Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 GrahamColm 18:40, 28 May 2012 [1].

Georgia Tech Research Institute edit

Georgia Tech Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating yet another Georgia Tech-related article for featured article because it gives a relatively comprehensive view of this department, and I believe it meets the featured article criteria. I created this article in March 2006, and have been gradually expanding it since then, particularly the history section. Thank you for your time. Disavian (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The State of Georgia provided the Engineering Experiment Station with a budget allocation, and Georgia Tech provided infrastructure and personnel to the unit. Professors who worked with the station could receive a $250 (annual) stipend ($4,343 today) for doing so." - source?
    • I'm certain I remember reading that number, but until I find a source, I've commented it out. I cited the first half of that, though. Disavian (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was generally referred to as..." - source?
  • "Labs frequently collaborate with one another and outside groups based on the unique requirements of each project. GTRI performs research for clients at the local, regional, national, and international level, and employees are encouraged to present their work at conferences and consortia. At a given time, laboratories may work with 200 or more agencies simultaneously." - source?
    • I've found sources for some of those, still looking for one on the "200 or more agencies" part. Disavian (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN5: page(s)?
  • Italicize publication names, don't italicize publishers
  • FN33: publisher?
  • What is ESRI?
    • That is apparently Esri. I linked the company name in the ref. Disavian (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN41 needs to be completed
  • Use a consistent date format
    • Most of the inconsistency in reference date format is due to the use of the inflation templates; each includes a reference of a different date format than the rest of the article. That's beyond my control. I will ensure that the remaining references use yyyy-mm-dd, however. Disavian (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template in question is Template:Inflation-fn. Disavian (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 52: publisher, page?
  • Google Books links don't need retrieval dates
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    • All three instances of cite book now include locations. Disavian (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use endashes for ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62. My main concern is that the lead and the infobox describe GTRI as being a non-profit institution, but there is quite a bit of language used throughout the article that I would have thought to be reserved for for-profit companies; "client" and "customer" are frequently used, and it seems to me that grantor would be the more appropriate term. I'm open to arguments or suggestions, as I don't know a whole lot about this sort of thing.

Here are some other minor quibbles:

  • "The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) is the nonprofit applied research arm" Is it normal for "arm" to be used in this way in formal writing? I would have thought that "branch" or "division" would have been more correct.
    • I don't have a problem with the term used in that way. I'm open to other terms, though. Disavian (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lead feels somewhat incomplete. The final sentence, "Vaughan, the station's first director, hired 13 part-time faculty." leaves the reader wondering "Who cares?" and "What happened next?"
    • I deleted that sentence. That may have been me starting to summarize the history section. Hmm. Disavian (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unfortunately, the federal effort failed and the state did not finance the organization" The use of the word "unfortunately", and others like it, are discouraged per MOS:OPED.
  • The first paragraph of Structure is mostly unsourced.
  • I'm somewhat confused by the percentage breakdown of GTRI awards. Considering DoD contracts are in their own separate category, what is the difference between a federal subcontract and a non-DoD federal contract?
    • I believe that "Federal Subcontract" refers to when another company wins a contract and then subcontracts part of it out to another organization (in this case, GTRI). There's a lot of that as many large contracts require that a certain percentage of the work be performed by smaller businesses. Disavian (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the more technical explanation of this concept. Disavian (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question that is left unanswered by the Employees and financials section: what is the demographic breakdown of the employees (race, gender)?
    • I did find an age breakdown in this presentation, and some more demographic information here. Are these relevant? I'll see what I can find otherwise. Disavian (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, that's the kind of stuff I had in mind. I wouldn't quote every single statistic provided, but instead use a few to give an overview. The degree breakdown (bachelor/master/doctorate) is interesting; I wouldn't have thought that information would be recorded anywhere. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made an attempt at bringing a bit of that into the article. That sentence about degree breakdown was difficult to write, so you had better appreciate it :) Disavian (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question for the same section: where does the money go? how much goes towards research projects and how much is spent on salaries, maintenance, general supplies, etc.?
  • "Two GTRI laboratories operate at a significant off-campus research facility" What is the purpose of "significant" in this sentence?
    • I was using it as a synonym for "non-trivial" or "major"; it contains a sizeable percentage of the organization's floor space and personnel. Disavian (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems somewhat unnecessary, and somewhat ambiguous as well. Some readers might be led to believe that "significant" means that the research done at that campus is significant, which is not the intended meaning at all. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ATAS entry of the Laboratories table contains a duplicate reference (Ref 123 at the moment).
  • It's not clear to me how the Interdisciplinary research centers relate to GTRI. What exactly does it mean to "report through" GTRI?
    • To my knowledge, they're smaller organizational units that focus on a specialized topic that may cross subject areas. At Georgia Tech (and I assume at research universities worldwide), there's been a large push behind interdisciplinary research, and there are quite a few such centers. I suppose I could do a better job of explaining that? Disavian (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aye, I think it would be a good idea to give Interdisciplinary research centers a more substantial intro paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GTQI combines the strengths in engineering and technology at Georgia Tech with the emerging field of quantum information science in order to advance both fundamental science and emerging quantum information technologies." This could have easily been pulled from a poster.
    • Yeah, that's pretty bad. I rephrased it. Disavian (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I agree that the article is a bit on the peacock side and I appreciate your help in improving it. Disavian (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, on your concern about the non-profit-ness of the organization, I'm absolutely sure that's true. It helps when you realize that it's part and parcel of a public research university; bidding on a contract isn't very far from a more typical academic applying for a research grant, and in both instances the money goes through the same contracting organization, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation. I'd say the funding of science article would be relevant there. Disavian (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page about the Georgia Tech Research Corporation does a decent job of describing it. Disavian (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your opinion on the "customer" and "client" lingo: does it make sense to keep it as is? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the term "sponsor"? (I haven't forgotten about this FAC, I've just been playing the heck out of Diablo III this week) Disavian (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion plz. "Sponsor" feels better, but I'm really not the best judge on this issue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute/archive1&oldid=992223853"