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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

[edit] Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This article has undergone substantial changes which have remained stable since the last FAC attempt a year ago. Issues in previous FAC review have been addressed: NPOV & boosterism issues are in line with those present in other university FAs, images all have appropriate tags, and there are extensive citations. Article has already been subject to a RFF and peer review. I believe this is an exemplary article and I look forward to your feedback.Madcoverboy 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have been unable to add this FAC to the FAC project page because it claims that it is a blacklisted site "turkish weekly." I have left a message on both the FAC talk and would appreciate any help in resolving the matter.Madcoverboy 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Resolved! Gzkn 11:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to FA status. I'm an MIT alumnus, Class of '71, but as a WP editor I have to point out that this article is far from a NPOV. It is full of boosterism, and exposes little of the legitimate criticism of MIT and it's many problems. It is also clearly written by recent alumni, who have not read the published off-web secondary souces, that is, it has significant errors in fact about MIT. Lentower 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Response Are there specific examples of NPOV/boosterism issues rather than issuing blanket "NPOV" statements? Moreover, consider NPOV/boosterism issues in light of the condition of other university FAs (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, Duke University). A featured article is not a perfect article. If these other university articles meet the standard for FA, then the same standard should be applied to MIT's article. These articles contain as much, if not more, of the same type of boosterism present in MIT's article, hence my opening statement that it is "in line with those present in other university FAs" not that boosterism is altogether absent in MIT's article.
  • What other "legitimate" criticisms of MIT exist and how are the current ones described in the article (minority/women representation, military research, freedom of speech, research misconduct, suicide) either insufficient or illegitimate?
  • What specific "significant errors" exist in the article? Moreover, how does mine of any other editors' status as student, alumnus, or independent collaborator bear on the assessment of the merits of the article (WP:CIV)?Madcoverboy 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to FA status, for the same reasons as Lentower: There are too many places where the beaver is slapping its cardinal-and-grey tail in the reader's face. Details in bullet list: Dpbsmith (talk), MIT '66, 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Research accomplishments is a good case in point, failing to distinguished between genuine MIT institutional strengths and individual celebrities. The section is plastered with enough weasel-words ("thus-and-such were developed in part at MIT") to avoid outright untruth. I took some nibbles at fixing this; at one time it made the astonishing claim that "In electronics, transistors, [long additional list] were invented or substantially developed by MIT researchers," apparently based on the syllogism that 1) Shockley received an MIT doctorate in 1936 2) Brattain (Whitman College, University of Oregon, University of Minnesota alumnus) Bardeen (University of Wisconsin alumnus) and Shockley developed the transistor at Bell Labs in 1946; ergo, transistors were "invented by an MIT researcher." After digging into it some more, I threw up my hands; there's no way to fix this section but blow it away and start over.
  • The Noted alumni section is bloated. I'm inclined to think college articles shouldn't have noted alumni sections in them, cordoning off that listcruft into a separate article, because no article has ever managed to construct a stable list of the truly household-word names. These sections attract drive-by additions of people's personal faves, and there is never any way to establish an eminence threshold that well-enough defined for different editors to agree on whether or not it has been achieved.
  • The billboard of corporate advertising is embarrassing The fact that some of the most prominent companies are deceased suggests resting on past laurels. Tyco, engulfed in scandal, hardly seems like an ornament to MIT. And what is Hewlett-Packard, the iconic West Coast garage startup, founded by Stanford guys, doing there? Carly Fiorina didn't found it.
    • Comment NPOV should preclude one from selectively choosing among the companies. Hewlett received his MS from MIT.Madcoverboy 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Associating Hewlett-Packard with MIT is a reach. It ain't exactly a Route 128 company. You might as well put an Eddie Murphy Dr. Dolittle movie poster in; the connection with MIT is at least as close. I think anyone who put a Microsoft logo into the Harvard article would get laughed at. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The rankings section is far too long. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To end on a positive note, the images of the MIT campus are absolutely gorgeous. Dpbsmith (talk), MIT '66, 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object not comprehensive, POV issues. The article was almost certainly written by a current undergrad or recent alum, and reflects that perspective; historical and wider-society controversies are skimmed over or missing in favor of unnecessarily specific details on undergraduate life. "Controversies" section in particular has a very weird selection from among the many possibilities. Some of the student-life stuff is also just rather awkwardly covered; MIT hacks are much better-known and more interesting among the general population that the fact that chemistry is course 5. "Notable alumni" section badly needs a trim, like all such sections - points about inappropriate company mentions above are also worth noting (seriously, HP?). The "research accomplishments" section reads like a previously bulleted list that was "prosified" by removing the bullets. (I don't think the rankings section is as bad as suggested above.) On the upside, the pictures are excellent and the referencing is solid. Opabinia regalis 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - overall, this is a good article. Comprehensive, nice images, and it is generally well-written. Here are my issues:
  • Y Done I ran Gimmetrow's ref fixer, and found no misplaced reference marks. There is a misconception that ref marks can never be used within a sentence: that is a misreading of WP:FN. There are times when it is appropriate to reference a statement, phrase, or word within a sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I can see how I misread it since it is somewhat unclear. I interpreted, "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation," to mean that it must come after at least a comma, but I guess that sentence just served to mean that they should not go before the punctuation. -Bluedog423Talk 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're not the first - we need to figure out how to re-word that part of WP:FN, which is unclear and misleading. Of course, we would never find a mistake in a Wikipedia guideline or policy page, would we?  :0) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 2.) Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
  • 3.) External links within the article are generally seen as bad practice as I understand it.
  • 4.) "Further reading" should come after "References"
  • 5.) Don't link years unless they are truly significant. Common practice on most FA's is to not link them, unless an exact date is given. See also Only make links that are relevant to the context
    • Mostly done There could still be some hiding somewhere!Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 6.) The "Initiatives" section is so short; I don't know if it warrants its own section.
    • Response I moved this from "History" to "Faculty & Research", but I do not know if the new context is enough... Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 7.) There are too many details about the numbering of majors and courses. This is not one of the most important aspects of MIT. This could be included in a subarticle, if you want.
    • Y Done I shortened this up somewhat and moved some of the cruft on pronunciation to the student culture sub-page. It may need to be shortened up yet more.Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 8.) Organization section is way too list-heavy. This should either be converted to prose or shortened significantly. External links, again, are not good practice.
  • 9.) The pictures are nice, but they don't always refer to things that are in the text beside it. This is okay in some circumstances (although it should try to be avoided), but the caption should provide background as to what it is if its not mentioned in the text. For example, "Entrance on 77 Massachusetts Avenue" tells us very little. Is this an administrative building? What is there? "The interior of Lobby 7." What is Lobby 7 and why is it important?
  • 10.) Please copyedit the text. There are some extraneous commas and some are missing, although this is not a major issue.
  • 11.) The layout of pictures under organization is not aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. Although this is a personal issue, so it could be easily disputed.
  • 12.) Approximate numbers (such as grad and undergrad numbers) should be replaced with exact numbers since these are readily available.
    • Response As the numbers fluctuate year to year, the "approximate numbers" are meant to convey the scale of graduate vs. undergraduate education. The exact numbers are in the info box at the top.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 13.) Image:Harvard-MIT-coop.png does not have a fair use rationale, and I don't think it would even qualify as fair use for this article.
  • 14.) Some sections don't flow that well. For example, "Collaborations" seems a bit choppy at times.
  • 15.) A ranking from 1995 under the rankings? That's a bit old, don't you think?
    • Response. This was discussed on talk and given the (ostensible) neutrality of the source - The National Resource Council - it has remained in. Resting on laurels? Perhaps. NPOV? More than the rest of the rankings.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 16.) Don't start sentences with numerals. For example, "64 current faculty" should read "Sixty-four faculty."
  • 17.) Image:MIT companies.png definitely does not fall under fair use and should be deleted.
