Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:24, 18 August 2009 [1].

Georgia Institute of Technology edit

Nominator(s): LaMenta3 (talk), Disavian (^talk/_contribs)

Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1

After completing a very comprehensive GA Sweeps review courtesy of User:Nehrams2020, which was more rigorous than some of the reviews given to previous FACs I've been involved in, I believe that this article meets the FA criteria and is well overdue for nomination. LaMenta3 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the GA sweeps review is here. MaxVeers (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the primary contributors consulted before this nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am one of the primary contributors to this article. User:Disavian is probably *the* primary contributor and has been toying with the idea of nominating it for awhile. He'll probably drop by soon with his remarks. (Disclosure: I know Disavian and most of the other primary contributors personally, as most of us are Georgia Tech students/alumni.) LaMenta3 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why hello there, Dabomb87. Yes, I was consulted. You could consider this a co-nomination; I've worked long and hard on this article and I fully believe that it needs to be FA. I eagerly anticipate your delicious criticism. I'm going to notify the other regular editors of this article shortly. They have generally implied their support of any FA noms within the scope of our project. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those have now been taken care of. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and nice job. I tweaked it a bit to remove a few details that a non-expert on Georgia Tech could not immediately verify merely by looking at the images. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't an image review, I'm not knowledgable enough for that, but my concerns relate to images.
- The article is very heavy on illustration, to the extent that pictures tend to overpower the text. Can so many images really be justified?
- And it's not just the number; nearly every image has been forced to a size greater than the default 180px. This is part of the overpowering effect, and is contrary to WP:IMAGES. Unless there is a specific reason, they should be reduced in size.
- Their alignment in the article looks unimaginative. They are nearly all placed on the right, even that of Principal Clough, who is consequently looking away from the text. Why not zig-zag, or at least align some images on the left?
- I'm no expert, but even to me some of the licensing looks dodgy. For example, on what basis are you assuming that the person who took the 1890 photograph of the first GT graduates died before 1939? If he/she was, say, 25 in 1890, he/she could easily have lived into the forties or even fifties.

I have not yet had a chance to review the text, but these image questions should be attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what you mention is a concern of aesthetics, and I'll get into the mucking about in the particulars of the style requirements/restrictions a bit later, however with regard to the licensing of the particular image you mentioned (and probably a couple of the others that you're wondering about), any work published before 1923 is considered to be in the public domain according to US copyright law. It doesn't matter when the photographer died (See: WP:PD). LaMenta3 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the image is wrongly licensed. At present, PD is being claimed on grounds of life of author plus 70 years. The correct licence relevant to pre-1923 publication in the US is US-PD. This will require details of publication (book, journal, date etc) - do you have these? Brianboulton (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to commons and changed the template from PD-old to PD-US. So that's a step. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the licensing "problems" were a result of the appropriate templates not translating between Commons and Wikipedia. We're working to correct this, though the cause of this was, in fact, a technical problem. The earliest publication that I know of for the 1890 class photo was in the short-lived Technologian (one of two precursors to the Blueprint) in 1891. I thought that information was already on the image page, but maybe the Commons gremlins ate that along with the proper license. Either way, the license has been updated (thanks, Disavian) to this effect. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more obscure Georgia Tech publication history, please consult History of Georgia Tech#Early years. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of most of the style concerns. There were a few photos that could stand to be culled, so I took them out. I removed the forced image sizes on all but (I think) three images, where forcing the slightly larger size is somewhat necessary to making out the subject or detail of the photo, as per the provision in the style guide. The images that I preserved the forced size for were the images in the history section (because of their age and composition it is hard to perceive the subjects at a smaller size) and the close-up of Tech Tower. I also moved around a few of the images to address some incongruities that I noticed as I was going through, and aligned a few to the left. Let me know if your concerns have been addressed to satisfaction. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aesthetics of the article are much improved by your pruning, downsizing and relocating of images. I'd say that forcing up the two old photos at the beginning is probably OK, but I'm not sure why the Tech Tower needs this - it's perfectly clear at thumbnail size. I will leave all remaining image questions to the image reviewer. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a primary contributor to this article and I support its FA nomination. MaxVeers (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
The following refs lack a publisher:
- Current ref 7 (Tech Campuses..) done
- Current ref 18 (Georgia Tech History...) done
- Current ref 20 (Office of Institutional...) done
- Current ref 31 (Georgia Tech Facts...) done
- Current ref 33 (Society of Women...) done
- Current ref 34 (Office of Institutional Research..) done
- Current ref 45 (QS top universities...) done
- Current ref 46 (Top 50 Public..) done
- Current ref 47 (2006 General Catalog...) done
- Current ref 48 (Ivan Allen...) done
- Current ref 91 (College football traditon..) done
- Current ref 99 (Nothing but treble..) done
- Current ref 100 (Sympatheic Vibrations...) done
- Current ref 101 (Infinite Harmony..) done
- Current ref 107 (North Avenue Review...) done

