Talk:University of Waterloo

Major update in March of 2013?

I just noticed that the edit that happened 18:08, 10 March 2013 was massive. How did this happen with no discussion? XOttawahitech (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I made the edit on that day. I thought the page warranted the overhaul as to streamline it with the rest of WP:UNIGUIDE, as well as up to the standards expected by a WP:GA. The relevant information sought out by the UNIGUIDE has been incorporated into the recent version. However, the previous version was largely made up of unsourced information, out of date information, and problems with WP:Recentism. The reason as to the lack of any prior discussion was because of the article's talk page relative inactivity. With that, I had just decided to be bold, and move ahead with the overhaul. The edits I made however, were by no means unilateral, and I welcome any critique towards the more recent edition. Leventio (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Leventio Thanks for joining this discussion. I must tell you I was quite perturbed to see your edit which to me was done with total disregard to the work put in by many others who also contributed to this article. For example I put in work into building a redirect to this article, an effort that has been nullified by your deletion of the section on spin-off companies, an area that is considered important by many others.

Having said that, I realize that your intention was good and that you must have put in a lot of work into that one edit, let alone all your 52 other contributions to this article. So I am just trying to figure what went wrong here hoping we (and me specifically) can all learn from this experience. I know sometimes it is much easier to take a whole article offline and completely revamp it without being disrupted by other editors. However the problem is that by doing so you force others to put in an equivalent effort into undoing some of your mistakes.

I still think such a massive change should have been discussed in advance. If you think this talkpage is dead why not advertise it on the talkpages of the WikiProjects? Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreeable, I will bring up a future major change to this article to the talk page as well as the related WikiProjects. As for the "spin-off company" section exclusion, the reason as to why I had not included it was because the list seemed promotional in nature, and mainly served as a directory of companies related by alumnus. The list (see here) doesn't apply any third party sources (or any sources for a good majority) regarding not only the company's notability, but its relationship with the university. The difference with the cited NYU page you had listed was that the linked source was third party, and reputableLeventio (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Waterloo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this nomination. On an initial read, I'm a little concerned that some passages in the article may closely paraphrase the source, but I need to read a little more to determine how extensive the issue is. Thanks to the nominator for the work on this so far. I'll begin with a section-by-section analysis soon. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Some initial checks

• The article appears stable.
• Images are appropriate and tagged correctly.
• Will address the paraphrasing issues within the relevant sections.
• The toolbox shows no disambiguation links, but there are broken external links.

More to come. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• opening sentence: "commonly referred as" - change to "commonly known as" or "commonly referred to as"
• "whose main campus" - change to "with a main campus located..." since UW is not really a "who"
• "a wide variety of academic programs" - would change to the actual number or "offers academic programs administered by six..."
• "the university traces its origins" - seems inconsistent with the history section, which says "may trace" and mentions 1925
• "had formally separated" - just go with "formally separated"; check rest of article as extra uses of "had" creep in periodically
• "fill the need of" - may go with "need for"
• re: alumni in ____ countries - article lists two different numbers and the source lists two different numbers (best to leave out?)
• In trying to clarify the 151st-200th rank, that URL seems broken.

I notice that a copyedit request at WP:GOCE seems to have been helpful to you before a previous nomination. Since we're running into fairly frequent issues of wording and we aren't very far into the article, one option would be to close this review and submit a copyedit request there, then to evaluate the article again. I'm certainly willing to continue the review, but if you're finding this to be a cumbersome process already, that option might help. Just let me know. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to press forward with the review. I also followed through with suggested changes above. As for the 151st-200th rank (I'm assuming the ARWU one in the lead), I fixed the refcode to the correct page. As with the situation with the alumni page, I simply changed it to "over 163,000 students" and "over 140 countries (both pages seemed to conclude at least this amount or more). If that still is unacceptable, I will remove it. Thank you for your effort anyhow. Leventio (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. This section looks better. There is one repeated word (offers offers - first paragraph) and one extra "had" (second para), but we're pretty much good to go for the lead. The alumni bit would sound more professional without the "all across Canada" and "around the world", but it's not a huge deal. I will leave some feedback for the next section as soon as I can. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 03:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

