Talk:Imperial College London

New Ranking Section (writing instead of bullet points)

I thought it was a really well written new ranking section. I thought the last version you wrote was better before my edit was reverted. I will go back to the last version you wrote and then we can add from there.

In terms of the Europe part, I do understand about not refactoring rankings. there are many other wikis that write about its rank within europe as i think some of these qs and the have that. Is it that you like the sound of it better just as one international ranking? I do understand about some of the specialty rankings not being meant for europe.

I think the reason I always liked the european rankings, is because it gives context as many of the other rankings base their rankings around the US schools, so you can see a context outside of the US how schools are ranked, such as in Europe or the UK. For example, on the US News most of their top 50 global rankings are from US schools. I do truly understand about the refractory rankings though, which I think is a fair point. I think that was the only edit I had off of yours which was possibly contenous. Otherwise I liked your last version and am happy using that.

I thought it was nicely written up how you wrote about the most salient contextual points without going into too much outside detail, which I thought was similar to how oxfords ranking section was written. Mikecurry1 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a couple of reasons behind not refactoring the rankings. The first, from a logical viewpoint, is that specific rankings for regions will use different information and will weight factors that might be more or less relevant in that region differently. Basically, the global rankings aim to do the best job at comparing universities globally, while a European ranking aims to do the best job at comparing universities in Europe and a British ranking aims to do the best job at comparing universities in the UK. The second, from a Wikipedia use-of-sources point of view (which may well be what is behind the advice in WP:UNIGUIDE), is that rankings are WP:PRIMARY sources for the outcome of the ranking analysis, so should have only minimal, if any, interpretation. I.e., they should be presented in the context in which they were derived. Robminchin (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, those are all good reasons you listed. I do understand that rankings should have minimal interpretation, and that rankings are specific to regions in terms of how they were meant to be used. I agree with your points, so I am glad you explained it here. I think that was the main source of the editing back and forth, was over that. I am good with that.

It sounds like from what you were saying if there were one or two rankings specifically meant for the European region that would be appropriate there, then we can both have the points we were trying to make with my region specific rankings to add context, and your not extrapolating from the rankings into a European context when the ranking was meant for that. Then we both can have what are interest was in those edits, so I can add a broader European context, and you can have only rankings with minimal interpretation. I will aim for that then.

The rest of your writing of the section I liked, so was good with using it as it well written. I may do small edits around it, but I do not think there will be any source of contention between edits, and any possible contentious edits I will discuss here. Thanks for the nice explanation and well written section.  ::I will also continue to revert back some of the changes I made on other pages that had extrapolated rankings from an international context with interpretation into a more regional or local context, to aim for using rankings with only minimal interpretations. Mikecurry1 (talk)

Excellent. Yes, if there are actual Europe-specific rankings (like the European Teaching ranking THE published briefly, or the Reuter's Europe's Most Innovative Universities, which also seems to have been dropped) those would be absolutely fine. Robminchin (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede style concerns

Hi there, I've not edited this article in a while, and sorry about the short-cut summaries, but this intro to this article seems to be a little keen on the use of WP:PUFFERY and other self-gratifying language that doesn't help create an encylopaedic tone. For example:

with an entrepreneurial culture
second campus in White City serves as a platform for innovation

Neither of these mean anything, except what I would expect to find in marketing material. If this article is to have particularly favourable claims, could they at least be based in WP:THIRDPARTY independent sources, and somehow actually relate to verifiable statements, rather than ~~"vibes~~

There is also a overuse of redundant language for a lede:

unified into one institution, see wiktionary:unification
the four subjects [then proceeds to list four subjects]

Happy to discuss here or in edit summaries to get to something recent editors are also comfortable with Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 02:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We had quite a lot of discussion on entrepreneuship (see topics above). I was eventually persuaded that there is third-party evidence (references in the reputation and rankings section, particularly the Guardian article) that Imperial has a notable reputation for encouraging entrepreneurship, which is worth mentioning in the lead. Robminchin (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these concerns, Shadowssettle. The phrases “with an entrepreneurial culture” and “serves as a platform for innovation” are indeed drawn from how Imperial College describes its White City Campus on its official website. While these descriptions reflect the college’s portrayal, I agree that our goal should be to keep the language in the lead neutral in style, avoiding any promotional tone.

As Robminchin mentioned, we’ve previously discussed including Imperial’s focus on entrepreneurship, supported by third-party sources. However, I’m open to revisiting the phrasing to ensure it aligns with Wikipedia’s style standards and accurately reflects third-party perspectives.

