it otherwise your advice about what "needs" to be in here is pretty much what needs to be out of here. I repeat, this is not a local blog site. What you or we write is read by the whole world. Is that what you want to say to it? If so, maybe we should start a juvenile section for you, son.Dave (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Shoeless graduation
A "prank" that might be mentioned is the class of 1952 who stepped out of their shoes when parading for the final time. See description which sounds worse than what I had heard. That wouldn't even be tried today, I don't think. Whatever possessed them? :) This is a good ref BTW which could be used for contructing a sentence someplace. Student7 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually this occurs now annually JWithing (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The practice has been actively supressed by the administration in recent years. During the 2007 color parade, the firstie class removed their shoes, and some even sent them flying through the air. Subsequent classes have been threatened with delayed graduation as there is a shoe inspection which follows every color parade now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.122.53.7 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Citations needed
Following up on the GA review comments, this article is missing enough citations it doesn't qualify for Milhist B-class. I added some citations on the Midshipman article which might be helpful. Kirk (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. Needs some work. See below.Dave (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Ricketts Hall namesake
In the subsection on Halls and principal buildings, there is a building called Ricketts Hall. I looked up "Ricketts" and found the following 2 USNA alumni:
- Claude V. Ricketts (1906–1964), United States naval admiral
- Milton Ernest Ricketts (1913–1942), United States Navy Lieutenant and Medal of Honor recipient
Is one of them the namesake of Ricketts Hall? Eagle4000 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(Oops, I forgot to include a subject header.) Eagle4000 (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Marines
Are there any differences between what those who go into the Marines do while at the Naval Academy compared to those who go into the Navy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, where to begin... Jmdeur (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's not an answer, Jmdeur. This is not a blog.Dave (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, where to begin... Jmdeur (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
chapel restoration
Under United States Naval Academy#Halls and principal buildings, at "Naval Academy Chapel", the final sentence says: "From February 2009 to the late fall of 2009, the Chapel is undergoing a restoration project, severely limiting its space, capacity and usage." Is the renovation completed? Eagle4000 (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hubbard Hall
United States Naval Academy #Campus gives the name of each building's namesake. I just added Hubbard Hall. I then looked up Hubbard (surname); it has only one entry for a USN officer: "Harry Hubbard (1903-1942), American naval officer". His page says USS Harry E. Hubbard is named for him. Is he the building's namesake? If so, we should (1) add his name to the Hubbard Hall paragraph and (2) add Hubbard Hall to his bio page, with a link to United States Naval Academy #Campus. Eagle4000 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, Rear Admiral John Hubbard, Class of 1870. See http://www.usna.edu/usnaathletics/hubbardhall.htm Jmdeur (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Honor code
Well, there is an alleged article in the Navy Times, March 22, about the honor system having its worst year (2008-2009) ever. 172 cases. Most treated lightly. This needs to be in here if anyone has access to the print version or online version. I don't. Student7 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree. This needs not to be in here. An encyclopedia article is not interested in the state of individual years in any specific aspect of the institution. It is interested in the general history and characteristics of the institution. Encyclopedia is the key word. Essay-type material such as beefs about individual failures to meet the honor code are not encyclopedic. Sorry. Stick to the point. If the gunnery officer asks you how many yards to the target he wouldn't be interested in whether the observer is having a good or a bad day.Dave (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- If the article is going to imply how wonderful the honor code is and how wonderful that so many attest to it, it needs to provide specifics, much as a school that claims to be "academic." The latter either needs to provide good examples, or failing that, bad examples. These are quantitative, not subjective WP:PEACOCK type material. Either the peacock material goes, or the truth needs to be in there. You can't censor out the bad once the wonderfulness issue has been raised. Student7 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)nd t
Citation improvements needed
I recommend the following help section to you, which I hope you will read before lending a further editorial hand here: Misplaced Pages:Citation templates. In looking over the citations in the references given I notice they are not in recommended WP format. That is a requirement for a good article. Moreover, too much liberty is taken with the wording. We don't want editorial comments on the source, we want the properly cited source. Don't rename it and don't tell us all about it. And finally, these "sources" are sometimes used in notes that do not support the statement noted. I am sure you have heard this many times before, but let me repeat it: if you don't know, don't guess. Whether you get your two cents in here is of no concern or importance at all. This has the makings of a good article content-wise. The makings, I say. I will try to do a few of these as an example but I'm not going to do all the work here. I will give reasons below when required.Dave (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed passages
We're definitely not getting off to a good start. If you worked on this article before I recommend you not work on it again. Here are some removed passages:
"Candidates for admission are judged on their academic achievement, demonstrated leadership, athletics and character." This was plagiarized from the admissionsconsultants.com write-up on the Air Force Academy. If you can't even plagiarize from the right article I'm not wasting my time discussing anything with you. Get off the article and stay off. I'm not citing the correct admissionsconsultants.com article because it does not fit the topic under discussion. Maybe later, although admissionsconsultants.com is actually a commercial article selling admissions services. Let me think about it.Dave (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"historically just under 1,000 of those will graduate." Give us a break. What are you, a prophet? How can recently incoming classes have a history? May they go to school first, do you think? I suppose you are trying to say past data indicates about x% of incoming plebes will graduate. But, you have to say that and you have to give a credible source on the %. Hearsay does not count. Numbers from credible sources count. You don't have any of those, do you, editor?Dave (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
CDIO
The CDIO navigational template seems a bit spammy to me. Why, knowing that the Academy was a "Conceive, Design, Integrate, whatever" college, why would I want to know (navigate to) the others? It seems pov "pushing" IMO. It's simply some fashionable technique that (as they all do) come and go. I would tolerate a link to a list of schools contained in some article on CDIO, but that is pretty much it. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Categories:- Delisted good articles
- Former good article nominees
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Higher education articles
- WikiProject Higher education articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Unknown-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- C-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Unknown-importance
- C-Class Maryland articles
- High-importance Maryland articles
- WikiProject Maryland articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles