Talk:SRI International/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 08:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

• Use {{Infobox company}} recommendations for industry parameter listing. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to list anything other than science and technology? Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree that the others are somewhat redundant to that one. They also have a significant presence in Economics, I believe, which isn't listed there. Disavian (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and made that change using their suggestion of {{ubl}}. Disavian (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Dab

Resolved

• Not to be confused with SRA International or SwRI
  • Would a user confuse SRI with either of those two? In other words, is this hatnote necessary? Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Unknown. I'm okay with removing it if you don't think it's needed - it's been there as long as I've been editing this article. Disavian (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll bring it up with the dab project first, and see what they say. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The only thing that would mandate it from a dab project perspective is consensus here to include it. Not knowing the topic space, it certainly appears to be unneeded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
          • SwRI seems a stretch to me; but it is easy to imagine that a reader who doesn't know what the acronyms mean could mix up SRI and SRA. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Per you guys, I removed the dab to SwRI. Disavian (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

• SRI International (SRI), founded as Stanford Research Institute, is one of the world's largest contract research institutes. SRI, based in Menlo Park, California, was established by the trustees of Stanford University in 1946 as a center of innovation to support economic development in the region. It was established as a nonprofit organization under U.S. and California laws.
  • Several encyclopedic style issues here. Organization leads will generally start out indicating the type of org (nonprofit), its location (Menlo Park), and its establishment date (1946). Then, the lead will indicate why it is notable (world's largest contract research institute). As you can see, you've got this reversed, which is probably acceptable, but IMO, it disrupts the expectations of the reader. If you prefer to keep this style, then switch the second sentence around to avoid repeating SRI at the start of the second sentence (Based in Menlo Park, SRI was...) and avoid repeating the word "established" twice in a row in the third and fourth sentences (It was created as a nonprofit). Otherwise, look at several FA org. articles and see what you can find. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Is this what you have in mind? SRI International (SRI), founded as Stanford Research Institute, is a nonprofit organization and one of the world's largest contract research institutes. SRI was founded in 1946 in in Menlo Park, California by the trustees of Stanford University to support economic development in the region. Disavian (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the general idea. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• SRI's headquarters are near the Stanford University campus.
  • What about adding "located"? "SRI's headquarters are located near the Stanford University campus." Viriditas (talk)
    • That does sound better. Implemented. Disavian (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lead is OK, but still too "listy" for my tastes. I'll come back to this when I've finished the review. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Foundation

Resolved

• The idea for a research institute located in the Western United States was originally proposed in the 1920s and promoted (until SRI's eventual creation) by Robert E. Swain.
  • Question: did Swain originally propose the idea? If not, who did? If he did, use the active voice: "Robert E. Swain originally proposed the the idea for a research institute located in the Western United States in the 1920s." Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes. I implemented your proposed wording. :) Disavian (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Swain...proposed the the idea for a research institute...in the 1920s.'
  • This is sourced to Nielson, however, Lowen (1997) says it was in the 1930s.[1] Could you take a look at this discrepancy? Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • From Nielson, page 1-1: "Informal discussions about a research institute at Stanford University were held on campus as early as the 1920s. But it wasn't until 1942 that a serious proposition was made, and that initiative had to await the end of World War II before enough momentum could be gained to pursue it to completion." Disavian (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • And in Gibson, The Founding Years, page 1: "THIS HISTORY OF THE STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE - later to be known as SRI - begins in some respects in the 1920s when a Stanford University professor conceived the idea of a research center dedicated primarily to work in chemistry, physics, and biology. Dr. Robert E. Swain soon found support for his proposed venture from the University's president, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, and also from a distinguished alumnus, Herbert Hoover." Disavian (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Herbert Hoover, a trustee of Stanford University, was a strong proponent for such an organization, but became less involved after he was elected president of the United States.
  • Did he lose interest or was he just attending to more important duties as president? How was he a strong proponent? Did he donate money? What made him a proponent as a trustee? Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I may have glossed over his involvement a bit. According to Gibson, The Founding Years, pp. 5-6, Hoover was a personal friend of Dr. Robert E. Swain and was particularly involved with Stanford University; his contributions to that point included the founding of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford's Food Research Institute, and the Hoover Institution. So, Hoover discussed the concept (in person) with Swain in 1926 and 1927, but in 1928 Hoover announced he would run for president. I'll quote these paragraphs directly:
      "After getting a 'green light' from Wilbur to develop some sort of plan, Swain was eagerly looking forward to further talks with Hoover. But early in 1928 Hoover announced he would run for president. This came on the heels of President Coolidge's famous statement - 'I do not choose to run -.' From then onward, Hoover had no time to work with his Stanford friend on the institute idea. He did not, however, lose interest in the concept he had helped set in motion. Several times during the 1928 campaign and even into his presidency, Hoover asked Swain how the idea was being received and urged him to keep up his good work. Many years later, Hoover said to a group at Stanford that Swain was the man with 'an early vision' for a research institute at the University."
      Disavian (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Early years

• SRI's first research project began in 1946: the investigation of improvement of the guayule plant as a source of rubber.
  • Prose is a bit choppy here. "investigation of improvement" doesn't sound right. Who was investigating what and why? Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • From Gibson, The Founding Years, p. 98: "For about four years ending on June 30, 1946, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had supported a project on developing a domestic source of natural rubber. The guayule plant, native to Northern Mexico and Southern Texas, was by far the most promising source. But in mid-1946 Congress cut off all project funds on the basis that the post-war need for a domestic rubber source was not great enough to justify the cost. The military services did not agree with this position and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) entered the picture temporarily. A grant-type contract was assigned to SRI. The USDA staff at Salinas transferred to SRI. In due course, Congress changed its stance and appropriated funds for the USDA to resume its work. This took effect on August 1, 1947. Thus, the SRI project came to an end; most of the team except for Bill Rand (the manager) and Benedict went back to the Department of Agriculture." Disavian (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• SRI's investigation confirmed the potential of dodecyl benzene as a suitable replacement, and later Procter & Gamble used the substance as the basis of their successful laundry detergent, Tide.
  • Could you add a source to this, please? Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've looked previously and was never able to find a source for that part - I commented it out for now. Disavian (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • In the four hours of reference work I did today, I came across a(n admittedly SRI-published) reference for this. I about punched my desk when I found it, given the amount of time I've looked for a reference for that in the past and here I come across it accidentally. Disavian (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• On November 10–11, 1949, the First National Air Pollution Symposium was sponsored by SRI...SRI also co-sponsored the second and third Symposia in Pasadena on May 5–6, 1952 and April 18–20, 1955.
  • Why are these dates important to note? Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • They're not. I think the point of the section was that SRI was a leader in early climate change research, in particular by hosting the first large discussion thereof. Disavian (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I made them less specific per your request below. Disavian (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Description

• In 2010, the United States Department of Defense consisted of 67% of awards by value
  • The wording is odd and the link is dead so I can't verify or change it. The paragraph is again, very listy. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • SRI just launched a complete redesign of their website, I learned this morning reading twitter. I basically put my phone down when I read that and thought of all of the references that I'll need to update. :-/ Disavian (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, I would really like to finish up this review, but if I can't verify the content, that makes it very difficult. I recently failed an article for depending too heavily on self-published sources, and I'm a bit concerned that my previous attempt to verify material about the initial founding discovered conflicting material in secondary sources (discussed above). It's a shame the further reading section isn't incorporated into the article, as that would solve this problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That's understandable- I certainly don't want to depend on primary sources. I'm spending today working on fixing all of the issues in the checklinks tool, so hopefully I'll get all that resolved ASAP. I see that some secondary sources that I found not all that long ago have also moved, so I'll get those taken care of as well. Disavian (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I took care of all of the dead links today. That's not to say that sections of the article couldn't do with additional references, but one step at a time here, I suppose. :) Disavian (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Anyway, back to the original point - I believe that it basically means that 67% of SRI's revenue in the year cited came from projects sponsored by the United States Department of Defense. Disavian (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Spin-off companies

Resolved

• notable spin-offs
  • What makes them notable? Is there a specific product or service they are known for? Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I judged that the ones with existing articles were notable. There have been quite a few spin-offs, as you see by that list, and as such it's hard to know which ones deserve mention. It seemed like a reasonable standard to follow, even if it is limited by Wikipedia's own coverage biases. Disavian (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many companies have come from computing and computer science-related efforts
  • Do you mean to say that many companies have been created from research in this field? Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's the idea I was going for. Disavian (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• This section is OK, but it would be helpful to talk more about the spin-off process and what makes SRI so unique or special in that they can produce results. As it stands, the section is too "listy". Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor prose issues (to be listed above)

   Prose still needs work.

   Still a bit "listy" in some places; lack of a directed, coherent narrative tying the sections together internally

   Excellent layout and table usage; the article is pleasing to the eye and designed to be read easily. Topical section headings help the reader follow the text to any chronological point in the narrative and facilitate understanding of the text while enhancing comprehension

   I just want you to know I worked so hard on pulling indiscriminate lists out into tables and in a couple cases, sublists (and back into the articles as summaries of those lists); in particular, List of SRI International people and List of SRI International spin-offs. :) Disavian (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

   Helpful further reading section split into history and topics

   External links looks good; infobox repeats official site, but this is OK for me, however, other reviewers might not like it

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations missing in some areas. Will verify...