Regarding the redundancy with “unified into one institution” and the listing of subjects, I’m also open to refining this for greater clarity and conciseness.

It would be great to collaborate on refining these points, ensuring that the lead remains accurate, neutral, and consistent with the consensus we’ve established.

Looking forward to your thoughts.Mikecurry1 (talk)

I tried to incorporate three of your stylistic concerns into an edit below to remove some WP:PUFFERY and redundant language. I am still not sure what to change "with an entrepreneurial culture" to yet, and would need to give that more thought. I tried to take some of the phrasing from the edit such as removing the four subjects, and changing the second campus sentence into one sentence, and using the word hub and research that you used, while keeping the edit accurate.

“Established in 1907 by royal charter, Imperial College London merged the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute to form a university. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary’s Hospital Medical School.”

"The university focuses on science, engineering, business, and medicine and has an entrepreneurial culture.[4] The main campus is in South Kensington, while a second campus in White City serves as a hub for innovation and multidisciplinary research.[5] The college also operates teaching hospitals across London, forming an academic health science centre. The university was previously a constituent college of the University of London and became an independent university in 2007.[6] With over 60% international students, Imperial represents around 140 countries on campus.[7][8]"

What do you think of this edit towards incorporating most of those stylistic concern points? I know it would need additional ideas for the other entrepreneurship point still. Any additional thoughts or ideas? Mikecurry1 (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I would avoid saying 'to form a university', as Imperial was formed to be a college within the University of London, not a university in either a de facto or de jure sense. Possibly 'to form a university college' would work. Robminchin (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you on 'to form a university'. You are right. Possibly, we should just take out the extra words at the beginning of the sentence and conclude the sentence 'to form Imperial College London'? I was also getting slightly confused about what is a university college, when I thought about it though, it did make total sense. Example: "In 1907, the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute merged to form Imperial College London." This puts ‘Imperial College London’ at the end of the sentence, creating a smooth transition and flow from the previous one. I liked your writing style in the reputation and rankings section, and am open to other alternatives for 'to form a university'. Any thoughts? Mikecurry1 (talk)

That looks good, yes. I'm wondering about, for the preceding sentence, "Its history began with Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, who envisioned a cultural area in South Kensington including museums, scientific colleges and a large Central Hall of Arts and Sciences." The current sentence is rather cluttered with links, misses out some museums, uses the anachronistic "Royal Albert Hall" (a name not used until after his death, so not part of his vision) and has the rather unspecific "royal colleges". This could then continue with: "In 1907, these scientific colleges – the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute – merged to form Imperial College London." to link this explicitly back to the colleges in Prince Albert's vision. In full, the opening would then read: Imperial College London (Imperial) is a public research university in London, England. Its history began with Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, who envisioned a cultural area in South Kensington including museums, scientific colleges and a large Central Hall of Arts and Sciences. In 1907, these scientific colleges – the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute – merged to form Imperial College London." I'm still thinking about the last two sentences of the opening paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is a great improvement. This edit enhances the flow and clarity, especially with how Queen Elizabeth and Prince Albert are introduced, and the smoother transition to the royal colleges in the next sentence. Overall, your edit significantly improves the clarity, flow, and historical narrative.

One suggestion I have is regarding how readers might interpret “Central Hall of Arts and Sciences.” It is true that it is historically accurate, and at the same time I think most people would more easily recognize “Royal Albert Hall.” Since Wikipedia generally favors using names that are more familiar for accessibility, it could make sense to use “Royal Albert Hall” in the lead, with the historical name mentioned later in the history section (similar to how the Royal Albert Hall article handles it). This would balance historical accuracy with an accessible name for a general audience.

Also, removed the “scientific” adjective to avoid repetition and improve flow, as the Royal College of Science name already implies this meaning. I also felt that “Royal” might not need to be used as a descriptor in this context.

Overall, I believe your edit enhances sentence structure and further improves the clarity, flow, and historical narrative. What are your thoughts on this approach? I've gone ahead and implemented your edit, as I really liked it.Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That looks good. I'm now wondering about why the business school is worth mentioning in the opening paragraph. It might be because it's a faculty (since 2003), but that becomes complicated because it's now the 4th faculty but in 2003 it became the 5th faculty as Physical Sciences and Life Sciences were separate faculties at that point. 2004 appears to have just been the opening of a new building, which isn't really worth mentioning and also gives the appearance Imperial didn't do business education until 2004, when it's had management science since at least 1966.