The following refs lack a last access date:
Current ref 8 (Susan Simmons...) done

Current ref 45 (QS top universities...) done

Current ref 46 (Top 50 Public..) done

~~What makes the following reliable sources?~~
- ~~http://www.revitalizationonline.com/article.asp?id=1141~~
  - Here is a source with some info about that source: ""Revitalization" magazine launched by ZweigWhite". 2006-02-01. Retrieved 2009-07-30.. In this particular instance, it appears to have published an article by architect TVS about their own project (and part of Georgia Tech's campus) Technology Square. As such it is akin to an architecture journal. I am unfamiliar with their parent company ZweigWhite. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
A very big concern is how much of the article is sourced to sites from the university itself or to the organizations themselves. There is a lack of third-party sources used in this article, which leads to concerns about POV. Given the size of the university and it's history, I'd expect there to newspaper articles and non-university books or articles available.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be marking them as done as I go through them so I know what I haven't done yet. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a '''done''' as the use of templates is discouraged on the FAC page. It makes it load slow and we occasionally run into the template limit per page if too many are used. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Good point. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to citations to the Technique, at the very least, I seem to recall this issue being brought up at another FAC at some point (I can track it down later, if you'd like), but we reached the conclusion that it qualifies as an independent source due to the nature of its operation. Having had worked there myself for nearly six years, I am acutely aware of the extent of the paper's internal policies and efforts to maintain a separation between the administration/school and what it prints. On more occasions that I can count, we found ourselves at loggerheads with various offices and departments over what we printed versus what they wanted us to print. I can assure you that because of the wording of the publication's charter and it's policies, it is virtually impossible for any entity within the Institute (or outside the Institute, for that matter) to exert prior restraint or any influence over the content of the articles published. In many ways, when it comes to reporting on Institute matters, the Technique is considered the reliable source, as some third-party newspapers in the area have occasionally given the appearance of actually having been influenced by what the Institute would like them to say. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes The Technique a reliable source? Guest9999 (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my remarks immediately above your question. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really mean in terms of any COI bias - which is what I thought was referred to above - but the general issues which mean that most University newspapers are not considered reliable: Quick turn over of staff - written and edited by full time students with no "real world" journalism qualifications or professional experience. May or may not have a dedicated fact checker, if they do again with no qualifications or professional experience. Very much subject to the biasses of whoever is writing/editing at the time, usually pro student body, student issues - often indulging a pseudo-rebellious "anti-establishment" streak. Largely viewed with indifference - if at all - by the general student body, not of note to anyone outside the institution. Fundamentally, little or no reputation for fact checking and accuracy outside of the room in which it created. Essentially what I was asking is what makes this publication any different from the norm? Why is it an appropriate source for what it is used for in the article? Guest9999 (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are good points. I have two responses. First, qualified organizations have rated the Technique as an outstanding student newspaper. In 2004 it received a Pacemaker Award, unofficially known as the Pulitzer Prize of student newspapers. Second, in the absence of a better source, the Technique, which at least strives to be a solid publication and has all the mechanics of one, seems better than leaving the material unsourced or out of the article altogether. MaxVeers (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, the Technique has been accepted as a reliable source (tacitly, at least) in the other FACs of articles related to Georgia Tech. Also, I don't think I've seen a discussion or decision anywhere that has stated that university newspapers are not considered reliable sources. The reliability of a source should not be determined by blanket generalizations about the type of source it is or about the people who write the source's content. The reliability of a source should be judged by its track record for accuracy, its endurance as a respected source of information. No newspaper is completely without bias, and a high turnover rate in the staff is arguably a good thing, as it prevents the publication from having any sort of entrenched bias, keeping the publication more neutral than most. That said, the turnover rate among the editorial staff is surprisingly slow at the Technique. I personally worked there for 5 years, and I believe the average tenure for a member of the editorial staff is around 3 years, though s/he may change positions once or twice in that time. This is on par with, if not a bit better than, the turnover rate at most smaller community newspapers. If you have any specific questions about the nature of the Technique's policies regarding accuracy and bias, that is, ones that are not based upon broad generalizations about university students, I'll be more than happy to address them. I would also encourage you to read some of the articles that are cited to get a more appropriate sense of the nature of the source. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't think the pictures are too large. In fact, I like them quite a bit as they are.
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program is spelled out and the acronym given twice, in two different sections. I'd suggest removing the acronym, since it isn't used. done
The U.S. University Rankings box seems to be a little odd: For one, it uses only US News and World Report rankings and thus could be called the "US News and World Report University Rankings" box, and for two, it seems to cherry pick the best rankings. What was the methodology for choosing those three items? done removed box
- I think I'm just going to nuke that rankings box from orbit, I didn't put it there and you're right, it is fairly arbitrary. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hinky about the "Americasbestonline.net" citation ... the linked Web site doesn't have any information about what makes that site notable, and I'm not sure that it is reliable. Fortunately, there's plenty of notable magazine ranking services out there. I'd suggest replacing it. done removed sentence and ref
What books have been written about the history of Georgia Tech? Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate deserves a listing in an "Additional reading" section at the very least, and I'm sure there have been others. done
- There are a few books I'd recommend; the ultimate source is definitely Engineering the New South. Other important ones are Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate, The Story of Georgia Tech and Dress Her in White and Gold. Would this further reading section be a second-level section or a third-level, and where would you recommend placing it? A link to an FA that does it correctly would be particularly useful there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at Rampart Dam, Guadalcanal Campaign, or Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for examples. Those have a lot of items. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the fight songs section, the item about space should include "reportedly". That's what the citation says, and I have to wonder if it beat Apollo 16's singing of "Hail to the Victors". done
In reference to the 1948 name change, it's a little unclear that the official name changed to "Georgia Tech". That should be stated outright.
- As to the name change, it went from Georgia School of Technology to Georgia Institute of Technology. I'm fairly certain that Georgia Tech was a nickname both before and after the name change. Do you feel that this still needs to be clarified, knowing that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry; I was reading that paragraph incorrectly. I glossed over the "school of technology" clause. The fault is mine. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is personal preference, but I'm a little confused about the citations in the lede. You cite some things (international campuses) that are cited later on in the article, but other things that are cited later on in the article (athletics, forex) don't get a citation. done
In the Campuses section, why isn't the giant picture taken facing the other direction ... with Bobby Dodd in the foreground and the Atlanta skyline in the background? That's the traditional photo of the campus that I've seen, and it'd be a great way to illustrate the placement of the school.
Please cite the last two paragraphs of the Alumni section. done
Seasons should be lowercase ... I saw at least two uses.
- With the season names, I am probably referring to the name of a semester, which is generally capitalized (and distinguishes it from the actual season). They divide the year into Fall, Summer, and Spring, with the "normal" school year occupying a sequential Fall and Spring. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are talking about the semesters, and I understand that, but I'm not grasping why they're capitalized. They're not proper nouns ... are they? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not in the strictest sense, but there's little other way to distinguish between the season proper and a period of time that is named after a season such as a semester (or a fiscal quarter, to give another example) other than either tacking 'semester' on the end every time, which can become cumbersome in some prose. The capitalization rule/habit is possibly a holdover from my and some other contributors' time in either or both journalism and academic writing, where the capitalization of seasons to refer to a period of time named after them is a common style. LaMenta3 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to crime, could you put "very few" into numerical context? How many is that? done
The biggest thing that bugs me about this article is that it's very difficult for me to tell which citations are referring to which sentences. Forex, in the West Campus section, there are two citations. I clicked on both of them, but it appears that the bulk of the section is based on the first citation, which appears halfway through the paragraph. In situations like this (West/East Campus), could you please duplicate the citation so I can tell where you're getting that information?
And I'm sure that this would be an item of wishful thinking (and I don't intend to ding you for it), but a map of campus would be great. :)
- Yeah, that would be nice, but it's not happening :) Maybe one day... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep. Unfortunately there aren't any freely-licensed campus maps. Maybe if we ask the Alumni Association real nice...eh...probably not. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. It's a nice-looking, aesthetically pleasing article. I didn't detect any big gaps in the coverage (though I still want to know how the teams got the nickname "Yellow Jackets"), and the pictures are really nice. Drop me a line on my talk page if you have any questions or address my concerns — I don't visit FAC too often, but if you leave me a note, I'll be happy to take another look and potentially support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For an explanation of the Yellow Jackets term, see Buzz (mascot)#History. I believe that bit is also in the history article and most likely the traditions article. Real life intrudes today, but most of your suggestions sound very doable. As to the picture, you work with what you have. You have to admit that the one we have does a fairly good job of illustrating the campus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I must've come across as a bit harsh. The picture is fine ... it just struck me as unexpected, since the view the other way is the one I've traditionally seen and thought looked rather spectacular. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found the perspective a bit confusing myself, at first, and I'm really familiar with the campus. My problem? My entire perspective of the campus is permanently from a perspective of west and northwest campus, as that's where I always lived. For someone who had lived on east or southeast campus for most of their time at Tech, the perspective in the image probably is significantly less jarring. There's not really a point to this comment other than to perhaps confirm that your brief confusion was justified. However, the unusual perspective is probably the thing I like most about the picture. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blofeld Looks as if a few more citations could be added in some of the lower sections as at times the citations seem very clustered with the rest of entire paragraphs unreferenced. The Technology Square paragraph is mostly unreferenced, the last two paragraphs of the Alumni section are entirely unreferenced. Also I think the images should be set to standard consistently to allow editors preferences in px size. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished citing the alumni section. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lovely work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: For the "Dress her in white and gold" additional reading item, Amazon is showing me a publishing date of 1963, rather than 1969. Which is correct? JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. It was originally published in 1963, and reissued in a new edition in 1969. The most up-to-date version, if you will, is the 1969 edition. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support pending treatment. My misgivings mostly concern the requirement for professional formatting/appearance (linking, here).
- Serious overlinking problems. Please see WP:LINK—common terms, country-names, etc. I've fixed the lead, which was awash with blue, and now the high-value links are clearer. Can you audit the rest of the article thus (although the lead seemed to be the worst)?
- Why does "Reconstruction" start with R and not r? I've never heard of this era, and the readers shouldn't have to visit the link to find out what it's about. (Cryptic link is the issue.) Why not omit mention of this concept in the lead, where there's no room to flesh out the details, and let it lie nicely as it does already in the "Establishment" subsection?
- "Also" at the top is redundant.
- I removed the redundant link to US$ in the ?infobox. It's not needed in the main text either, if it's a US-related article. Nor is the signifier "US". The dollar sign is enough.
- "presented a speech"—delivered would be a little more idiomatic? done
- "Dr. Gary Schuster"—Could you link the "Dr." too? It's part of the man's name, and is awkward with a colour split in the middle. done
- Comma after "Boulder". done
- "Male" is linked? No. More reason a thorough cleansing of trivial links is required throughout. Please preserve the value of the good links. Tony (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've always seen "Reconstruction" capitalized in that context (post-Civil War era of United States history). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Same here. Common use is the capitalized version. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns and questions have been addressed. It's a good article that covers all notable aspects of one of the more important universities in the United States. Good work by the creators and editors involved! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple of quick drive-by thoughts on the Athletics section.
- ~~Would be nice to spell out NCAA, and any other abbreviations in the article.~~ done
- ~~En dash for score range (4-2).~~ done
- ~~"It is reportedly being the first school song played in space." Grammar issue here, as it reads like the song is currently being played. I'm sure this is meant to be past tense.~~ done
- ~~Not sure Modern Pentathlon needs capitalization.~~ done
- ~~To give an example of the overlinking that Tony refers to, I saw three NCAA links in the section. Only having one should be sufficient for those interested in learning more.~~ done Giants2008 (17–14) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good calls. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose reads nicely, pictures add to the article without overwhelming it, and exhaustively sourced; nicely done -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Agreed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The lack of parallelism in this sentence bothers me: "A part of the University System of Georgia, it also has satellite campuses in Savannah, Georgia; Metz, France; Athlone, Ireland; Shanghai, China; and Singapore." First one is "city,state", and the rest are "city, nation" except for the last one, which is just "nation".

Actually, Singapore is a city-state, so it is both the city and nation. Is there a better way to list it? MaxVeers (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just went ahead and tweaked it a little bit; the way the sentence was written also implied that the international campuses were a result of its membership in the GA university system. If that's actually the case, then feel free to revert my edit. — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is confusing for me. Maybe a rewording is in order: "In 1996, the campus was the site of the athletes' village and a venue for a number of athletic events for the 1996 Summer Olympics"
"The idea of Georgia Institute of Technology was introduced in 1865 during the Reconstruction period." What do you mean by "the idea of" Georgia Tech? Do you mean the plans for that specific university, or for some university in the Atlanta area? Even if it's clarified down below, I think that this sentence is unnecessarily vague. done
~~"Many Southerners at this time agreed with this idea." Shouldn't that be cited? Or do references 7 and 8 apply to it? If so, maybe that could be made clearer.~~ done

I went ahead and removed that sentence. Not that it's not true, but I didn't like the way it interrupted the flow of the paragraph. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"~~In 1882, prominent Georgians..." weasel words. Who exactly?~~ done
The above stricken now has another problem: "In 1882, Harris led a committee of Georgians, authorized by the Georgia State Legislature, to visit..." Who was authorized by the Georgia State Legislature? Harris, the committee, or the Georgians?

With any luck I've put this to rest with another edit. MaxVeers (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Using examples from the Worcester County Free Institute of Industrial Science (now Worcester Polytechnic Institute) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Atlanta technology school began development on the Worcester Free Institute model, which stressed a combination of "theory and practice", the "practice" component including student employment and production of consumer items to generate revenue for the school." Long and clunky. done
"equivalent to about US$236,370.37 now." Citation? Conversion between dollar rates isn't a simple calculation and unless cited to someone else is OR. And when is "now"? I'm also questioning the degree of precision that figure has.

