Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:31, 31 August 2008 [1].

---

Texas Tech University

Nominator(s): Wordbuilder (talk · contribs), Elred (talk · contribs), Almosthonest06 (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this article for featured article. We have put considerable work into it recently, addressing the issues raised during its peer review and bringing it into line with what is required of a featured article. The important aspects of the subject are well covered and all claims are sourced. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support It's not perfect and I think there is still some work to be done on consistency in rankings, but I believe the article fulfills every single one of the FA criteria. A very good effort with regards to banishing academic boosterism, populating daughter pages, high-quality pictures of campus, and referencing. Some nitpicks:—This is part of a comment by Madcoverboy (of 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• Many thanks for your contributions, Madcoverboy. Your suggestions have been well justified and have helped us to improve the article considerably.--Elred (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you for all of your guidance and for your support. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Colleges & schools: While I find rankings odious, if you're going to include them, include them neutrally. The choice of rankings in this section seem to be cherry-picked to convey the institution in a better light as there are no US News rankings included for the schools of law or medicine which I would expect if you're including the same report at undergraduate and engineering. Likewise, has the institution been ranked by any of the other major publications like The Times Higher Education supplement, Shanghai Jiao Tong, The Center for Measuring Academic Performance, or Washington Monthly? Has Rawls been ranked by any of the publications on List of United States graduate business school rankings? I'm not saying that one should include every ranking ever, but if you're going to include USNEWS, you should include others as well to give a more NPOV portrait.

• This is difficult to address for a few reasons. 1) We clearly can't list every publication's ranking on the main page 2) I believe that it is assumed, on the part of the reader, that the items listed would be the 'highest' rankings awarded. Thus, if we were to attempt to counter-cherry-pick and include some middle-of-the-pack rankings, it would probably be assumed, likewise, that those are the best. My general impression from looking at other university pages is that those notes usually represent the high-water mark, and that's what we've done. We're certainly open to trying to make it better, but short of listing every single ranking I don't know that there's a better way to present that info.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the presumption is (or should be) that the most recent rankings are used and are presented equitably for all ranked colleges rather than being omitted when they don't reflect well. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll double check and try to make sure we have the most current ones listed.--Elred (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are only two mentions of rankings, one for the engineering school and one for the business school. I can't imagine that being construed as fluffing. The engineering reference is from US News and the business one from Business Week. i think that seems pretty sensible. In most cases only the top 50 ____'s are ranked. We are left to include only those that provide data, and I don't think there is cause to specifically mention that "so and so" ranks it as "n/a."--Elred (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking the same thing. Most sources only report the top [insert number] of universities. Occasionally there are articles on the worst. However, if it's somewhere in between, you would likely have to locate something like a trade publication that covers every school from a to z. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "Following a tornado that caused 26 fatalities and over US$100 million in damage" to campus or in the area?

• Agreed. (This has been fixed) That's been bothering me for a while and I never got around to fixing it. It was in the Lubbock area. Will be fixed shortly.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "The groups include service, academic, professional, and religious." Sentence fragment and unsurprising/overgeneral information.

• Agreed. This line has been deleted. --Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "The comprehensive and interdisciplinary research program aspires to exploit the useful qualities of wind and to mitigate its detrimental effects." Strike or merge as full of peacocked, mission statement-y, devoid of meaning statement. I found this sort of alternatively misson statement-y terminology or overgeneral sentence fragments airdropped into various paragraphs throughout the research, campus, and student life sections.

• Agreed. This line has been rewritten to remove peacocking.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "In total, Texas Tech has helped to produce four astronauts:..." Shouldn't this go under Alumni? Why is this repeated in research and alumni?

• I can see your perspective on this, but the two mentions are a different context. In the research portion, they are related to the discussion of NASA and the Bassett Pulse Laboratory. In the alumnni section, we mention that Harris was the 1st african american in space and Husband won the space medal of honor. If you're hard and fast on this one we can probably rework it a bit.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Some of the pictures seem tangentially related to Texas Tech such as the HIV-1 and Columbia space shuttle. I would rework the captions to integrate them into the article's context or take them out completely.

• The Columbia shot is related for two specific reasons. Rick Husband (alum) was the commander of that ship, and Tech is working on a abort executive program that deals with ascent failures (columbia is in ascent in the photo). Plus, two other NASA projects are mentioned and I can't think of a much better photographic representation of NASA.

• The image used, while dramatic, is somewhat misleading as Husband was not piloting that mission. Perhaps you could use the image specific to his mission? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• If it's a major issue, it could be remedied. But in addition to the fact that the photo in use is superior to the STS-107 photo in wiki commons, the image we've used shows a better shot of the ascent (which is also related to the adjacent text). Ultimately, either shot is the same vehicle doing the same exact thing. The only difference, aesthetically, is the photo quality and the perspective, and thus we've opted for the more attractive version.--Elred (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I expected to read more information about collaborations with other Texas universities (maybe there simply aren't any?) as well as major sports rivalries.

• The sports rivalries, while they exist, are hard to source in any meaningful way. Also, we feel that the athletics section of the page is already pretty long (considering we have an entire page for TTU sports).--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Also, while the universities do collaborate to some degree on various endeavors, I think they are more likely to compete for resources and projects. As a side note, Texas Tech is about 400 miles away from both Texas A&M and University of Texas and 300 miles from Dallas. This may play a role as well. A&M, which itself has a featured article, makes only one anecdotal mention of collaboration with UT on a NASA project.--Elred (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • You mention ABET and ABA accreditation, but what organizations accredit the other university degree programs? What academic organizations does TT belong to?

• SACS. The SACS provides TT's general accreditation. That's mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the Academic profile section, prior to talk of the individual colleges.--Elred (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies, that's my excellent reading comprehension at work. Besides SOCS, are there other University organizations associated with Tech?

• I don't believe so. TTU is not a member of AAU or AASCU or anything similar I'm aware of.--Elred (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • While the divisions between the colleges are described under academic profile, there is no description of the size of the faculty and staff, their reporting relationships to the President, his to the board of trustees. Likewise, there should be some information on the endowment, tuition, and financial aid, undergraduate admission statistics, student body profile, student housing/Greek life, notable or contentious policies. These seem to be significant omissions.

• We could probably stand to add a bit about the Chancellor, Regents, President and the endowment. I think many of these items would qualify as, in your words, "unsurprising/overgeneral information." Specifically, things like housing, tuition, financial aid, would fall into the category of being the same as any other state school in the country. I suppose the question is, do you really think we should go into that much detail (Pell Grants and the capacity/proximity of the dorms)?--Elred (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree about adding some about the chancellor, regents, president and the endowment. Admission stats would probably be a good idea, too. Something on housing could be added to the "Campus" section. It may be hard to add too much since the article is already a bit oversize. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• • While the article as a whole is NPOV, it also seems to be devoid of any mention of controversy. The history tends to give too much emphasis on the naming of the institution while ignoring what must have been contentious issues like racial integration, coeducation, war protests, counterculture, funding disputes with the legislature, contentious faculty departures, controversial student life policies, etc etc etc along the way.

• Several of us have combed the desert (in the Spaceballs sense) and the most contentious item we've found was the name change. I think much of the lack of controversy may be due to the fact that until the 1970s or so, the university was a fairly small regional school. It wasn't ever exactly a hotbed of political unrest. Likewise, the only major funding issue between the university and the state is taking shape currently (in TTUs pursuit of flagship status) and thus it's too recent and unsettled to say much more about. I would like to find info about the co-education and integration stuff though, that is important. My conjecture, having not ever seen evidence, is that TTU was open to female students from its inception. The presence of a school called Home Economics in the beginning, seems to make that implication (and that would explain why there is no mention of an act or controversy related to 'becoming' co-ed.--Elred (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• On further examination, looking at other universities, it appears that the co-education trend generally took place in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. It seems most likely that by TTU's founding in 1923, co-education was a foregone conclusion. This would explain why we cannot find a single shred of information on the subject.--Elred (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Our hunch was correct. I added a very brief mention, along with source, to the article that the college began with both men and women. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies these certainly warrant mention. You should be able to access the articles through a LexisNexus or ProQuest search and quote the appropriate material for the article.