Possibly something like: "In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary's Hospital Medical School, with the faculty of medicine being created in 2001. In 2003, Imperial College Business School also become a faculty of the college."

That avoids having to go into complicated explanations about Imperial's faculties only being created in 2001 and how they have changed since, but does justify the mention of the business school alongside the medical school. What do you think? Robminchin (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the faculty descriptions can get complicated and hopefully we don't need to go into all that detail in the intro, and you raise quite a few good points. I’ll consider your points and will get back to you with a response soon.Mikecurry1 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the medical and business schools are important to mention in the introduction because they balance Imperial’s historic development with its expansion beyond its earliest focus of science and engineering. So, I believe mentioning in the history section a historical milestone for each school would be useful for a general audience. This provides a more complete picture of the university’s broader development.

I agree with you the faculties can get too complicated, especially for a general audience. I was not even aware of that about the faculties having edited this for awhile. I think in the history section, as Imperial is a specialist insitution focusing on science, engineering, medicine, and business, having some piece of history from each of their four areas is useful. I think it was discussed the sciences earlier through imperial's formation, so having one point on medicine, and business, provides a balanced history. I agree with your point that it’s important to highlight that Imperial has been involved in business and management science education since 1966 to avoid the impression that it only started in 2004. I think the Queen opening the business school is historically important and interesting for a general audience. So, combining these together would show that Imperial has a longer history in business education.

Perhaps something like: “In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School, building on Imperial’s history of management education since 1966.”Mikecurry1 (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Except she didn't open the business school, she opened the new business school building. This really isn't such a notable event in the history of the entire college that it should be up there in the first paragraph of the lead as an institution-defining moment. Robminchin (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s a fair point. Queen Elizabeth II did indeed open the business school building, not the school itself. My intention was to emphasise the significance of the business school’s opening, while using the Queen’s involvement as a historical milestone that a general audience could easily recognise, as well as a symbol of the school’s quality, particularly for a new business school, similar to how the Queen’s Tower holds symbolic importance.

If we want to include the faculties in the introduction, we might prefer to incorporate them in the next sentence focusing on Imperial’s organisational structure, rather than on the subjects taught. For example, we could say, “Imperial is organised into the Faculty of Engineering, the Faculty of Medicine, the Faculty of Natural Sciences, and the Imperial College Business School.” This would avoid the complexities of the faculties history over time (you mentioned) and offer clear information about the current structure.

Per your point on institution-defining moments, I’ve also asked ChatGPT for a summary that outlines key historical and modern elements that might be relevant for a wiki introduction (continued). I understand that is a longer discussion of which points should be prioritised, and I’m open to reviewing those as well. Let me know your thoughts on this approach. Happy to adjust it to ensure we accurately reflect the most significant aspects of Imperial in the introduction.

"Key Points Summarized for a Wikipedia Introduction for Imperial College London, according to ChatGPT

1. Founding and Historical Significance (1907):

• Merger of Three Institutions: Imperial College London was established in 1907 through the merger of the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute, positioning it as a center of excellence in science, engineering, and technology education.

2. Expansion and Development:

• Mid-20th Century Growth: In the mid-20th century, Imperial College London expanded significantly, nearly doubling in size by the 1960s. This growth was driven by increased government investment in science and technology to bolster the UK’s economic and technological development.

• Expansion into Medicine (1988): The creation of the Imperial College School of Medicine marked a significant expansion into medical education and research, broadening the university’s academic scope.

• Integration of Business (2004): The establishment of the Imperial College Business School in 2004 diversified the university’s academic portfolio, integrating business education with its strengths in science and technology, and fostering a culture of entrepreneurship.

3. Modern Focus and Global Impact:

• Multidisciplinary Approach: Imperial is known for integrating science, engineering, medicine, and business to address complex global challenges through research and education.

• Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Imperial fosters a strong culture of innovation and entrepreneurship across its disciplines, contributing to groundbreaking research and practical applications in various fields.