    • Y Done Removed from the page. Will nominate for deletion later.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 18.) Be consistent on spelling out numbers. Numbers under 10 should definitely be spelled out, and above ten is up to you, but be consistent throughout the article. The article uses numerals in the "Faculty and Research" section, while spelling out numbers in the "Notable Alumni" first paragraph, for example.
    • Y Done Numerals now in "Notable Alumni".Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 19.) The gallery at the bottom of "Notable Alumni" is quite ugly. Should at least be centered and without a border, preferably.
    • Y Done Deleted. Pictures moved to body. Formatting needed to prevent picture from running over into References.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 20.) Image:MITengineerslogo.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
    • Y Done My hack at a fair use rationale, but I'm no lawyer.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 21.) I'm not the biggest fan of the ordering of the sections. In my opinion, the order should be: "History," "Organization," "Campus," "Academics," "Faculty and Research," "Culture and Student Life," "Noted Alumni," "References," "Further Reading," "External Links." This is consistent generally with the order established by WikiProject_Universities. "Academics" could come before "Campus" if you really want.

Generally, this is a really good article, and I think it could pass as a FA with not that much more time invested. In regards to boosterism, I don't think it's that bad at all. MIT is a great institution, and neglecting to mention its prestigious reputation and the achievements of its faculty and students would be shortchanging it. The article needs to accurately portray the university for those who are completely unfamiliar with it (yes, there are some people in the world who have not heard of MIT, see State the obvious). Hence, illustrating the numerous accomplishments from MIT's faculty and students is important. Stating that MIT has a fantastic reputation in science and engineering is also very important, in my opinion. Obviously, including some criticisms are appropriate if there have been some major complaints or controversies throughout its history. But adding minor criticisms that have no real evidence just for the sake of maintaining "NPOV" is stupid. A thorough copyedit of the prose by somebody unfamiliar with the text also wouldn't hurt. -Bluedog423Talk 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose per incomplete citations, external links to unnecessary websites (video, subpages of MIT webpage, etc.), over-promoted alumni section (why can't you create a list article for that?), ext. links in the main article & some POV issues. Not good enough as an encylopaedic article, but rather a promotional booklet. — Indon (reply) — 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Response Alumni section cut down. I don't understand how any of the "subpages of MIT webpage" are unnecessary, or what these subpages even are - the pages under "External Links" are completely different organizations whose sites are just hosted under the same domain. What specific topics/subjects make it un-encylopaedic? Madcoverboy 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Answers
  1. Re. external links. Subject is about MIT as an insitution, right? Ext. link to the official webpage (the main page) is okay, but not other subpages. Read again what wikipedia is not (WP is not a mirror). Are you going to replace the MIT website with this article?
  2. One more iritating ext. link is 'Everything I learned at MIT' that goes to a personal homepage. So what does make this person so special? Why not the other MIT students/alumnis website?
  3. And this link: The Vega Science Trust, freeview video of scientists including Mildred Dresslehaus and other MIT scientists. → goes to other university (??) What are you pointing readers to?
  4. Most importantly is the abundance of ext. links farm in the main text. The article is full of external link spammings.
  5. The Brass rat section is un-encyclopaedic topics for the subject, all statements in the Research accomplishments section are un-encyclopaedic unsourced statements and the Current initiatives section is brochure-like un-encyclopaedic section. Do you need other examples?
— Indon (reply) — 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, incomplete referencing, and external jumps in the text - those should be converted to referenced statements, or Wikified. References like ^ Quotes and Stories about Building 20 are incomplete, so we don't know the strength/reliability of your sources without clicking on each link. We also don't know how many of the cites are to MIT sources. Who published those quotes and stories? Is there an author and a publication date? You provide no last access date on many websources. You don't need to use them, but the cite templates give you an idea of the kind of info you should supply on sources. For a school example on references, have a look at the work underway on Ohio Wesleyan University (not sure if all of its refs are OK yet, but it's getting there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most of the reasons above, I agree with. no need to reiterate them here and be an echo. —ExplorerCDT 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.