Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas A&M 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 18:03, 4 June 2007.

[edit] Texas A&M University

Self nomination: This article has met the criteria for a featured article. It is currently a Good Article and has gone through quite an upgrade to prepare for FA status. It is well-documented and NPOV. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support- But the article doesn't follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style otherwise It is very good. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Are there particular portions of the Manual of Style that you feel aren't being followed? We are certainly intending to follow the MOS. We will be happy to fix problems, but we need more guidance and what the problem might be. Thanks. Karanacs 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) mentioned on my talk page that the issue was that the measurements weren't wikilinked. I have now included wikilinks for the first instance of each conversion set. Karanacs 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question: According to the College Board, the 2010 entering freshman class consisted of 46% students in the top 10% of t... 2010 - is date correct? Gnangarra 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply - I did a double take when I read this as well. However, when I reread, I realized that the "2010 entering freshman" are the freshman of the class of 2010 or those who enrolled in 2006. --Wordbuilder 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I did reword the sentence for increased clarity. Now it reads "the freshman of the Class of 2010" Karanacs 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Its still poor prose the entering freshmen of the class of 2010 consisted of how can date in the future be referred to in the past tense? My understanding is that freshmen are in their first year. Also please dont strike or alter my questions I'll respond when I'm happy with the result. Gnangarra 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. The date in the future is not being referred to in the past tense; the freshmen are. Taking out the prepositional phrases, it reads, "... the entering freshmen consisted of..." The "class of 2010" is a title carried by that class. --Wordbuilder 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Still doesnt make any sense the article Freshman defines it as being a person in their first year, which is consistant with what I understood the term to mean. Once you substitute this for freshman it becomes "the entering first year class of 2010 consisted of..." the last time I checked the calender it was still 2007 hence the future date being refered to in the past tense with "consisted of...". Gnangarra 08:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
            • The "2010" is the graduation year for the undergraduate students who enroll in 2006. Earning an undergraduate degree at a university usually takes four years, hence the "2010". Though some students complete their studies earlier or even later, they are still considered a part of the class of (enrollment year + 4 years). However, I can see how the year is confusing. I'll change it to The fall 2006 entering freshman class... to eliminate ambiguity. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

<--..move back

• Support there still maybe a couple of minor copy edit tweaks that'll occur over the coming days, but my issues with the profile section, citations are suitably addressed. While concerns about the image placement and an alternative MOH image have been addressed temporarily. An ideal image as suggested by BQZ is obtain being by Oldag. I support the promotion of this article to FA and look forward to seeing it grace the main page in the coming months. Well done to editors of this article. Gnangarra 10:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I should be back in the promised land (Aggieland) by friday. i can't really do anything until next week though. ill try to get that pictureOldag07 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The section headings need attention. It's troubling to see date headings with no rationale for those date ranges:

• 1.1 1870–1900
• 1.2 1900–1950
• 1.3 1950–present

What is the meaning of this division? Give the reader some context, by using more descriptive section headings. For example, 1900–1950 discusses World War I and II, so why 1900 as the beginning of that period? What is unique or defining or descriptive about this time division that requires a separate section? 1950–present begins with a discussion of 1960, so why was 1950 the cut-off? This is the problem with defining history in articles by years, since history rarely follows our calendar — please provide descriptions that rationalize this division of the institution's history.

I have been advocating a change in this section as well. I guess ill take initative. How about: Beginning Years, World War Period, and The University Era. ??? input? Oldag07 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's get the capitalization right per WP:MSH :-) Beginning years works. World War period would work, and what does University era mean ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the most difficult one to write of them all. I guess, "university era" symbolizes the fact that A&M in this time period became a comprehensive university instead of the "agricultural and mechanical college". do you have any better suggestions?Oldag07 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have an additional motive in requesting better section headings: there is currently a problem in Dr pda's script, so that starting sections with a number doesn't allow us to check your articlehistory or prose size. I see some problems in your article history, but I can't fix them easily without Dr pda's script. I'm also concerned about the article's prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the headings (feel free to tweak) so I could use Dr pda's scripts to complete articlehistory and check the page size. I suspected a problem with the page size, because this article is MISERABLY hard to edit. However, the problem is not in the readable prose, which is reasonably sized per WP:LENGTH.