This is generated by Template:Inflation and uses today's inflation rate.MaxVeers (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might take this up at the template page. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He then shook hands with every student." Is that really historically significant? If not, remove it.

My opinion is that fun historical tidbits are appropriate for Wikipedia, as long as they're sourced and not in trivia sections. However, I'm happy to remove it if that's the consensus. MaxVeers (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion either, but I'm leaning towards removing it. Anyone else have any thoughts? — DroEsperanto (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings section bothers me. First, many of the claims are cited to Georgia Tech's analysis of the rankings, which hardly seems NPOV. The statement that Georgia Tech ranked 7th in USNWR should be attributed to USNWR, not GT. Second, with prose rankings sections, I've found that it's very hard not to cherry-pick the best rankings. Consider using Template:Infobox US university ranking.

The article used to have that template... not sure where it went. MaxVeers (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviewers felt that the template was equally arbitrary, not to mention redundant since it repeated the info in the text. AFAIK, the article doesn't "cherry pick," I believe that rankings listed were all of the ones that we could find that were recent and from reputable sources. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to suggest that the infobox replace the prose; it's not really something that lends itself to paragraph form (this ranked this with this number, that ranked that with that number, etc.), so why not have it in a more concise form? The infobox also would handle some of the problems with the rankings section in its current form, including lack of proper attribution to the rankers. And although it can be hard to tell whether or not rankings are cherry-picked or are balanced, the fact that half the very-high rankings in that section are cited to Georgia Tech don't help the case. The template does have its limitations, but at least it provides a base set of rankings for all the university pages, instead of having them vary from page to page along with whichever ones appear to rank that particular institution highest. (I hope that doesn't sound like I'm assuming bad faith on the part of university article editors; it's just that the higher rankings tend to get the most attention because people who work on their university's article — myself included — tend to hear about them/see them the most). — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" Georgia Tech has sought to strengthen its undergraduate and graduate offerings in less technical fields, primarily those under the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts" Over what period of time have they been trying to strengthen them? And I think this needs a citation, too.
"That particular College has seen a 20% increase in admissions." Unclear. Does it mean that 20% more students have applied? If so, say "a 20% increase in applications". If it means that there are 20% more students, say they've increased enrollment. And over what period of time have they seen this increase? Over the past year, or over the past century?
That's all for now. I may add more later. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've been out of town, so I haven't really been working on this. That said, thanks MaxVeers for working on this, as well. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: I'm not at all sure that File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png clears WP:NFCC #8 in this article (the claimed reason that it does, "Used to illustrate athletics at Georgia Tech", seems weak to me, especially given the image's location in the article). Other views on the subject welcome. Additionally, there are a great many left-aligned images directly underneath third level headings; I'm not going to raise a fuss about this, but I know that it really bothers some people, so I'm bringing it up. All images claimed as free are sufficiently verifiably so for our purposes, and the only other non-free image, File:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg is clearly within community norms for the application of the WP:NFCC. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image was originally duplicated in the infobox at the head of the article, but we decided to place it in Athletics as Buzz is considered the athletics mascot more than anything else. However, I'd be more that happy to move it back to the infobox if you feel that would be more appropriate. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

I notice that seasons are capitalized. Is there some reason for this? Example: "Since then, the institute has greatly expanded, with an enrollment of 12,069 undergraduates and 5,937 postgraduate students as of Spring 2009."

This may have been mentioned before, but the capitalized season names are not referring to seasons, but semesters. As far as I can tell, there is no specific standard on Wikipedia for this use, so most of us defaulted to the standard used in our academic and/or journalistic writing experience. As far as flow of prose goes, the repetitive use of the word "semester" following every instance of a season name to denote that we're talking about a semester and not a season gets, well...repetitive. I have also seen this standard (capitalizing season names) when referring to financial quarters. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Alumni" section is a sea of blue. I know some of this can't be helped, but please try to cut out links that are of marginal value / well-known dictionary definitions, such as "plate tectonics", "space shuttle" and "astronaut". This can also be remedied by delinking terms that have been linked in previous sections, such as "American football" and "Atlanta". done
More capitalization weirdness:

"It was founded in 1908 by 14 Students and Robert "Biddy" Bidez." Why is "Students" capitalized? done
"Georgia Tech's undergraduate and graduate programs are divided into six Colleges. " Why is "Colleges" capitalized? done

"A large amount of construction occurred, creating most of what is now considered "West Campus" for Tech to serve as the Olympic Village" Construction doesn't "occur"; somebody makes it happen.