• Global Standing: Imperial consistently ranks among the top universities worldwide, attracting a diverse student body from over 140 countries, and is recognized for its contributions to solving significant global challenges." Mikecurry1 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I fear ChatGPT is probably looking at the current lead and basically summarising what we currently have back to us :)

As I noted above, the actual establishment of the business school as a faculty, integrating the various different business and management programmes, was in 2003. If we're going to mention business in the historical summary, this is probably the most important date. But if we're going to mention the four faculties in the following paragraph, that might actually cover it without needing to include it in the historical summary. Robminchin (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let’s go with the 2003 date. We can structure the edit around that. I think we can just say it was established in 2003, and go into the faculties in the next paragraph, if we want to. I attached ChatGPT’s response, which I found funny. Indeed, a lot of ChatGPT's response was similar to what we already have in the wiki. It did have a couple of good ideas about Imperial’s modern identity though. We were already discussing that with the Guardian article though.

ChatGPT’s response :)

“The key points I provided were independently researched and not simply a summarization of the existing Wikipedia introduction. They were developed based on a combination of information from various sources, including historical context, key milestones, and modern elements that define Imperial College London as an institution. I aimed to reflect major events like the 1907 merger, the establishment of the School of Medicine, and the modern focus on innovation and entrepreneurship—central themes in Imperial’s identity.”

“While there might be overlap with the current Wikipedia introduction due to shared foundational facts, the key difference is the emphasis on modern identity (innovation, multidisciplinary education, global impact), which provides a forward-looking view of the institution.”Mikecurry1 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Love the Chat GPT response :)

Sounds like we're agreed on putting Business in the faculties paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are on the same page on the overall idea and concept. Sorry, I re-read my last talk page response, and realized I wasn't very clear as I used several commas in that sentence. I meant your second option, to incorporate the four faculties in the following paragraph clearly, without needing to include it in the historical summary. I think we are in overall agreement on the general idea, so, let's try to edit it on the main page. It can be edited further and has been my initial go at an edit to incorporate what we are talking about as best I can.

I moved the medical and business school sentences into their own pargraph, so the first paragraph would be on the historical foundation, and second paragraph on Imperial's expansion over time.

Paragraph 1: your two sentences on Imperial's historical foundation

Paragraph 2: Imperial's growth and expansion since its foundation

Paragraph 3: four faculties (organisational structure), campuses, etc.

It can be edited further, this is my first attempt at implementing the general idea at which we are in overall agreement about i think conceptually. let's try to edit it on the main page now, and can discuss further here for improving implementation. Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

After re-reading your discussion, you mentioned that an exact year may not be worth including or necessary in the lede. When trying to edit the sentence I found that removing the date improved the sentence. Including the dates complicated the discussion of Imperial’s expansion into the Business School and suggested that Imperial only began management education much later, when, as you noted, it has taught management science since at least 1966. Since various relevant years are mentioned, and the faculties are discussed in the next paragraph, so it may not be necessary as you mentioned. Therefore, I've removed discussion of the years, and revised the sentence to better justify the business school's inclusion in the lede by focusing on the Business School’s role within Imperial’s broader mission and current focus.

“The Imperial College Business School, opened by Queen Elizabeth II, reflects Imperial’s focus on integrating science and technology with business to drive innovation and impact.”

This change addresses concerns about confusing years (better suited for a history section) and maintains simplicity and clarity. The four faculties are in the opening sentence of the next paragraph, which discusses that well there. Mikecurry1 (talk)

I'm not sure that having a separate paragraph about just the medical school and business school works well, particularly with the paragraph about the faculties following immediately afterwards – it seems to be repeating. I'm also concerned that the sentence about the business school does come across as a bit marketing-speak. I would think, per the Guardian article, that it's the integration of innovation across the curriculum with business and finance modules in all the faculties that reflects Imperial's focus on this, so I'm not sure that tying this to the business school is a great idea.

Possibly:

Re-attach the medical school sentence to the historical introduction.

In the second paragraph:

"The university is organised into four faculties: Engineering, Medicine, Natural Sciences, and the Business School. The university integrates innovation and enterprise across all faculties, with business and finance typically being included in science degrees and business students learning about science.[Guardian ref]" Then continue as before with the campuses. Robminchin (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Those are all great points, and I understand and agree with your suggestions. I liked your sentence and am in favour of including it. I think it can be refined a little for clarity. There’s no need to use my sentence if it seems too promotional, and I’m open to consolidating it back into one paragraph.

After reflecting on your points, I agree that having separate paragraphs for just the medical and business schools may not be ideal. I also thought of another option that might work and that you might like—moving the sentence about the University of London further up and integrating it into a broader paragraph on Imperial’s historical development. This would provide more context and create a smoother narrative.