• FACULTY OUSTERS STIR TEXAS TECH; Dismissal of 2 Professors Leads Accreditation Unit to Conduct an Inquiry from 1957 regarding campus outrage and investigation
• Head of Texas Tech Listens--Keeps Order from 1970. Discusses campus protests or lack thereof.
• Southwest Turns Down A Move for Expansion from 1954 regarding TTU's request to expand the conference being rejected. Related articles in other years.

• I added that Texas Tech tried eight times over a period of over 20 years before it was finally admitted to the Southwest Conference. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• PICKS 281 COLLEGES FOR WAR TRAINING; Committee of Army, Navy and WMC Gives Out a List of Approved Institutions from 1943 regarding TTU being selected as a training facility. Begins to plug the hole in the history surrounding WWII which must have affected the college either in declining enrollments during the war or surging enrollments under the GI bill.

• Added a bit about WWII era drop in enrollment and the training of soldiers.--Elred (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Texas Tech Integrates Its Athletic Program from 1963 implying that teams teams were segregated before. Probably not the only thing segregated either.

• Elred added information about integration at the school, the first African American student, etc. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• STUDENT VOTERS TIP TEXAS SCALES; Youths Are Key Factors in Legalizing Liquor Sales from 1972 regarding restrictions on alcoholic beverages.

• This is about all of Texas and not necessarily specific to Texas Tech, and, as we've discussed, it's pretty trivial.--Elred (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While TTU may not be UC-Berkeley as ElRed claims, there are still obviously a multitude of issues that are certainly relevant to this article that have not been included. Do not skirt these contentious issues from the past because they shaped the institution into what it is today they most certainly deserve mention in the article beyond the official boilerplate issued by university publications. These are just stories I came across covered in the NYTimes from before 1980 after a 30 minute search, so rest assured there is plenty more out there. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you found some stuff. My initial peruse of this info, however, has me questioning the real relevance of this information. I feel like many of these issues, while they may have made news at the time, had very little or no long-term affect on the university. As such, digging them up for inclusion in the article seems to be a sort of inverted Wikipedia:Recentism. One issue, for example, is on the hoop-jumping born from the formation of the Southwest Athletic Conference. Ultimately, Texas Tech joined the conference. That issue specifically, if it does warrant inclusion, would be better suited for Tech's athletics article. Another issue is a 1972 vote on the age limit for liquor purchase. This issue comes up about once a year, and I don't think it's news that 18-20 year old college students come out hard in favor of lowering the legal age. In fact, there is national, non-Tech related, news on this topic making rounds right now. ...my sense is that nobody will remember or care about it two years from now. I hope you aren't trying to turn my comment to Wordbuilder about counter-culture's relative importance to different universities (and my mention of UC Berkeley) into some sort of slag fest. That comment, at face value, is both benign and legitimate, and I take the nature of your presentation of that comment in this manner as offensive and antagonistic. Ultimately, while these articles merit examination, I think the fact that the use of Lexis-Nexis is necessary to find 30 year old archived articles, on such things as student interest in alcohol, is pretty indicative of both the dearth of activism activity on campus and the long-term impact of the noted events. I'll leave this to others to interject their opinions on whether or not these items are worthy of mention.--Elred (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• If information on contoversy is required for an article to be featured, then we should include it. I think we can skip the stuff on admission to the SWC, since it's already covered in the football article. The deal with alcohol doesn't sound too imporant but maybe we can squeeze two or three paragraphs of the other. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It certainly wasn't meant to be antagonistic, but to assert that there is nothing contentious or uncontroversial in its past or that these issues are unimportant is simply untrue. All universities should have similar milestones in their history: WWII & GI Bill, integration, coeducation, 60s-70s protests and activism, 70s-80s govt cutbacks, increasing tuition and endowments. You can't wholesale dismiss or discount these as irrelevant on the basis of your own intuition because they were common experiences to so many universities all across the country. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think what I want to clarify is "what makes the controversy relevant." By saying that, I don't mean "why are controversies relevant" but, rather, "how do we judge the relevance or notability?" I'm sure there have been literally 1,000,000 controversies at the university. Every day at Anytown USA University there are controversies like whether or not to include Geology III in the core curriculum of an Energy Commerce degree or "Students for Richard Nixon" passing out t-shirts on the quad. I think the barometer on whether these things warrant mention should be whether or not they had a lasting impact on the university. If a rigid standard is not held here, the entire page could devolve into a litany of petty disputes and flippant student causes of the day. Major war protests, especially in the cases where the National Guard had to intervene, would seam to rate as important (but are not present here). Protests of integration (or early or late acceptance) would be noteworthy as well (but, likewise, appear to be absent). I think adding some info about the university's reaction and state of being during WWII is notable, but it's likely better suited for 'history' than 'controversy' (unless there was some sort of uprising, which is extremely unlikely considering TTU had about 3,000 students at the time). In general, I think the counter-culture experience varies greatly at different universities and in different parts of the country. This was the basis for my reference to Berkeley. An agricultural and technical college in Lubbock, Texas was never a matriculation zone for the counter-culture movement. Surely there were sporadic events, but never so much so that they defined the university's identity (or greatly impacted its direction). That being the case, I think digging for evidence of such events leaves a more inaccurate impression than does a lack of mention.--Elred (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't really think there should be a "Controversies" section. The events should be woven into the history, or other relevant, section. I'd love to find something on integration in addition to the "first black athlete" article. The "free speech zones" policy that was struck down by a federal judge is notable as it has nationwide, and likely long-lasting, repercussions (one source, another source out of many). →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added information about the cotroversy over the free speech zone. I also added that it took eight tries over twenty years before Texas Tech was admitted to the Southwest Conference. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree that there should certainly be a notability standard for including controversies — every issue that ever warranted an editorial or letter-to-the-editor in the student newspaper doesn't warrant inclusion in a WP article. The broad criteria I use for the 2 university articles I edit is whether or not a story was picked up by a national newspaper outside of the university's region in addition to local coverage — if the NYTimes, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, SFChronicle, LATimes, etc are going to take the space and time to report on an issue at a college in Lubbock, Chicago, or Boston, that issue must have some greater inherent significance in the eyes of those editors at that time. It's then the responsibility of the WP community to evaluate the notability of that issue against coverage in other reliable sources for the historical context of both its impact at the particular institution it affects as well as the prevalence of that type of issue across other universities as well. I also wanted to clarify that I do not think that the article needs a standalone controversies section nor that protests are the only benchmark for notability, only that many of the milestones I already sketched out warrant some mention in the history of any American university. It stands to reason that some explanation should be given as to the extent to which those issues did or did not hit home at any given institution. As you rightfully point out, if there were few protests and no counterculture owing to the historically conservative/small/rural/commuter/what-have-you student body, then the latter fact might warrant mention as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I can see some of this being used to fill in some history gaps. On counter-culture, however, it may be hard to reference a lack of activity. Unless we can find articles about events that didn't happen. ;) --Elred (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added a bit about slow growth from inception to WWII-era, some military/ROTC stuff, and the spike in enrollment following the war. ADD: Examination of the yearly enrollment figures seems to augment my previous position to some degree. The university didn't maintain a consistent enrollment of 5,000 until 1952. This, coupled with location would help explain the lack of controversy. As Wordbuilder confirmed, the university was co-ed from the beginning, so that was never an issue. My suspicion on the integration issue now is that, as the issue was making waves around the country, no black students were attempting to (or wanted to) attend Texas Technological College. It would be understandable, as a west Texas ag-school (at the time) probably wouldn't be high on their lists and the number of southern black high school students with plans for college was small. Likely, by the time the university was drawing interest from potential black students, the issue of integration had been run through the ringer nationally for many years. Thus, if the first black student made news, it probably made little more news than mention in the University Daily or the Lubbock Av-Journal (which we still can't find a peep about). --Elred (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I found info on integration, the first black scholarship athlete, and the first black student to receive a doctorate.--Elred (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I often go into university FACs expecting the worst, but I was actually pleasantly surprised with the overall breadth and depth of this article. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. ...and thanks for the quick review.--Elred (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Madcoverboy, thank you for your comments. I have reworked the tornado sentence, including linking to the Lubbock Tornado article, for clarity. I also expanded the captions of the HIV and space shuttle images to connect them with the surrounding prose. I will work to correct the other issues as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• There are several non-free logos used in this article. Would there be a way to replace the mascot logos with free images of the mascot from a game? —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• The rationale behind using the 'logos' is primarily to avoid a "recency" problem. The students playing the role of the mascots changes every year (and sometimes from day to day). Having an actual photo of the man or woman dressed as the Masked Rider "dates" the photo in a sense, instead of evoking the intended symbolism of the mascot. Also, the Masked Rider logo is a very prominent and often displayed symbol of the school's athletic teams. That being the case, it has a significant degree of relevance to the page in its own right. In the case of Raider Red, the character originated in cartoons by Dirk West (as mentioned in the article), so the foam costume is actually a facsimile of his drawing. In a sense, the drawing/cartoon version is the truer representation of Raider Red.--Elred (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, but Wikipedia attempts to use free images whenever possible since fair use rationales are not legal across the world. I'm wondering if the benefits gained from the fair use images outweigh having free images. If this article is ever included in any CD version of Wikipedia, for example, all of the fair use images would have to be taken out. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point on this, and I'd prefer the web version to be the definitive version, those images (the Masked Rider logo and the Red Raider cartoon) are fairly significant. The Masked Rider logo itself ranks as the university's 2nd (or alternate) athletic logo (in addition to representing the mascot) and is often found on caps, t-shirts, banners, buses, etc promoting the university. That logo could been seen somewhere, representing Texas Tech, and a person could theoretically come to wikipedia to identify it. Further, in actuality, the famous "Double-T" is referred to as the "spirit logo" while the "Masked Rider logo" is often referred to as the athletic logo. As for the Raider Red drawing, it is the actual origin of the character. Raider Red existed in that form (cartoon) for decades prior to becoming a foam mascot. It was only after the rules forbidding horses on the field that Red 'became' a costume. I can live without them, but I think the article is best with the logo/cartoon versions.--Elred (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's use them - let's just make sure that their rationales are strong so that their inclusion is beyond dispute. Awadewit (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Here are the rationales that I've attached to each image:

• The Masked Rider logo: The use of this logo on the page is two fold. The Masked Rider logo serves as the alternate athletics logo for the university and symbolizes the Masked Rider (the primary mascot of the university). No image can replace this image as an official representation of the university's athletic department, and no other singular image can both do this AND represent the mascot character.
• The Raider Red cartoon: This cartoon image of Raider Red is one version of the original character drawn by cartoonist Dirk West. West's character, depicted in the image, was later used as the basis for the 'foam costume' Raider Red that attends Texas Tech sporting events. The use of the cartoon image illustrates the origin of the character and its ultimate place as an official university icon. Dirk West's character was, from it's inception, used to represent Texas Tech University, but was only adopted as an official university mascot after a rule forbade live animals (including the Masked Rider's horse) from being on the field in "away" games.--Elred (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:TTU Seal 4C.png - I don't see the logo at the source link.

• Fixed →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Techphilo.jpg - Are we sure the uploader took this photo, that is, that s/he is the author and can release the copyright into the PD?
• Image:TTUamin1923.jpg - I am unconvinced that this non-free image is necessary for the article - the building is not mentioned in the article.

• We have contacted the owner in order to secure proper release, but I agree that it is not vital (short of historical perspective). If the release is not forthcoming shortly the image will be removed.--Elred (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Given the age of the image (published before 1964 or 1978), its copyright may not have been renewed implying it is now in the public domain. See United States copyright law. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• When I corresponded with the owner of the photo (about a year ago) he told me that the photo was taken by his grandfather circa 1923-25. The actual photographer is very likely now deceased and it is also likely that any copyright has now expired.--Elred (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did it ever have a copyright notice? If not, then this would apply and it's PD, not fair-use. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The building is now discussed in the article. So, even though it may actually be PD, fair-use applies if it isn't. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Where was the photo first published? That is the first step to figuring out this mystery. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe it was ever actually published. I believe I found it on flickr or something like that and contacted the owner. If memory serves me, he told me that the photograph was taken by his grandfather and he scanned it. It wasn't ever a "professional" photograph. That is, of course, my understanding. The owner of the photo granted permission via email and provided his info at the time, but he has not yet responded to the email I sent him two days ago. At this point, I'm not willing to go to battle for it by any means. If it needs to go we can do without it until we find an adequate replacement.--Elred (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if I'm making it seem like a battle! Eek! I'm just trying to figure out the right license. If it is unpublished, the author has to have died at least 70 years ago (1938) for it to be in the PD. Did this grandfather die that long ago? Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's ok, I understand the scrutiny is necessary. I really don't know his grandfather's status. I believe I was told that the grandson (who could be anywhere from 25-95 years old as far as I know) found it in an old drawer. Without response from the owner (I still have received no response) we are fairly helpless on this one. If we need to pull it down we can do that. However, I'd rather wait to do that as the "last thing" prior to getting blessed in order to give the guy time to respond. Sometimes having no options is liberating in that you have nothing to worry about. This is one of those times.--Elred (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and replaced the photo in question with one I took myself.--Elred (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• New one looks good. Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just to keep current. We found another photo that is definitely PD, so we're all good here.--Elred (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:TTeng.jpg - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:Rawlscob.jpg - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:Pfluger.jpg - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:TTUSWlibrary.JPG - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:TTcc.png - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:TTUband.jpg - Which image is this a cropped version of?

• This is a cropped version of a photo Wordbuilder took himself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The original image has been moved to Commons and is here. I noted this on the Wikipedia version, which will soon be moved to Commons as well. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The original image description says that Krista Mericle is the author of the image. So, 1) the cropped version should indicate that it is an altered version of Krista Mericle's photo; 2) the original image was uploaded by Wordbuilder, but how can Wordbuilder release the rights to Krista Mericle's photo? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Krista is my wife. If you want a GFDL-release from her for OTRS, I can get this end of it taken care of in a matter of minutes. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• We will have to do OTRS, unless she has an account. You cannot release her copyright for her (we've moved beyond the era where the husband can dispose of his wife's property however he sees fit!). Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• She doesn't have an accout, so I'll have her take care of the release. Also, I'm not "dsiposing of my wife's property" as I see fit. She knows I uploaded the image and is happy to have it used. If I was dishonest and/or interested in taking it as my possession, I would not have included her name. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently I should have added a smiley face - it was a joke! Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Dang it! I wish I had picked up on that. I've had in-text jokes backfire on me, too (which is really bad when it's on the job). Sorry for the misunderstanding. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• My wife submitted an email to Commons' OTRS. The image should be properly registered soon. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• The original image has been entered into OTRS. The image in the article is a merely a cropped version. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Ttsub.jpg - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?
• Image:MRlogo.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.

• Fixed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The source link does not work. A stronger "purpose for use" needs to be included - the recentism argument above is good. See also WP:NFCC - why are there are no free alternatives, for example? Why must this image be included in the article? How does it significantly enhance the reader's understanding? Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• EDIT ...leaving this alone until the discussion plays out--Elred (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Raiderred.png - There is no fair use rationale for the Texas Tech article for this image.

• Fixed. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• The source link does not work, the fair use rationale must link to the Texas Tech article, and must include a strong reason for inclusion in that particular article. Awadewit (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What if, say, we changed the caption of the photograph to read something like: "The Raider Red character as created by artist Dirk West"? You think that would clarify it? ...the source link can be corrected.--Elred (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• EDIT ...leaving this alone until the discussion plays out--Elred (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Texas-Tech-University-logo.png - The source link does not work

• The link is now dead but that was indeed the source. Should we replace the link, even though whatever we choose now won't actually be where the image was retrieved from? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I corrected the link. They just slightly changed where that page is. It's the same page as before, they just moved it into another directory.--Elred (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Techring.png - This has a logo on it, which means it may have to have a fair use rationale. I'll check. Having two logos that are exactly the same in the article that are both fair use would be hard to justify.

• I would think, since this is actually a trimmed down and processed photograph of the actual ring, it would not be subject to this rule. This would be similar to having to use a fair use rationale for the TT logo on a football helmet in a game photograph.--Elred (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• This does have to have a fair use rationale - jewelry holders have a copyright (see here. I don't think we can justify using this image, however, since it so closely resembles the logos. I'm not sure what other information it would convey. Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Double T logo on the ring is, in fact, different from the red and black beveled version (seen elsewhere on the page). Its proportions are slightly different and it does not have any beveling. It is based on a historic version of the logo that is not presented anywhere else on the page. I think that, despite jewelry maker's copyright, the image would qualify as fair use because of its lengthy description in the text. Also, the photograph does illustrate the ring's style in a way that text cannot, and I believe that photographs of class rings are pretty common on wiki university sites. While MIT's site is not a curret FA (but is a getting close) it has an entire article on the MIT class ring. ...and to clear up any other question (as was implied on the talk page link, I am a graphic artist and I made that image using a photograph I took of my own ring.--Elred (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• This image of a ring from a featured article does have a fair-use rational. It also incorporates a partion of the logo used in the infobox (i.e. the star). However, it isn't as prominent as the Double T is on the Texas Tech ring. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• The ring itself is under copyright - the jeweler owns the copyright, so the image would have to be accompanied by a fair use rationale. I can't imagine what that rationale would be - what does the ring offer the reader? Awadewit (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was thinking there was a pretty solid precedent for including class ring photos but, on further review, only Texas A&M University has managed to get away with including one. I'm going to remove it. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are we deleting or not? Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added a strong FUR. Per my conversation with you, I left the decision to Elred, since it was his image. He decided to keep it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I put it back up. I think Wordbuilder's FUR is very strong. Again, if this is something that costs your blessing, it's not worth it to me, but I think it's justified quite well.--Elred (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Wrstatue.jpg - Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?

Please see this dispatch for information on how to correctly tag self-made images. I'm sure these issues can easily be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Will do, thanks. On all images where you've asked "Are we sure the uploader is the author of this photo?" - We are sure :) I took the photos myself.--Elred (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've added the source info. let me know if i've done this incorrectly. i can't ever get my head around that process.--Elred (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Massive improvement! Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. NOTE: I deleted my generic responses to each photo note that indicated I was the photographer for the sake of cleanliness.--Elred (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Image concerns have been met. Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Awesome. Thanks for all your help!--Elred (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Giants2008 (17-14) 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Brief comments - Here are my thoughts on the Athletics section.—This is part of a comment by Giants2008 (of 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

• I see two instances of "from 1932-1956". Someone recently told me that year ranges like this should be "from 1932 to 1956". If not, I'm pretty sure an en dash is required for these. There's also 1987-2008 later.

• thanks. Oddly, I just made those '1932-1956' changes (1930 through 1956) because that was how I interpreted the rule.--Elred (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• FIXED. Replaced all the hyphens with "ndash's."--Elred (talk) 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the appropriate guideline in the Manual of Style. It says that en dashes should not be used in this situation; instead "to" should be placed in the middle. Took me a while to find that. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks bud. FIXED.--Elred (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• We have a page for the 1993 NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Tournament. Why not provide a link to that?

• Done! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hyphen for fifth longest by the football team.

• I don't think that should have a hyphen actually. Judges?--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it should since the two words together create the modifier (much like three-year-old child). →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• you're right!--Elred (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please remove the stand-alone link for March. And the U.S. dollar doesn't need two links in one section. In an article on an American topic, I'm not sure there even needs to be one.

• done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Baseball team: If there are links to NCAA Tournaments before, then how about one for NCAA Division I Baseball Championship?

• added link. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Having June 2, 2008 is no good. Either link everything or nothing in situations like these.

• done. thanks.--Elred (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• "assistant coach, Dan Spencer..." Remove comma.

• Done. Thanks for the help! →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont claim to have caught all problems in this section, but hopefully this will be helpful for you. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It suffers from the usual problem that university articles suffer from, a heavy reliance on the university itself for information. While, yes, self-published sources are allowed, they should be used sparingly.

• We (the nominators) recognized and discussed this. We added as many non-university sources as we were able to locate and only used university sources when we had to. Some things—internal workings, traditions, etc.—while a major part of the subject itself, are not always newsworthy; so it is difficult to find a third-party source. Another thing to consider is, as places of eduction and research, data from a university is more reliable than, say, using the record label as a source for information on a pop star. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here are two featured articles on universities which rely on both university and third-party sources: Ohio Wesleyan University (featured on Wikipedia's Main Page) and Texas A&M University. We endeavored to strike the same balance that those editors did. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• As a supplement to Wordbuilder's comment, Ohio Wesleyan uses its own university sources for over 40% of its references. Texas A&M uses its own websites for over 45% of its references, and that's counting The Battalion (their university newspaper) as a third party. So the TTU article has a higher percentage of 3rd party references than both of these FAs (and these are the only two I've bothered to check).--Elred (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just for reference, we have 138 citations on the page and 99 of them are NOT from Texas Tech (if you count The Daily Toreador's 9 citations as non-TTU). So 72% of our references are not directly from the university. The majority of the citations we've taken directly from the university are for things like traditions and university operations that would be unlikely topics for journalists. I believe we have a relatively high ratio of legitimate 3rd party sources for a university article. In summary, approximately 72% of our references come from third-parties, and the Featured Articles of Ohio Wesleyan and Texas A&M have approximately 60% and 55%, respectively.--Elred (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• This comment is more a general advisory comment, for other reviewers, I put them up when sources are from general encyclopedias, or when most of the sources are online for subjects that logically would have mostly printed sources that aren't being used, or similar situations. It's a heads up to other reviewers to double check the usage of the sources and make sure they are used properly for what are essentially self-published sources. From a cursory look, yes, ya'll are using them pretty well, but given my load at FAC, I don't have time to do a complete read of the article and thus I'm letting other reviewers who are going to read the article know that this area should be checked. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Gotcha. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is it The Southwest Collection or Southwest Collections or Southwest Collections/Special Collections Library? Pick either with or without the the and either italicised or plain text and a wording you can live with and stick with it.

• Fixed (Southewest Collections, non-italics). →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. What is AACSB? SAS? NCAA? Yes, it's linked, but you don't want folks to have to click away from your article to figure things out, they might not return.

• Thanks for the notes. While we can change this, the reference link to AACSB comes from the (fully spelled out) reference to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. SAS (a company name)="SAS was originally an acronym for Statistical Analysis Software but for many years has been used as an arbitrary tradename." ...and NCAA...well it could be spelled out I suppose.--Elred (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. I went ahead and spelled AACSB and NCAA. I didn't do this with SAS since the full version is archaic (much like using "American Telephone & Telegraph" for AT&T). →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18612

• This one actually sources Texas Tech, so I'll find the official TTU source and link that.--Elred (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• FIXED. Now links the official, orginal TTU source.--Elred (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/bio_husband.html

• This one is also backed up by the citation from NASA. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like for this source (www.space.com) to actually be shown to be reliable someday, it's used a lot! But if its backed up with a NASA citation, that works. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.texasoutside.com/lubbock/ranchingheritage.htm

• I added another reference from the official TTU source that echoes the same information. As is the case with most of these, the 'questionable' references we've included are merely 'second or third' sources for this material that we used to supplement the official TTU source (in the attempt to balance or augment the use of Tech's own websites.--Elred (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, they only balance the TTU stuff if they are themselves reliable. If they used TTU as a source, they won't show another viewpoint unless they are in the business of investigating claims, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed this reference altogether. There is a reference from the official site that echoes the same claims, so it wasn't really necessary.--Elred (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.nationalchamps.net/index.htm

• National Champs gets its information from the NCAA and is a member of the Football Writers Association of America.--Elred (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.greatlakeshorsesports.com/pages/polo%20Feb.html

• This was our second-choice as a source. Our original link—to the Tribune Chronicle in Warren, Ohio—went dead and the Internet Archive's server holding the old version has been down for days. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your sources need not have hyperlinks or active webpages. If there are books, articles from regional or national newspapers, scholarly papers in peer-reviewed journals, etc. (look in library databases like LexisNexis, IngentaConnect, etc.), these are generally far more reliable and should certainly be given higher priority for referencing than finding websites with active links. Indeed, Google News, Scholar, and Book searches should be the first places you stop for reliable sources if you don't already have access to university library databases. Top results for a News search reveal a number of lawsuits that reached federal appeals courts, allegations of research misconduct, and other goodies. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. We actually do cite several offline sources (books). Unfortunately, for this particular point, I don't have an offline source. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The questionable reference has been deleted and replaced with an official Texas Tech source. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.sportslogos.net/team.php?id=870

• I deleted this reference. The information on that page was backed up by two other official TTU citations.--Elred (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0247040/bio

• This has been remedied. Reference changed to TV Guide's bio page.--Elred (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would say that none of them are necessarily ironclad sources, but I also believe that most of the information referenced from these pages is corroborated by other citations. In addition, none of the facts cited by these pages is particularly obscure or even remotely in question (IE the alma mater of husband, green, TTU's historical logo, etc.) If you're debating the claims that these sources reference, then I can see trying to examine the reputation of the source. While I wouldn't hold these sites up against USA Today or NASA.com, they aren't blogs or something. ...and, ultimately, there is no reason to believe any information provided on those sites is not accurately (especially when the majority is corroborated within the article by other sources).--Elred (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd replace the imdb for sure. It's not considered reliable for any sort of information past cast lists and awards. Using a biography off it would be very iffy. On the others, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. The IMDB reference has been canned and replaced with a TV Guide bio.--Elred (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Ealdgyth. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The excess markup (bolding "Reply") isn't needed and doesn't aid readability of the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from my responses. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The nominators have put in a great deal of work, and I finished a final polishing of the article. I think it is in good shape now. I never thought I'd be supporting an article on Tech. At least football season starts tomorrow :) Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your help. If we have an Aggie's blessing I know we must have earned it. ;) --Elred (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Capping resolved concerns so as not to scare off future reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments by karanacs. The nominators have done an excellent job beefing up the article, and I feel like it is pretty comprehensive now. I think the article needs one last copyedit for final polishing. I started one, but won't be able to finish until later today. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your feedback and your assistance with final copyedit. I appreciate your help. →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose by karanacs. I think this article is off to a good start but still needs polishing and expansion in some areas.
  • The lead seems quite short to me for an article of this size. There is almost no mention of the history ,of the traditions, notable people, or campus and student life.

• Thanks for the comment on our start. Texas A&M University has a featured article and was used as a sort of template for us (considering it's a fellow Texas public big 12 university with a featured article). Texas Tech article's lead is longer than Texas A&M University's's lead, yet Texas A&M's article is longer than Texas Tech's article. If you're going to hold fast on this standard, I'd be willing to second your call to bring TAMU's article under re-assessment;) (just so you know, the Aggies are rivals to some extent). Here's a link to Texas A&M University in case you haven't seen it before.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was on the team that brought the A&M article to FA, and you are right, it's lead section is pretty lame. I will work on improving that. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Awesome thanks. While we're at it, we might also address the fact that the following articles have leads of similar length or shorter than Texas Tech's: Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Florida Atlantic University, Georgetown University, Michigan State University, Ohio Wesleyan University, University of California, Riverside, and University of Michigan. Look at me, wasting all the time typing those, I should have just said "all of the university Featured Articles have leads of similar or shorter length than Texas Tech's."--Elred (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added a little bit to the lead to include mention of the marching band, student orgins, and brief mention of alumni. All major talking points of the article are now mentioned in the lead except traditions (and I don't think they belong there at all).--Elred (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The lead now is about 6.5% of the article. If this ins't long enough, is there an ideal we should aim for? Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can't tell if you were being facetious there, Elred, but karanacs was one of the main contributors to the Texas A&M University article, which is also the first article that I chipped in on to help get to featured status. →Wordbuilder (talk) 12:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "The call to open a college in West Texas began shortly after the arrival of settlers in the area." - can you provide a year range of when the settlers arrived?

• I think we can.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added 1880s with source. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • " bill was repealed during the next session" - probably worth noting that Texas legislature only meets every other year (many states meet every year). In between these two sessions, was any work done on creating the school? Any information on what type of inaccurate things Ferguson said, and were they intentionally misleading?

• Apparently he falsely reported the selection committee's preference. There are no details, but I think it would be safe to say politics had a hand in it. It doesn't appear that a large scandal was ever pinned on Ferguson's legacy, so there isn't much more detail.--Elred (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe a re-word to say "two years later at the next session." Beyond that, I'm not sure how much of the inner workings of the Texas Legislature need to be explained in this article. Some info on Ferguson's misdeed might be notable.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Any information on why the legislature decided to make a new system rather than a branch?

*I'll look to see if there's anything compelling about this.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Several of the sources we have linked allude to the fact that the people preferred not to have a branch campus, for understandable reasons. Generally, people would rather not have the policy set by authority 400 miles away. Clearly that was the case. Should we add that?--Elred (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok I think I found a graceful fix to this. I changed the wording to say 'a new system would better serve the needs of the region.' Obviously, West Texas wanted to have more input on the school than they would have had it been a branch campus. I think the desire for autonomy, or a sense of ownership, is something that needs little more explanation.--Elred (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The history section has a great many very short paragraphs. Could some of these be combined? (I see this throughout the article, actually.)

• Reduced the "great many" short paragraphs in the history section from 3 to 2. So it's maybe down to a plethora. A&Ms Featured Article has very few (only seven) similarly short, 2-3 sentance paragraphs, in its history section. Wait a minute, you aren't holding us to a different standard are you? :) --Elred (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• That was my first featured article. I plead the fifth on any potential problems with it;) I was also using a different monitor with likely a funky resolution; on my normal monitor, the paragraphs didn't appear that short. Karanacs (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Through some merges I've reduced the number of short sentences even further.--Elred (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Possibly, I'll take a look at it tomorrow.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Single years should not be wikilinked.

• Elred took care of this by unlinking all dates. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Any information on why Connally wanted to merge Tech with the TAMU system?

• Probably worthy of mention.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can find absolutely nothing on this. I'll keep an eye out and, if a source ever presents itself, will add it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Are there any details on the 2020 plan to have enrollment increased?
  • I feel like the article is overemphasizing the four original schools. They are listed in the history section and listed again in the first sentence of colleges and schools. Then, as each school is discussed, the article again points out that it was one of the original schools. To me this is overkill.

• I'll take a look at this tomorrow.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the mention from "Colleges and schools".

• • The Colleges and schools section does not flow well to me.

• You say tomato, and I say tomato, you say potato and I say potato...I guess it doesn't work as well in print.--Elred (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've done some polish work (with the help of others) including some prose beautification and merges that I think should improve this.--Elred (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The article has no information on campus life. What percentage of students live on campus? What kinds of housing is available?

• Added percent who live on campus. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also added some of the different types of student houses, and the requirement that freshman live on campus.--Elred (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • You might want to mention that Tech competes in the South division.

• Good point.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Any info on how many basketball or football players have gone on to play professional sports?

• It's all the in daughter 'athletics' page. It has been left out of this page in an attempt to keep the majority of the focus on the academic side of the university (since there is a page devoted to athletics).--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Zach Thomas and Wes Welker are mentioned in "Notable people". The rest are on daughter pages and/or List of Texas Tech University people. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no mention of any sports rivalry. I would think that the rivalries with A&M and UT would warrant a small mention (there should be a source in the Texas A&M University article).