Please suggest a better way of phrasing this, then. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia Tech is consistently ranked well" Not idiomatic, "ranked highly" makes more sense.
"Georgia Tech is currently classified by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a university with very high research activity." Don't use "currently"; use an {{as of}} statement or just delete "currently". done
"1,900,000 square feet (177,000 m2) of space are devoted to research purposes at Georgia Tech and GTRI." Don't start sentences with numbers. done
"A new addition to that space is Georgia Tech's $90 million Marcus Nanotechnology Research Center, one of the largest nanotechnology research facilities in the Southeastern United States with over 30,000 square feet (2,800 m2) of clean room space." Very repetitious, "space ... space". done
Several undefined abbreviations: NBA, NFL, MLB done
"There are many notable graduates, non-graduate former students and current students of Georgia Tech." This is a very vague topic sentence. What do "current students" have to do with anything?

"Current students," as per the quoted definition of alumni in the article, are also classified as alumni by the school, provided they have completed a semester in good standing. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You use seasons (spring, fall, etc.). Please revise, as people in the Southern Hemisphere don't follow the same pattern as those in the north

Again, the seasons as a naming standard for semesters. Many publications, statistics, etc. regarding the school are written referencing the semester name, and using a month range would be inaccurate. Additionally, as it is clear that Georgia Tech is in the Northern Hemisphere, there is little lost meaning in adhering to this standard. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Georgia Tech Athletic Bands play a noticeable part for school spirit and athletic support." Awkward. "a noticeable part" is non-idiomatic. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC) done[reply]

I appreciate your feedback, though I might request that in the cases where you mention or see awkward wording or very small WP:MOS errors, that you could attempt edit those yourself. Two of three primary editors (one of whom is me) that appear to be contributing to this FAC are finding themselves to be suddenly very busy for the next 2-3 days. We would find that to be a very big help. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done a sizeable amount of MOS cleanup, and will do more in the coming days. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Madcoverboy (talk · contribs)

"Whereas, previously, the Midtown location placed Georgia Tech students in the middle of one of the highest metropolitan crime-rate areas in America, the construction of the Olympic village along with subsequent gentrification of the surrounding areas greatly increased public safety." In addition to awkward sentence construction, this seems to be very tangential to the discussion of the university itself.

The Olympic village now exists as Georgia Tech's West Campus. The crime rate and the ensuing redevelopment has been central to the school's modern history. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the omission of information about research activities, the much-vaunted co-op program, description of the student body, scale of academic program, etc.? I doubt it, especially in light of the fact that there is ~~absolutely no mention of~~ one paragraph about campus or public safety throughout the rest of the article which clearly gives this promotional passage undue weight. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead makes no mention of the size of the Yellow Jackets intercollegiate program nor the conference it competes in which seems to be de rigueur in most other university FAs.
There's no discussion of the research scale or accomplishments given (at least my perception) of the university's particular strengths in these areas in the lead
There's a 34-year gap in Modern history between 1962 and 1996: the section fails to mention any student-faculty protests\unrest\counterculture from the late 1960s and early 1970s or the controversial reorganization in the 1980s done
The article lacks an "Administration and organization" section describing the relationship with the Georgia state government, board of trustees, endowment, budget, president and administration, faculty and student governance, etc.
The academics section omits basic descriptive/classification information such as Carnegie classifications; accreditation status; number of programs offered, degrees granted; academic calendar; academic honors; tuition, financial aid, student debt, enrollment distributions/percentages/relative sizes among the various colleges; libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions; admissions statistics
The rankings section seems wholly cherry-picked to describe only rankings or programs that are high and is full of words to avoid and other vague, weaseley, or peacockish words. Template:Infobox US university ranking should be implemented as well to more effectively and neutrally summarize.
Nothing in recreation sounds at all recreational: student government and secret societies aren't my idea of a good time :)
Housing seems full of recentist controversies or non-notable information (renovations, missing furniture, coffee hours, etc.)
Info on greek life seems to be spread out among recreation and Greek life; Clean old-fashioned hate spread out in both traditions and athletics;

Greek life is now consolidated. Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate is both athletics and traditions related, being a long-standing rivalry that somewhat transcends athletics, hence its appearance in both sections. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Campus comes before Academics in WP:UNIGUIDE

UNIGUIDE says "Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution." The academics are more important and more closely tied to the information in the history section than the description of the campus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni is full of generally non-neutral or unencyclopedic words
Vague and imprecise statements that should be removed or backed up with clear facts or statistics:

"Much of this research is funded by large corporations or governmental organizations."
"Forty percent of Georgia Tech's research" by employment, expenditure, space, test tubes, ?
"Many startup companies are produced through research conducted at Georgia Tech" How many? How much funding have they received? How many people do they employ? What's their economic impact?
"Georgia Tech is ranked fourth for startup companies, eighth in patents, and eleventh in technology transfer." by whom?
"As a result, the Institute's retention rates have improved." I don't recall reading what they currently are
"WREK is among the nation's most powerful college radio stations." A citation at least? done