Below is a suggestion for a more neutral version that aligns with your feedback, with a few small edits in the last paragraph:

Imperial College London (Imperial) is a public research university in London, England. Its history began with Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, who envisioned a cultural area in South Kensington that included museums, colleges, and the Royal Albert Hall. In 1907, these colleges – the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines, and the City and Guilds of London Institute – merged to form Imperial College London.

In 1988, Imperial merged with St Mary's Hospital Medical School to form the Imperial College School of Medicine. The Imperial College Business School was established in 2003 and officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II. Formerly a constituent college of the University of London, Imperial became an independent university in 2007.

Imperial is organised into four faculties: Engineering, Medicine, Natural Sciences, and Business. The university fosters innovation and enterprise across all faculties by integrating business modules into science degrees and providing business students with scientific education. The main campus is located in South Kensington, with an additional campus in White City. The Faculty of Medicine also operates five teaching hospitals across London and is a founding institution of the Francis Crick Institute. With over 60% of its students coming from outside the UK, Imperial represents around 140 countries on campus.

Looking forward to your thoughts! Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I would be tempted to combine the first two paragraphs setting out the history. Robminchin (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, I think we did a nice job on the improvement! We can combine it back into one paragraph too from the mockup and try out different versions of what looks best. Mikecurry1 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

IP editor points on Imperial's standing in the world / reputation missing

178.115.52.131, made a good faith edit attempt and took time writing their edit, for an intro edit/paragraph, that we essentially reverted twice. They brought up two good points in their criticism of the current intro, and reason for their edit. I thought it was fair to the IP editor to bring up their points on the talk page, for further discussion. I think their criticism of the current intro, while good and fair points, needed further discussion for implementation on the main page.

This was their intro edit that we understandably reverted:

"It is one of the most research-intensive and prestigious universities in the world. Its graduates and lecturers include 15 Nobel Prize winners, 3 Fields Medal winners, 74 Fellows of the Royal Society and 84 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering. The university is currently ranked 2nd in the world in the QS World University Ranking 2025 and 9th in the world in the Times Higher Education Ranking 2025."

In their edit summary 178.115.52.131 mentioned this:

"Added a summary of Imperial‘s award winner record and provided information on the standing of the university in the world."

After their edit was reverted once, they added this further point:

"Hi, What seems to be missing in the intro section is a quick overview over its reputation. Especially since the university is focusing on medicine, natural sciences and technology, this information in the intro is more relevant to readers who may be more acquainted with universities strong in social sciences than e.g. the history how the institution was formed. Conversely, I don‘t see how not making this change would be of benefit to the average reader."

With their good faith edit reverted twice, I brought their points up here for further discussion.Mikecurry1 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The basic guide is the results of the RfC WP:HIGHEREDREP. This concluded:

Specifically, there is consensus that, to include text on "reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s)" in a lead section, such material must be compliant with generally applicable policies, including:

• maintaining appropriate relative emphasis in lead sections (one editor noted that "only if a reputation is exceptionally good or bad or disputed is it such an important fact as to be noted in the lead section of an article," and no editor has contradicted this view);
• following the general principles applicable to describing reputations;
• ensuring that the lead appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article;
• being directly supported by high-quality sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH); and
• adhering to a neutral point of view, including:
  • by avoiding boosterism and puffery (which can come in the form of undue weight).
  • by using a descriptive, encyclopedic (rather than promotional) tone.

Further on rankings, WP:UNIGUIDE#Rankings says:

Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers, represent a comprehensive cross-section of major rankings by national and international publications, be limited to a single section in the article, and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources; if possible, they should show the range: not "28th," but "28th among the 29" or "28th among the 200".

From this, if we give the rankings in the lead, we have to give all of the major rankings (which can be taken to be those established by consensus to be included in the UK rankings infobox), not just the two global rankings where Imperial is in the top ten – that looks very much like cherry-picking. This basically means giving over most of a paragraph in the lead to rankings, which will normally be WP:UNDUE. It is generally better to keep rankings out of the lead to avoid this situation.

The IP editor included the statement: "It is one of the most research-intensive and prestigious universities in the world." This isn't supported by the text of the "Reputation and rankings" section, so fails the "appropriately reflects, and is supported by, the body of the article" criterion; it also fails the "directly supported by high-quality sources" criterion, as it is unreferenced. A sentence such as "it is considered one of the UK's elite universities" would accurately reflect the text in the body based on the sources we have been able to find previously about Imperial's reputation; however, it is questionable whether this is so "exceptionally good" as a reputation to warrant inclusion in the lead. Robminchin (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How about to add just the facts in the intro: Its graduates and lecturers include 15 Nobel Prize winners, 3 Fields Medal winners, 74 Fellows of the Royal Society and 84 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering.