History

• "the university may trace" - Is there a doubt about this? The "may" is confusing to me.
• Is there a source for the last part of first paragraph? Suspect it may be Scott p. 25.
• "By the end of the same year" and "on 3 December" - only need one of those phrases.
• This section is pretty detailed for the 1950s and 1960s, but relies largely on a single source.
• Third paragraph: "link between the two bodies" - close paraphrasing of the source
• I don't think we should use italics for legislative acts.
• "the college would not be formally federated" - change "would not be" to simple past tense ("was not")
• "The dispute centred around..." - overly long sentence, portion after the semicolon is a fragment
• Department of Economic - should that be Economics?
• "In spite of this..." - would get rid of either "in spite of" or "however"
• The history seems to jump from the 1960s to 2001. I'd like to take another look at this section after filling in this gap.
• "comprehensive partnership between the university..." - close paraphrasing
• "Sybase would be" - Change to "Sybase was" and check the rest of the article for this issue.
• I would mention the original name of the research park earlier to avoid confusion.
• "From 2009 to 2012, the university also previously managed..." - confusing, may be best to leave out "also previously"
• Same sentence: I can't find Dubai International Academic City mentioned in the source.
• The next sentence is present tense but seems to refer to the past.
• "first emerged" - change to "emerged"
• Same sentence: "and was officially launched" - change to "and classes began" or "and the Dubai campus was officially launched"
• That same sentence does not seem to be supported by the source.
• "an undergraduate degree" - change to "undergraduate degrees" - also, the reference for this is a broken URL. (See WP:WBM)
• "The university did not operate" - extra comma here, also doesn't appear supported by the information at the listed URL
• "The decision to close the Dubai campus" - close paraphrasing, except that the source provides a different date for the decision.

Once again, sorry for the late reply I've been busy this past week. I made corrections to the items suggested as well as changed the sentences/sources to better reflect it. As for the section's centrality in the 1960s to 1970s, most of the section was based off one book (the university's history to the end of the 1960s), and I don't have any access to sources describing the university's history post-1960s (the university's own history page even sort of jumps from 1969 to 1993...). I can try to find stuff to fill in the 30-40 year void however.Leventio (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Campus

• "to the south by Waterloo Park" → "by Waterloo Park to the south" for consistency
• "Three numbered roads..." - place a colon after campus instead of a comma.
• For the Campus Master Plan Update reference, I would add a page number because it is a huge source.
• Second paragraph - "divided up into three major areas;" → "divided into three major areas:"
• I think the first reference links to the wrong URL
• "The Dana Porter Library" - overly long sentence
• "shared program of library collections and services" - close paraphrasing
• Earth Sciences museum → Earth Sciences Museum - also another broken link in that reference
• Last sentence in Libraries and museums section seems unsupported by source.
• In the library image caption, library should be uppercase.
• Take out "currently" from same caption per WP:WTW.
• At least one of the refs in the housing section links to a WP user sandbox.
• End of first paragraph of same section: residents → residences
• Second paragraph of that section: another "first emerged"
• "would soon surface" → surfaced
• "was not been resolved"
• Off campus facilities → Off-campus facilities
• I think we are missing a word in the second sentence of this off-campus section.
• "The facility is a year-round research, and teaching." - clarify
• Third paragraph of off-campus section: remove "currently" and check rest of article.
• business-owners → business owners
• Kitchener, Ontario, Ontario - is this repetition intended?
• "The opportunity to work at the studio..." - seems unsupported by reference.
• "The first building of..." - same problem.
• Under Sustainability, first sentence seems unsourced and contains currently. Leave out?
• "The university's sustainability initiatives is" → are
• "having not signed" → as the university has not signed
• The Corporate Knights ref links to the wrong page (p.3 instead of p. 2)

We'll stop right here for now. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 09:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything has been changed as suggested. Previously erroneous/dead links have also been replaced. Leventio (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Even with just a quick peek at this section, there are unaddressed issues as early as the third bullet. A little further down, you did provide a reference for the 2009 closing of the museum, but there is more close paraphrasing. That surprises me - so much of this review has already focused on close paraphrasing. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Administration