Preponderance of throw-away phrases diminishing quality of prose:

"Georgia Tech is consistently ranked well"

The alternative "is ranked highly" disrupts the cadence of the prose. Not to mention, well and highly have slightly different connotations. To say that it ranks highly would be too peacocky for my tastes. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply remove it and assert facts. Consistently is a clearly both a peacock and weasel word that is unsubstantiated in terms of what is "consistent" or what is "well". The citation also goes to a Georgia Tech press release which is obviously a WP:SPS and the passage neglects to mention that this "consistency" is simply one magazine's ranking. One could remove the section in its entirety and replace it with Template:Infobox US university ranking and solve all these problems at once. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia Tech encourages undergraduates to participate in research alongside graduate students and faculty." I suppose GT also encourages them to attend classes and engage in student activities? :)

I don't feel that this is a constructive comment. Encouraging undergraduate research is hardly widespread among modern universities to the extent that it is practiced at Georgia Tech. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means substantiate and describe the extent to which it is practiced (percentage of student body participating, papers and patents awarded to undergraduates, major graduate fellowships awarded to undergraduates, percentage of undergraduate population going on to graduate programs, etc.) instead of employing empty marketing trope. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"any of these connections are made through Georgia Tech's popular and robust cooperative education and internship programs." Substantiate or eliminate peacockery.

It is the largest such program in the United States. I have added a reference and statement saying so. I believe this substantiates the claims of popularity and robustness. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply state it is the largest in the nation and leave it at that then? Popularity connotes some a particular fondness or attracting attention which I don't believe is easily verified outside of a survey and robust implies a resistance to failure. Take these peacockish words to avoid out in the absence of citations that establish these facts. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia Tech's cooperative education and internship programs have been externally recognized for their strengths."
"Just off campus, students can choose from a host of restaurant and dining choices typical of metropolitan areas, including a half-dozen in Technology Square alone." I feel like I'm reading a brochure
"and a number of parties and barbecues are hosted by the neighborhood's residents." Is this particularly notable for residential areas bordering colleges and universities?
"Under the Couch is a live music venue located beneath the Couch Building on West Campus. It is run by the Musician's Network." Perhaps more on why it's notable or interesting as a space and less on who owns it.
"DramaTech is the campus' student-run theater. The theater has been entertaining Georgia Tech and the surrounding community since 1947. They are also home to Let's Try This! (the campus improv troupe) and VarietyTech (a song and dance troupe)." Stilted prose.
"A large number of businesspeople (CEOs, directors, etc.)" One hopes that businesspeople does not need disambiguation or definition