• It's on the daughter athletics page, but brief mention of UT, OU, OSU, and TAMU would probably be justified. Intricate details of the athletic programs, I believe, is better suited for the athletic page. We've tried to stick to the major points: alignment, coaches, championships, major milestones.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added a brief mention that the Texas A&M Aggies are a rival. As Elred stated, these are covered in a daughter article so I don't think that it makes sense to give them much space in this article considering it is already a bit too long. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Any information on the dimensions of the neon sign, since it was the largest in existence at the time?

• Or we could remove the potentially dubious (though oft-repeated) claim that it was the largest, since it adds very little to the article either way.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• It does say "reputedly" so that gives the idea that it may be hard to prove or disprove the fact. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and it is cited. However, if I can find the dimensions, I will add them. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No mention of the tortilla throwing?

• You knew about that? Heheh. Are you a Big 12 fan or something? I don't know if that's really a tradition, but it might be worthy of a sentence but I think it's better suited for the forthcoming 'traditions' page. I feel like loading down the article with minutia like that is a bit silly, don't you think?--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm an Aggie :) Since Wordbuilder has done such a good job overcoming his bias to help out with the TAMU article, I'm trying to return the favor. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh OK. I couldn't tell if you were or not.--Elred (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Is throwing a tortilla really notable? Some students likely still do it, but it's banned by the school. In an already too-long article, this seems a trivial bit to add. Especially considering how the other additions you encourage will increase its size. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It's something that was fairly visible and was a widespread tradition (I think?). It's the only Tech tradition I knew of (apart from the bit about Will Rogers's derriere) and it surprised me not to see at least a mention. You are more familiar with the traditions though and it is of course up to you to determine what is truly notable there. Karanacs (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I'd also like to see a brief description in the article of what guns up means.

• TAMU's (Texas A&M University) doesn't describe the meaning of its "gig em" hand sign (or even mention it). It's explained on a daughter page, but never on the main page. We plan to make a traditions page with the minutia similar to the one TAMU has, unless you recommend against it, in which case, again I'll second your call for a review. I have always felt like most university traditions very weakly pass the "Pokemon Test."--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Date linking is not consistent. Some full dates are linked, some are not. The MOS is now leaning towards not linking dates, but that's your call.

• I don't like date linking either. My preference would be to remove all date links. If that's acceptable, then let's do it.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Amen to that. It seems like everyone has a different idea on the subject. If they can be unlinked, then I vote we unlink them. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• As of August 23, 2008 and 12:32 PM Central Time, I have removed all wiki date links.--Elred (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• per WP:Accessibility, images need to be inside their section, not above it.

• Can you clarify this, I either don't understand what you mean or I think all the images are in 'their' section.--Elred (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are images placed above second-level headings. Maybe she is referring to those. Some featured articles place left-aligned images below second-level headings, even though the practice is at odds with the MOS. Should we make this article match those? →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• The images are fine where they are. As stated above, moving the images below the second-level headings would separate the headings from the text and clearly violate the MoS. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of work to do on the writing ... These are issues just in the first two paragraphs.

• Ah, my first reaction is that the huge length of this nomination page (and it's only four days old) means that the nomination was premature. I hope this is an investment by the reviewers, then, in skilling up you folks to write more of these articles and to prepare them much better in the future (?).

• The article went through the peer review process and we addressed all matters raised there and many that were not. I believe the length of this nomination is a testament to the nominators' willingness to quickly respond to and address the issues raised by the reviewers, some of which required a bit of conversation. And, in keeping with that, I will begin working to correct your concerns. Thank you for your feedback! →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I measured the length of the article and I can help you decipher that a little bit. About 1'2" of it is about the rights of the photographs we used (I took most of them so it was a minor technical issue). Another 10" of it is about citations, verifiability, sources, etc and all of them have been satisfied. I think what the length should tell you is that, unlike what is very common in the FAC process, we have not merely rounded up a bunch of our pals to come in and quickly bless our article. One of the people participating is even from a school that many consider to be a bitter rival. So I think the length of this discussion is quite positive. Also, we've made a concerted effort to conform to the MoS and the standard that is 'in practice' for university FAs (by constantly comparing the Texas Tech page to the current FAs). If you were to remove everything on this page other than areas where we have not conformed to the MoS and standard for university FA articles, 95% of this page would be deleted.--Elred (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think all of your suggestions have now been satisfied Tony, other than the comments regarding the length of this page. ...and I'd be more than happy to saw some of it off. Thanks for the help. :) --Elred (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Opening sentence: sea of blue, so why not embrace the modern notion of disciplined linking to shepherd the readers towards the high-value links.

Texas Tech University is a public, coeducational, research university located in Lubbock, Texas, U.S.

::''Texas Tech University''' is a [[public university|public]], [[coeducation]]al, [[research]] [[university]] located in [[Lubbock, Texas|Lubbock]], [[Texas]], [[United States|U.S.]]

Since "Public university" is already linked, why "university" as well? "Research" is a common English word, and so is "coeducational" (but isn't co-ed the default? Why not trim this cumbersome list of epithets, presuming co-ed is mentioned further down?); if there were an artilcle "Research university", link, but that's not the case. See WP:CONTEXT on not linking the names of commonly known countries. "Located" is redundant. So we're down to this:

Texas Tech University is a public research university in Lubbock, Texas, U.S.

Much less cluttered and an easier read. You could almost get rid of "U.S.", since it's in the infobox, and who doesn't know where Texas is?

I reworked the sentence. Co-ed is not mentioned later in the article (just that Texas Tech's first class included "both men and women") so I left that in, sans the link. Part of the problem here and in other areas is that we looked to Texas A&M University as an example of what a featured article should be. It was the first article I edited that reached this lofty status and the university is a fellow school in the Big 12 Conference. I'm not making excuses; I'm just saying that it is difficult for editors to know what to expect when coming into a review like this, since they may be held to a higher standard than the featured article used as a model. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the remainder of the article and culled more links. Hopefully those I've chosen to leave are high quality. If you see any that you feel do not belong, correct them or let me know and I'll do it. →Wordbuilder (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• "With 1,839 acres (7.44 km2), it has the second largest contiguous campus in the United States"—The "with" is awkward; try "Its 1,839 acres (7.44 km2) make it the second-largest contiguouscampus in the U.S.". Having abbreviated the name of the country, don't now spell it out. And why not "in the nation"?

• I have to disagree here. The university owns the campus but the campus and the university are not the same thing. It is like the difference between, "Wordbuilder is cool. At a top speed of 150 m.p.h., his car is the fastest on the block", and "Wordbuilder is cool. Its 150 m.p.h. makes it the fastest car on the block." Since "Wordbuilder" is the antecedent in the final sentence, it means I am the car. (By the way, I'm not cool and my car won't go nearly that fast.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The university offers degrees in over 150 courses of study through twelve colleges and houses 60 research centers and institutes." "more than 150" is just a little more elegant; "twelve" yet "60"? See MOSNUM. "Houses"—"comprises" might be better.

• Agreed. WB took care of that.--Elred (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good point on the 'more than' use. I prefer it as well. Sometimes when you read an article 100 times you become conditioned to overlook points like that. That's why the FAC process usually results in an improved product, even when it's painful. That's also why I think the depth of this FAC candidacy will likely result in a raising of the bar for featured university articles.--Elred (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Prominent research projects at the university include epidemiology, pulsed power, grid computing, nanophotonics, and wind energy."—"involve the areas of". Tony (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Reworded it to include 'areas of.'--Elred (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Another spot-check in part of a section indicates that the whole text hasn't been properly massaged.

