This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Burklemore1 (talk | contribs) at 09:05, 6 January 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:05, 6 January 2016 by Burklemore1 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)University of Chicago
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
I believe this article no longer meet the criteria for being a "good article." Since it was listed as a good article, editors with conflict of interest, alumni, have added massive amount of non-neutral advertisement-like languages, puffery throughout the article. I believe keeping it listed as a "good article" will only tarnish Misplaced Pages's reputation, and question its ability to produce good articles.--Lydhia (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples of your claims. I just looked through it, and saw nothing that backs up your claims.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- "one of the world's leading and influential institutions of higher learning"= Puffery/Peacock
- "The University of Chicago has a record of producing successful business leaders and billionaires. Its position as one of the U.S. and the world's most prestigious and prominent institutions " = Puffery/Peacock --Lydhia (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Those aren't puffery statements; it is one of the world's leading and influential institutions. You needed to do a little research before proposing a reassessment. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at their talk page, the user has been asked to stop removing sourced content and stop engaging in edit wars. The supposed "puffery" statements provided above are poor examples, as these statements are actually true. This reassessment is completely unnecessary and I believe it should be concluded soon enough unless someone can actually see notable problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)