More awkward prose

"to a larger and more capable technical institute and research university" seems slightly POV to state that trade schools are less capable. I think "larger" suffices
"Today, Georgia Tech is" see Precise language under WP:MOS
"It is recognized for its programs in engineering, computing, and the sciences, and offers degrees in architecture, liberal arts, and management." So there are no degrees in engineering, computing, and the sciences? Awkward sentence construction.
"placing it well in sight of the Atlanta skyline." Why is this at all important or notable? Simply state it is located x miles (y km) from downtown Atlanta.
"Student athletics, both organized and intramural, are an important part of student and alumni life." Empty phrase: why important?
"have helped keep Georgia Tech in the national spotlight." is there such a thing? how about simply mentioned bowl appearances and national championships instead of vague metaphors.
"who had become prominent citizens in the town" how so? merchants and businessmen? war heros? prominent families?
"However, because the American South of that era was mainly populated by agricultural workers and few technical developments were occurring, a technology school was needed." past progressive verb tense is awkward (were occurring), substantiate "fewness" of developments by comparing relative industrial capacity or output, big inferential leap from "lack of industry" to "only a technology school is needed" Where is UGA during all of this?
"$79,576.06 today" significant figures?
"Unlike similarly named universities..." NJIT is public too :) I feel like there should be a hypen in there too
"pushed through a restructuring" restructured?
"the College of Sciences and Liberal arts" capitalize?
"Crecine was also instrumental in securing the 1996 Summer Olympics for Atlanta." How so?
"Crecine, the previous president, had demoted Management from "College" to "School" status as part of a controversial 1990 reorganization plan" Merge this in earlier?
"As is historically true of engineering institutions, female enrollment at Georgia Tech is low." Cite
"Georgia Tech has one of the most unbalanced male-to-female ratios of any co-ed university." Cite
"However, this is slowly changing due to the university's growing liberal arts programs and outreach programs to encourage more female high school students to consider careers in science and engineering." Cite or not in citations given
"Including the most generous alumni donor base, percentage-wise, of any public university ranked in the top 50." Self-promotional WP:SPS that is not attributable in USNWR. Also seems conveniently narrowly-constrained -- perhaps to ensure a top ranking? Never!
Rankings omit Times Higher Education Supplement, Washinton Monthly, Newsweek, Forbes, Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index, etc.
"Collaboration among the colleges is frequent, as mandated by a number of interdisciplinary degree programs and research centers." Again, empty marketing phrases trumpeting collaboration that need to be substantiated or removed. How frequent? How many programs and centers? What percents of student body are enrolled/involved in them?
"Georgia Tech has sought to strengthen its undergraduate and graduate offerings in less technical fields, primarily those under the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. That particular College has seen a 20% increase in admissions." Awkward pronoun reference. Enrollments are increasing but what is substantive being strengthened: budget, faculty appointments, graduate programs and enrollment, new buildings, etc.?
"Also, even in the Ivan Allen College, the Institute does not offer a Bachelor of Arts degree, only a Bachelor of Science." So what?
"the Advanced Technology Development Center and VentureLab ready to assist Georgia Tech's researchers and entrepreneurs in organization and commercialization." Remove advertising tone
"Georgia Tech and GTRI devote...of clean room space." Confusing clause construction
"The Work Abroad Program hosts a variety of cooperative education and internship experiences for upperclassmen and graduate students seeking international employment and cross-cultural experiences." More empty marketing
Housing discusses student stress despite there being a section wholly devoted to student stress
"Georgia Tech Housing is generally split into two parts" why generally?
"East Campus is largely populated by freshmen and is served by Brittain Dining Hall. West Campus houses some freshmen, transfer, and returning students, and is served by Woodruff Dining Hall." I'm assuming upperclassmen and graduate students live somewhere as well?
"(a freshman-only dorm life program to "encourage friendships and a feeling of social involvement")" mission statement-ese
"a number of legends and traditions, some of which have persisted for decades." persistence more than a few years would also happen to be a definition of a legend or tradition.
"some are well-known; for example, the most notable of these is the popular but rare tradition" layers of redundancy
"A number of times, students have orchestrated complex plans to steal the huge symbolic letter T, and on occasion have carried this act out successfully." How many times?
"One of the cherished holdovers from Tech's early years" unencyclopedic
"It is for that reason that the faculty newspaper is named The Whistle." Because of the timing of the whistle or the existence of the whistle?
"holds a heated, long and ongoing rivalry" redundant
"The first known hostilities" this is college athletics, not warfare
"The Georgia Tech Band Program has two main goals: to represent Georgia Tech at athletic events, and to provide Tech students with a musical outlet." --> "The Georgia Tech Band Program represents Georgia Tech at athletic events and provides Tech students with a musical outlet."
"The marching band consistently fields over 300 members and even invites students..." remove even
"In 1963, the Music Department, under the leadership of Ben Logan Sisk, was created within Tech's General College. In 1976 the Music department was assigned to the College of Sciences & Liberal Studies, and in 1991 was relocated to its current home in the College of Architecture." I don't remember a history of any other department nor any mention of why this one is particularly notable
Anime O-Tekku seems to fail notability though Momocon might be justified if there was any context on its size. Condense this lest the Chinese-American cultural group, SAE, and ROTC feel justified in including their similarly non-notable events.
Shouldnt GTCN be merged with student media?
OIT and ResNet seem particularly non-notable entities common to all universities
Crime should be merged with Campus not student life
"Although a number of skyscrapers—most visibly the headquarters of AT&T, The Coca-Cola Company, and Bank of America—are visible from all points on campus" Again with the visibility of skyscrapers - what's particularly notable or interesting about this?
"has a great deal of greenery" How much?
"This gives it a distinctly suburban atmosphere quite different from other Atlanta campuses such as that of Georgia State University." These citations are to the campus map and virtual tour and do not verify anything about its suburban-ness in either absolute terms (density) or relativeness (to other universities).
"West Campus is also home to a music club operated by students called Under the Couch" mention earlier?
"East Campus abuts on' the Downtown Connector" no preposition needed
"that now houses some of the most technology-equipped classrooms on campus" weasel words
"(which is referred to by students as "The Shaft")" redundant mention in history as well
"the rivalry was, at one time, considered one of the fiercest in college football." Cite
"Tech's fight song "I'm a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech" is known worldwide." Cite

I see a lot of potential and the article is better than many current university FAs, but we should always strive for higher standards. The article needs a good scrub down to ~~get rid of~~ replace the self-congratulatory cruft that often accumulates ~~as well as including~~ with basic descriptive information. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is very vague. Could you be more specific/descriptive? LaMenta3 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)~~Oh, it's above. Never mind. Note to self: do not read FAC before coffee is finished. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.