Thank you for your feedback. You bring up some good points and Elred has addressed those. However, some of what you point out is simply your opinion. For instance, do you have a source for the idea that the word "instructs" is "a little old-fashioned"? And advising us to remove the apostrophes from "bachelor's" and "master's" is personal preference at best or incorrect at worst. See the master's degree article and take a look at how U.S. News renders it here. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Over the years, the university's original four schools have been expanded and supplemented to become the ten colleges and two schools that make up the current academic organization." See MoS on vague chronological items: can you say "since the 1950s", or "over the past four decades", or some such? "Today"—will this always be the case? Why not "as of 2008"?
• "bachelor's, master's"—usually without the apostrophe, I'm sure.
• "Prior to being named for benefactor Jerry S. Rawls"-->"Before its renaming after benefactor Jerry S. Rawls". And anyway, the whole sentence twists and winds: "Prior to being named for benefactor Jerry S. Rawls in 2000, the college was known as The Division of Commerce from its foundation in 1942 until it was renamed The College of Business Administration in 1956." I'm dizzy.
• "instructs future teachers"—a little old-fashioned, like clients instructing their attorney; try "trains".
• "The Graduate School, officially organized in 1954, oversees all graduate programs offered at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and branch campuses." "organized" is very odd. "established"? "at the L and branch campuses"?

• Do you really think saying "Before its renaming after benefactor Jerry S. Rawls" makes the sentence more easily digestible? Our objective here isn't to titillate the reader with witty or ironic sentence structure. I may be able to come up with a better solution. I'll take a look at it.
• The apostrophe issue has been run through the ringer, and we opted for the apostrophes with good reason (please double check your 'sureness'). *I originally occupied your position in that debate.
• I agree with you on the fact that "in Lubbock and branch campuses" should be removed from that sentence. It's redundant as well as unwieldy. Consider that gone.
• I do not like "over the years." Consider that gone.
• I prefer "established" to "organized" as well. Done.
• These are all, quite obviously, extremely subjective comments that you've made here, Tony. ...but I do happen to agree with some of them, and I appreciate your feedback.--Elred (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments regarding images:
  • Image:Texas Tech Adminstration Building 1923.jpg - what is "Daniel Studios"? Did this come from one of its publications, its website, etc.? WP:IUP requires a verifable source; this is not sufficiently specific to facilitate verification.
    • "Daniel Studios" was noted on the original image. However, no copyright was claimed and it was created in 1925. The image is a scan of a photo. Elred provided it to me to upload. He can probably provide more details. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:TTEngineering.jpg - this image does not have a copyright tag (!)
    • I'm confused. Why would it need a copyright tag? Elred released it in the PD. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Raiderred.png - does not have a rationale for this article (WP:NFCC#10C)
    • Good catch. We'll get that taken care of. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image:Techring.png - does not have an appropriate copyright tag. This image is not PD, as the ring is eligible for copyright protection. A non-free tag is needed. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! We've been working to get that one labeled properly. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Daniel Studios was a photography studio in Lubbock during the 1920's that published the photo as a souvenier-type shot (most likely distributed by the university itself).
• TTEngineering.jpg now has the proper license tag (I just fixed it WB so you might have not seen it). Elcobbola was right.
• Techring.png was not correctly tagged, you are right and I have attached the proper copyright tag. WB, I think you looked at this just after I fixed it. Thanks elcob.
• Thanks for your help!--Elred (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the point on "Daniel Studios" might have been missed. Just saying "Daniel Studios" doesn't help us to verify the copyright status. How and/or where can I verify that this image was first published in 1925 and was done so without a copyright notice? What book can I check out that would tell me this? What website could I visit? Where did this version of the image come from (I don't think a 1920s organization was digitizing many images)? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Daniel Studio" is listed as a reference at Texas Tech's SW Collection Library. The long closed studio likely contributed images of the campus to the collection, and some of them were copied and sold as souveniers. Here is a link to the page where it is referenced http://www.swco.ttu.edu/Reference/Collections/ReferenceList/Pages/reflubb.htm . Unfortunately, that's the only place on the internet where mention of the studio can be found (per my search). A man found this photo in a drawer of an old relative, scanned it, and sent it to me.--Elred (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• So how do we know it was published in 1925? Simply taking a photo is not publication. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I understand. Hold on a second I've almost found it.--Elred (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's discuss the principle here, without discussing the specific photo we've used (in order to see if it's worth my digging). I found a series of photos by Daniel Studio (here's one http://swco.ttu.edu/Digital_Collections/HeritageClub/col/watermarked/C473-1.jpg) that are hosted on TTU's own website and dated 1925. I believe the writing on the photo and date, was intended to serve as a copyright (I may be wrong). What do you think? (The original version of the photo we've used has similar writing on it, it has just been cleaned off). Thanks for your expertise. --Elred (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• For something like this, is simply putting your name on it considered a copyright notice? I know that by taking a photo, you own it. However, I'm trying to figure out if this one is properly tagged (i.e. published between 1923 and 1977 without copyright notice.). →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I found the actual image (http://swco.ttu.edu/Digital_Collections/LubbockPictorial/col/watermarked/432.jpg). Oddly, they've inadvertently uploaded a reversed (mirror) image of if. You can see the Daniel Studio writing on the left (backward).--Elred (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing elcobb, do you know what " -5- " signifies when written on an image? For some reason I'm thinking that was an old way to write 'copyright.' ...but I may be punch drunk. :)--Elred (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Or, perhaps it just indicates the fifth image in a set? →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) Here's another possibly useful bit of information. "This is an artificial collection of photographs of people, buildings, and events in Lubbock, Texas (1880-1950). These photographs were collected for the publication of A Pictorial History of Lubbock, Texas, 1880-1950, a project that was underwritten by the Lubbock County Historical Commission in 1976. After publication, the photographs, negatives, and slides were donated to the Southwest Collection archive." This indicates that our image, at the very latest was published in 1976.--Elred (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, my comments weren't "extremely subjective" in the least. I'll withdraw the oppose, but please fix "14 acres (0.057 km2) site"; "14-acre (? ha) site". (Can you strike it out for me? I just can't locate it in the edit box.) Tony (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed that conversion to be correct now. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Tony. It read correctly before the conversion template and we missed the added "s" after the change. Thank you for fixing it, Karanacs. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Is using the term "African-American" really the preferred method in wikipedia? Obviously there are instances where it's appropriate, but it seems like it favors political correctness over accuracy. For example, when TTU integrated, the act of admitting the first black student is NOT the same thing as admitting the first African-American student. Likewise, Bernard Harris being the first black man to walk in space is a greater accomplishment than being the first African-American to walk in space. I feel like using African-American to describe 'firsts' is really 'americocentric,' and it sounds a bit brainwashed to me. It's kinda like going to on safari in Africa and referring to the natives as African-Americans.--Elred (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• You struck it but I'll respond since I made the changes. I changed it to African-American in a couple of instances just to mix it up (keep from using "black" three times together). I may have been mistaken, though, if any of the individuals were black but not Americans. If that's the case, please fix or let me know. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I saw that you left one use of 'black' and figured you had just made the change in order to avoid repetition. That's why I struck my comment. The paragraph looks better now. It's not that big of a deal to me, but I hate political correctness and especially when it clouds the truth. While all of the black people we're talking about in this article were African-Americans, they were also the first black people of any nationality/origin to accomplish the things they accomplished. So, in this case, there could still be some ambiguity. Did an African-Englishman enroll at the university in 1951, was there a Caucasian South African transfer-student?  ;) --Elred (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support - some things:

• I didn't see the US News ranking of the school or admissions information. Did I miss them?

• TTU is rated third-tier by USNWR and does not have a numeric ranking. I'll add a line about third-tier.--Elred (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Added, and added a bit about the "selective" admission policy.--Elred (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are also two satellite campuses in Europe, located in Quedlinburg, Germany and Seville, Spain. Source says they serve as, not are.

