Talk:University of Bristol

The good article status of this article is being reassessed by the community to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page.

^{Date: 15:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)}

Policy Press was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 April 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into University of Bristol. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Bristol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 months

University of Bristol has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 4, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bristol High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article does not require a map
	This article has an infobox

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Julia Donaldson in alumni (writers)

Julia Donaldson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Donaldson 91.168.47.32 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttered

This page feels cluttered. There is a lot about disparate stories from the University's recent history. The University's history has its own dedicated page. I think some elements from the history section would be better merged into there. Brizzle95 (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the page is cluttered, and want to move some individual stories from the history subheading to the history page. I would like to hear opinions from other editors first, as this could be a significant change. Brizzle95 (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

I propose merging the Controversy section into the History of the University of Bristol. It would be more in line with standard practice to have these stories in the detailed history page. It would also help clean up the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizzle95 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
There is a "promotional tone" orange banner at the top of the "Sports" section: is this banner still valid?
There is a gallery at the end of the article: per WP:NOTGALLERY I recommend that these images be used throughout the article or removed.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

University of Bristol

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

There are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. There is a "promotional tone" orange banner at the top of the "Sports" section: is this banner still valid? Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any discussion here related to the 'promotional tone' banner, and the section seems to be a pretty straightforward description of the facilities. It looks like there was some puffery in there when the banner was added, but although this was removed the banner was left in place. I've now removed it.

Overall, though, this gives the impression of an article that hasn't been curated since it reached GA status. There are dated statements that were current in 2007 when it was listed, such as "There is also a plan to significantly redevelop the centre of the University Precinct in the coming years" (reference from 2007), the list of six faculties (also from 2007 – there are only three faculties now on the university webpage), the inclusion of Sutton 13 in affiliations (never an affiliation, and not used by the Sutton Trust since 2011), and the mention of an "Erasmus Charter" in the lead (the UK left the Erasmus scheme after Brexit, and participating in it wasn't particularly notable before that giving this the appearance of puffery). There is definite promotional content elsewhere, such as the statement in the "Admissions" section that "Competition for places is high with an average 7.7 applications per place according to the 2014 Sunday Times League Tables, making it the joint 11th most competitive university in the UK" – not only is this over a decade out of date, but this appears to be editorial use of number of applications as a proxy for competitiveness, falsely presenting Bristol admissions as more competitive than Oxford or Cambridge.

In summary, the article as it stands is quite a long way short of GA standard and it will take a lot of work to reach that standard. Robminchin (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]