• First sentence: "bicameral form of governance" and "enshrined in legislative act" - close paraphrasing - reword.
• Next sentence has the same problem. Lots of simpler ways to rephrase.
• Third sentence: "shall consist of" - same issue. Also update for 2013-2014 as source lists that now.
• Source seems to list five ex officio members of the board.
• Second para: "and to make" - "and for making"
• "with respect to any matter..." - close paraphrasing
• Check the rest of the article for close paraphrasing. I'll review it for that after we get the other stuff fixed.
• Third para: First sentence is overly long and confusing.
• s member - a member
• The bit about the president goes from duties to the current president and back to duties.
• "in which their term in office..." - reads as a little confusing
• redundant mention of Anglican
• "St. Paul's is now operates..."
• "The three colleges and..." - unnecessary commas in this para. That's a minor problem throughout the article. We can fix these last.

Academics

• Update the number of degrees awarded (from '10-'11) if possible.
• 3rd → third
• First ref under Reputation is giving me an error.
• The Maclean's ref links to the wrong ranking list. Would check the rest of them in this section to be sure they're right.
• Admission: "university's admissions office maintains..." - "maintains" sounds like we doubt them
• That same sentence gets odd after the comma.

Student life

• Is there another source for the university not recognizing Greek orgs? It's sourced to a pretty non-neutral student opinion piece.
• "The Imprint made national..." - can we break this sentence into two?
• For the radio station, I would clarify that it had university funding from 1977 to 2008.
• Athletics: "other facilities at the university includes" - include
• Reminder to check for "currently" - at least a couple of them in Athletics section.

Insignias

• Several uses of "adopted", to the point of becoming distracting.

Noted and changed.Leventio (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable alumni and faculty

• It seems like the Academy Award winner should be mentioned by name.
• Second para: I'd go with "A number of business leaders..." - that will help decrease a slightly non-neutral tone in this section.

Noted and changed. Leventio (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there are pretty extensive changes suggested here, we'll take another look once the above is addressed. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully we can make some significant progress this week. Normally GA reviews stay open for about a week. In over two weeks, most of what we've accomplished is basic copyediting. I appreciate your work on this article, but right now I think we still have significant work to do for GA status. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Nominator has improved the prose. Some minor prose issues remain unaddressed. Close paraphrasing concerns remain and the review has been open for three weeks.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Nominator worked to address concerns with WP:WTW.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Note: A couple of assertions in the Campus section seem misattributed to a section of the Campus Master Plan ref.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A gap of multiple decades in History, because this section is largely sourced to a 1967 book.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

With fairly significant issues remaining after the review has been open for this long, I think it is best to close this review. GA should be a lightweight process that doesn't require nominations to stay open for long periods of time. After addressing these issues - especially the issues with close paraphrasing and the history issue - this article can be renominated immediately. A lot of good work has gone into this article and I know that it can easily reach GA status with some more work. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please re-define or delete "Waterloo has consistently been ranked as one of the top universities in Canada."

In the reputation section, the sentence "Waterloo has consistently been ranked as one of the top universities in Canada." is very vague.

Is this school one of the top 10, top 100, top 500 or top 5000? It should be clearly defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uws1234 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Section on student suicides

Is this notable enough to include in the article, and if so is it notable enough to have its own section? LynxTufts (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that content warrants inclusion (let alone its own subsection...). There a bit of recentism going on in the content as well (it seemingly implies that suicides only began in the 2016-17 academic year). The content itself doesn't even provide any more info on the topic other than the three that occurred that year. At the risk of sounding callous, I would not consider those incidents notable enough, especially when one considers the lack of inclusion of other suicides in the institution's history. Student mental health, and suicide has been a long, on-going issue with most post-secondary institutions in Canada (and the United States). While the incident is definitely unfortunate, it isn't unique to UWaterloo. Leventio (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MCfromlaurelcreek.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Courtyard by DanaPorter.png
• DanaPorterLibrary.png
• University of Waterloo Environmental Building.png
• Uwpharm.png
• Waterlooschoolofarchitecture.png
• William M. Tatham Centre.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ConradGrebelBuilding.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Uwvelocity.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• BSIA Building.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

_{Scotty & Billy} 2601:196:4A01:2790:A987:C07E:A321:8C50 (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)