• While they are serving as satellite campuses they are satellite campuses.--Elred (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think this is a matter of semantics. The source reads, "Two international Texas Tech centers – one in Seville, Spain and another in Quedlinburg, Germany – offer students the opportunity to take Texas Tech catalog classes and receive direct TTU credit since the centers serve as satellite campuses." They are Texas Tech centers and not owned by someone else, so I don't see a difference. In fact, isn't the land in Lubbock only serving as Tech's campus? There was a time when it served other purposes and, if they ever decide to divest it, it will serve a different purpose again. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Princeton Review ranked Texas Tech as one of the best colleges in the Western United States in its 2009 edition.[44][45] Needs to be qualified. The source says "Tech is one of 632 schools on the list and one of 117 standouts in the western region".

• We do not claim that the university is one of the best colleges in the Western United States, but rather that Princeton Review ranked it as such. I think the line is pretty clear. I don't think that every time any university mentions a ranking by a various publication that they need to explain the sorting criteria that the publication used.--Elred (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I reworded slightly to say "among 117 best..."--Elred (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Today, the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources ranks among the 30 largest schools of agriculture in the country.[52] Today is not encyclopedic. Largest how, students, professors, buildings?

• Changed 'today' to 'in 2008.'--Elred (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Added "by enrollment" to clarify. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Once the school of Home Economics... Capitalize school as part of a title?

• I uncap'd Home Economics. I don't believe that was ever a formal name, or intended to be implied as such in that sentence.--Elred (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think it should be capped. "School of Home Economics" was the formal name. See this for example. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're right. I'm away until tomorrow. I trust you'll take care of it. ;) --Elred (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Rawls College of Business, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accredited business school, Is it THE only one?

• I reworded this to remove ambiguity.--Elred (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Situated on 1,839 acres (7.44 km2), Texas Tech has the second largest contiguous university campus in the United States. Can you explain this to me? Of public schools?

• Of universities in the United States. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The campus, which boasts Spanish Renaissance architecture, was described by American author James Michener as the "most beautiful west of the Mississippi until you get to Stanford". Source for Spanish Renaissance?

• There's one now, along with a bit of additional information. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• This arrangement makes it the only institution in Texas, and one of the few worldwide, to have all three units (undergraduate institution, law school, and medical school) on the same campus. Source?

• Removed worldwide claim. Added source for only one in Texas. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The collection features art from prominent artists, such as Tom Otterness and Glenna Goodacre. Source for prominent?

• Removed "prominent". →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Among the most notable of these are the Southwest Collection/Special Collections Library and the Vietnam Archive, one of the world's largest and most comprehensive collections of information on the Vietnam War.[96] Source says largest in the nation.

• Changed to largest in nation. →Wordbuilder (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• On August 17, 2007, the Texas Tech Vietnam Center became the first U.S. institution to sign a formalized exchange agreement with the State Records and Archives Department of Vietnam. First in the U.S. is a big claim. Do you have a better source than a school newspaper?

• Added an additional source for this claim. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• There are over 390 student clubs and organizations at Texas Tech. Source?
• Many students participate in Greek Life. How many? This sentence doesn't provide much information.
• Of its varsity sports, Texas Tech has had its greatest success in women's basketball. Source?

• The womens team has won a national championship. It's mentioned and sourced. A reword might be appropriate though.--Elred (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Jones AT&T Stadium serves as home to the Red Raiders football team. The stadium, named for Clifford B. and Audrey Jones, opened in 1947. Is it not named for ATT as well?

• Yes. Info added and sourced.--Elred (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Today the Masked Rider, with guns up, leads the team onto the field for all home games. This mascot, adorned in a distinctive gaucho hat like the ones worn by members of the marching band, is one of the most visible figures at Texas Tech. Is there anyone more significant than the band who has worn the hat? Some outside point of reference for people who are unfamiliar with it.

• Not that has any relevance to Texas Tech University. We have gaucho wikilinked.--Elred (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Though the Masked Rider's identity is public knowledge, it has always been tradition that Raider Red's student alter ego is kept secret until the end of his or her tenure. Source?

• Sourced.--Elred (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Official Texas Tech YouTube Channel link should be removed.

• Why? →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't very encyclopedic. KnightLago (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? If it was just a YouTube link to something put together by an individual, I would agree. But the link is to an official YouTube channel put together and managed by Texas Tech. (Sorry if I seem combative. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed all the notable people section was positive. Any controversial alumni?

• Is that a requirement (i.e. something that all university featured articles include)? →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requirement, there is always NPOV; you should include a range of notable people, not just the ones who shed the most positive light on the school. KnightLago (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Can you give me an example of what you have in mind for this? We don't have any famous pornstars like Florida Atlantic University ;).--Elred (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think you are doing Florida Atlantic a disservice by mentioning Mary Carey in that article and I don't think she qualifies as notable. By that criteria, any unsavory character could enroll in a university and suddenly rate mention on that university's front page. Say Milli Vanilli took a cooking class at UCLA, would he warrant mention in UCLA's article just because his name has been in print? If we could source Hinckley, that might be note-worthy, but I've never seen confirmation of his enrollment, only a rumor.--Elred (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a source for Hinckley. Still, all those in that section are graduates. If we place Hinckley there, then we could add Dixie Chick's lead Natalie Maines since she took a single summer class at Tech. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I added a line about Hinckley. I don't think Maines belongs simply because she only took one class at the university AND I certainly don't think she's done anything to be ashamed of. Bluntly, the fact that she said that she's 'embarassed that Bush is from Texas' makes me want to give her a pat on the back. She certainly doesn't belong in the paragraph with Hinckley. She doesn't belong among the other actors/musicians who are grads (except Denver who is an icon). ...and she doesn't warrant a paragraph all to herself (since she took one class at TTU).--Elred (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you half missed my point about Maines. Because she only took a single class, I don't think she belongs. Likewise, since Hinckley was only an on-and-off student, I'm not sure he should have been included there either. (Honestly, I completely forgot about the Bush comment.) I think we're reaching in order to included a less-than-savory character in the section. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind Hinckley being mentioned. On further research, it looks like he was randomly enrolling in classes for the majority of the 1970s. ...and what he did had worldwide implications. I know you were just using Maines as an example. Maines is a notable musician, but whether or not she's controversial depends on a person's POV politics. If she was a TTU grad, or even had spent several years at the school, I'd think she was worthy of mention (purely for her role in the Dixie Chicks).--Elred (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So, yes, all university featured articles do this? I haven't checked but will. The only controversial standout that comes to mind is John Hinckley, Jr., who was an occasional student but not a graduate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• The first Will Rogers and Soapsuds paragraph is almost verbatim from here.

KnightLago (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good catch. Reworded the entire paragraph.--Elred (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good gracious. I would like to know who put in plagiarized material... Well, not enough to sift through the long article history. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the talk page archive, just out of curiosity what happened with the accreditation? KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The paperwork arrived, as I recall, three days after the deadline. Pretty minor. I don't think it would stand the recentism test. No one is going to care about it next January, much less in ten years. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fresh eyes and the copy-editing work KnightLago. I'll be out of pocket until tomorrow, but I'm sure Wordbuilder will be happy to get the rest of your notes addressed. :) --Elred (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• looks like you're all set, KnightLago. Thanks for your help.--Elred (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work. KnightLago (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, KnightLago, for your comments and your support. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note on images, the image layout breaches WP:ACCESSIBILITY (from the Mascots section onward). Images should be within the section, not above it. Since they are left-aligned images, I can't juggle them myself; nominators will have to sort. This sort of layout is very difficult on readers with disabilities, who use screen readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is it permissible to place the images below the second-level headers as is done in other featured articles? →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I have a solution. Gimme a minute. My idea didn't work so well. I tried to add one more image to the athletics area in order to flip the sequence, but it caused some sandwiching. I think our options are a) put the images below the second-level headings b) right-align them or c) leave them alone. I think all three options violate the MoS in some way. SandyGeorgia, which option do you think is the lesser offense?--Elred (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• See if you approve of my changes. IMNSHO, accessibility to readers with disabilities trumps the right-left juggle requirement, with eyes not looking off the text in between those two. It's not crucial that an image exactly align with the text it discusses; it can be within the section. I believe everything complies after my adjustments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• It seems fine. I may want to tweak things a little bit, but it's important that we are in compliance first. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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