   14 dead links. I can't verify dead links.

   Issue with date verification in "Foundations" section (see above)

   "Early years" section has unsourced material (see above)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad coverage

   Why mention specific dates for symposia in "Early years" section?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable as she goes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Good use of images and captions

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The lead should summarize the most important points in the body. It's reversed in the case of the "Split and diversification" section, which doesn't explain why the organization split due to the Vietnam War, but does explain it in the lead. Try to expand this in the body, or move it from the lead to the body and summarize in the lead. "Early history" doesn't explain why SRI was investigating the guayule plant as a source of rubber, but as a reader I assume it was part of the war effort. You should explain the reason and indicate the importance. It's still not clear why you list the dates for the Air Pollution Symposium and the Symposia in Pasadena. If necessary, put it in a corresponding footnote. Viriditas (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

   I copied the content about the separation from the lead to the body. diff. Disavian (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   Since you copied it in whole, I removed it from the lead. There might be a way to briefly summarize it in the future, but for now I think it is fine, unless you decide to change it. The issue is highly complex as Leslie (1993) explains in detail. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, the section in the article itself could do with some expansion, but that's one of those subjects where you stare at the source text and wonder where to even start, given the complexity. Unrelated, I like the copyedits that you've made so far. Disavian (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   I expanded the section on guayule. diff. Disavian (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   And here's my attempt to remove specific dates from the air pollution bit. diff. Disavian (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   I removed the paragraph on remote viewing that was placed in between a history of communications technology in the "rapid expansion" section. The material was poorly cited, presented only one POV, and does not best represent SRI. Anyone wishing to add this back should use any number of secondary sources about SRI to do so, in the context of the organization. As it stands, the SRI website does not mention it, and it appears to be undue weight to mention it in this context. What might work is a future section on secret or failed projects, as long as strong sources about SRI are used. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

   After extensive copyedits intending to link indiscriminate list entries as prose narrative, I'm passing this article, however, a quick look at the article history shows that this article was originally a list of entries sorted by decade that was later turned into "prose" form and there are still artifacts of this previous structure in the current article. For example, the "recent history" section includes content that should be merged into relevant sections since 1) a heading named "recent history" is time sensitive and likely to become outdated, and 2) there is overlap between related subjects, such as medicine and technology, speech recognition, etc. that are found in the previous section ("Split and diversification"). You might want to consider reviewing the secondary sources to find a more solid structure that reflects the narrative above and beyond list entries by date. I'm afraid that I might be overly sensitive to ongoing problems with the prose as the most recent peer review failed to detect any problems. Even though I'm passing this article as meeting the current GA criteria, I recommend rewriting it with a stronger emphasis on incorporating the secondary sources listed in the further reading section and focusing more on the relationship between the organization, its people, and its research, with a consistent narrative that eliminates the remnants of the listy prose. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you for your help, you have done an AMAZING job copyediting the article. I agree with your points, and I'm going to continue improving the article, preferably using additional secondary sources. Disavian (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

   Many thanks indeed to BOTH of you for this work! Everything is way way better now. Here are a couple of small comments for your consideration. The list of spinout companies includes a number of entities that were founded by ex-SRI people, but otherwise had no connection with SRI. Although the heritage is impressive, do they really count as "spinouts" per se. Maybe a different label might be appropriate. Also, per the comment above on remote viewing, I'd like to consider adding a small NPOV statement about that project, citing one or two reliable secondary sources of course. Given the intriguing/controversial nature of this project, it seems appropriate to acknowledge that the work was actually carried out, rather than ignoring its existence. Any thoughts or comments on these items? jxm (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

   The source I used to build the majority of that list didn't distinguish whether each was an official spin-off or whether they just happened to be SRI personnel that took their research and turned it into something commercial. From what I've read, the system is more organized now, under the name SRI Ventures. And I'm definitely not opposed to a couple sentence summary of the ESP work; for what it's worth, the article's (generally POV) fork is still at Talk:SRI International/Archive 1#Research outside the mainstream in case you feel like attempting this. I'm more interested in figuring out how to make the prose less listy - after about 1960 or so, SRI expands into several different directions. I've tried to move similar subjects together (military, medical, artificial intelligence, etc) but it's not an especially compelling narrative. Disavian (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)