On the Wikipedia pages for e.g. both Cambridge and Oxford the number of nobel prizes and notably people are listed as well in the intro section. So by rejecting this proposed change for Imperial College in its totality, looks like a biased interpretation of the rules as they are not applied to other universities by other editors.

I will suggest this change and we will see whether it will be rejected or not. 2001:871:25C:1CAA:A810:6DD:A226:8543 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Robminchin that the original edit contained elements of puffery and warranted reversion. For example, the sentence, “It is one of the most research-intensive and prestigious universities in the world,” was overly promotional and lacked high-quality sources to substantiate it. Additionally, the combination of listing awards, rankings, and the word “prestige” created undue weight, which does not align with WP:NPOV.

At the same time, I believe the IP editor raised a valid point about the value of addressing Imperial’s global standing and reputation in the lede. Imperial is not as widely recognized internationally, so including a concise mention of its reputation could provide valuable context for readers. As the IP editor noted, elements like awards and rankings are included in the ledes of other prominent universities such as Cambridge and Oxford.

I agree with the IP editor that addressing reputation or global standing is relevant, and so the question is how best to do so. For example:

• Awards: Imperial’s Nobel Prize winners are not “exceptionally good” or WP:notable compared to institutions like Cambridge (125 Nobel laureates) or Oxford (over 73). Including these in the lede may not meet the threshold for notability or add much value.

• Rankings: While I am not currently in favor of including rankings in the lede, I recognize the value of referencing Imperial’s strong performance in THE and QS, where it consistently ranks highly. In my current opinion (which may change in the future), rankings are better suited for the “Reputation and rankings” section at this time. Imperial’s strengths are better captured in some ranking methodologies like QS, THE, and US News, compared to the award-based methodology of ARWU, which heavily weights Nobel Prize winners (30% of its methodology). I found the sentences both of you wrote using THE and QS rankings, that highlighted Imperial’s strengths to be well written in a neutral way WP:NPOV, without needing to list every major ranking in which Imperial is included. Some rankings better capture Imperial's strengths then others, so I thought both your sentences that you independently came up with were neutrally written.

• Prestige: Using the term “prestigious” may not be as fitting for Imperial as it is for Harvard, which has a stronger brand. Neutral phrasing, such as “one of the UK’s leading universities,” might better reflect its standing. I do understand why Harvard can use the term "prestige" there, while it may not be as fitting for Imperial to use here.

The key question is what, if anything, should be included in the lede about Imperial’s reputation. For now, I believe rankings can remain in the “Reputation and rankings” section, though I am open to revisiting their inclusion in the lead at a later time. I am also uncertain whether awards, as currently listed, add significant value due to Lead Section WP:notability. Collaborating further on how to craft a sentence or two about Imperial’s reputation will help improve the lede. The IP editor raised an important point about how Imperial’s reputation should be framed, and perhaps we need to brainstorm the best way to represent its standing in a concise and balanced manner. Mikecurry1 (talk)

It's probably worth mentioning the number of Nobel laureates and Fields medal winners in the lead but, as the lead is a summary of the body, these do need to be discussed in the body – these summary statistics should be added to the Notable alumni, academics and other staff section. It would probably be better to say 'staff' (or 'academic staff') rather than 'lecturers', per WP:COMMONALITY – in US English, 'lecturer' normally refers to a temporary, teaching-only position (the direct equivalent of British usage of 'lecturer' is 'professor', but that obviously doesn't work in British English). I don't think this needs to meet the 'exceptionally good' test – that's about subjective reputation rather than about statistics on alumni.

I'm less convinced about including the number of FRS and FRAe – this should actually refer to current staff rather than staff and alumni (as it does with the way it's phrased) and also therefore changes more due to staff turn-over and new fellows being elected. Dates for when the information is updated may also not be the same for each fellowship. Following the reference given, I actually found that the number of FRS was 75 as of 2024 and FRAe was 109 as of 2023. For completeness, if these are included we should probably also mention the FAMS (78; no date given) and FBA (6; no date given), but I would tend towards not including these at all.

I would also caution that neither Oxford nor Cambridge are Good Articles, it would be better to compare to UCL or KCL (or, further afield, Durham, Surrey or Bristol) which are Good Articles. Robminchin (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)