Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Texas at Dallas/archive1

University of Texas at Dallas edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am not exactly sure what direction this page should go. The University is so young that I don't feel like spinning off some of the material is appropriate. However, thanks to some extensive editing by Stan9999, the page seems to have a new sense of professionalism.

Thanks for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved automatic peer review to UTD talk page. Oldag07 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few preliminary thoughts. The text could use some polishing. One example, "While the school initially awarded only graduate degrees, the school opened up to upper level undergraduates in 1974 and freshmen in 1990." The second "the school" could be replaced with "it." I'm not fond of "opened up" here either. Later in the lead, "powerhouse chess team" is a bit peacock. There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs in the Rankings subsection. Also, the lists need to be converted into flowing prose.

There is a lot of content to the article and many good citations. I think with a few dedicated editors and a bit of effort, it can get where you want it to be. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I admittedly put a few of those peacock terms in myself. I will get on it sometime this weekend. Oldag07 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this gets more feedback. I think articles would have an easier time getting through the GA and FA process if editors would give more advise ahead of time. Let me know when you'd like me to take another look. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor said she might give it a look sometime soon. Appreciate the review. Oldag07 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I saw that the PR bot closed this without much feedback, so here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC or GAN. While it is clear al ot of work has gone into this, I think that more work will be needed to pass GAN.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education has several FAs on universities that seem like they would good models, including Texas Tech University and Texas A&M University
The article needs to follow the WP:MOS more closely - just in the lead there is a registered trademark symbol and the use of titles (Dr.) both in ways that do not follow the MOS. I am not saying that it is not a trademark, or that the persons in question do not have their doctorates, but the MOS says not to use these. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles.
The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but the names of the National Academy members and Mobel laureate are only in the lead, for example.
To make sure it is a full summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
The article has four WP:FAIR USE images - the seal, athletic logo, and two general logos. I am not sure the two logos meet WP:NFCC - how does it increase the reader's understanding of the subject to see both (they seem pretty similar to me)?
Could more free images of the university be taken and added to the article?
Even though this is a fairly new institution, the History section seems very short. Comprehenisveness is a FA criterion
There are a few places without refs that need them, for example UTD offers a distinguished season of musical, theatrical and visual arts events. The independent movie Primer was partially filmed at the University of Texas at Dallas in 2004 by Shane Carruth. The film went on to win the Grand Jury and the Alfred P. Sloan awards at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival.
Most of the references are to things from the university itself - while some use of such primary sources is OK and unavoidable to some extent, I would add as many independent third-party sources as possible. See WP:V and WP:RS
Some of the references are incomplete and need more information. For example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that b reak up the flow reading it. To make it less choppy, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]