• Prose size (text only): 42 kB (6855 words)
• References (text only): 19 kB

The problem is those gosh-darn (GD !!) cite templates, which are chunking up 20KB on this article — the worst example I've seen yet, making the article miserably slow to load on a cable modem, and probably impossible on dialup. Can you all review them to make sure named refs have been used everywhere possible? I also left edit summaries about incorrect italics used in cite templates. Also, there's a problem with date consistency in the date parameter; some of them are wikilinked, others aren't, so formatting is inconsistent. Since some are linked, and different formats are used, all date parameters need to be linked (accessdate is automatically linked, while date is not, which is another stupid thing about those GD cite templates.) It's not a requirement but it sure is an irritation; if you all want this article to be accessible to people on dialup, you might want to convert some of your cite templates to manual citations — those things are awful ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (emphasis added by — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Couldn't agree more to the fact that the citation templates take up a lot of space and don't work entirely as promised, but I'm not sure a manual citation will do much better. I suspect it would only take a few KB out of the mix (all the given words would still be there, just not the headings). As for the History section, the changes look good! Can we assume you support the article now? If so, can you please cross it off? (no urgency here, just asking if you're done) — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"I also left edit summaries about incorrect italics used in cite templates."

I'm sorry, you left what? where? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've found all instances of this and fixed the problems. Karanacs 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Can you all review them to make sure named refs have been used everywhere possible?"

Checked. All of them checked out and I didn't find any duplicates. If someone finds something, let us know and we'll change it ASAP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a systematic check of the article and found a few instances where citations could be combined or weren't referencing a previously named ref. These have now all been fixed. Karanacs 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates have been wikified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as accessibility goes, a page of 100KB is going to take some time to load and I think people who have dial up need to accept that. I realize it does cut down on the ability to read the page somewhat, but I believe their connection speed is more of a hindrance. On top of that, it's not like the page won't load at all, just slowly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

BQ, I'm not on a dialup and the page takes too long to load. I load pages bigger than this all the time. And yes, cite templates chunk up article size FAR more than just the words — I'm not just whistlin' Dixie, I and others have looked at this issue for a long time. Please unstrike my comments above, so I can see what I still need to re-review. You don't know what an edit summary is???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But how much of it is the size of the article and how much is the number of images getting resized. How much is the citations getting formatted? I know I don't know and, respectfully, you don't know either. Absolutely, the citation templates are a problem, but, IMHO, this is a wikiepdia issue, not an article issue.

Sorry about striking out the comments above (fixed). I thought the issue had been addressed to your satisfaction. I'm in the wrong here, but don't punish the article for that...please? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly did you leave the edit summaries? This page? The article page? The talk page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the last image of "Oceanography and Meteorology Building " looks so out of place both with the way its positioned and the fact thats its in the section about Medal of Honor receiptiants would it be better if the whites space alongside the list has an image of the MOH, even better a picture of Turney Leonard Aggie ring which is on display at the University after being returned to his family.Gnangarra 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) please dont alter or strike my comment/questions, I'm still reviewing the article and respond to any alterations at the next opportunity. Gnangarra 01:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary fixed this problem. need to run by the MSC to get a good picture. Oldag07 14:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OldAg07, if you have a chance, you may want to run by the Former Student's Association and/or the Corps Center. They may have some picts you could use. They also have a monument with pictures of all seven together in one picture. That might be interesting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would think this Image:Moh right.gif would be better than highlighting on individual out of the group. Will wait an see if you can get an alternative.

• Comments - I previously posted these on the article’s discussion page but didn’t receive a response before the page was archived so I’m adding them here.

• NPOV?
  • Under the "Residential life" subsection in the "Student life" section, the second paragraph refers to "the famous bar The Dixie Chicken." – Is it really famous? Before reading the article I had never heard of it.

Replaced the phrase "the famous", with "the popular". Better? Oldag07 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • In the third paragraph of the "Notable people" section, Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett are referred to as "world-renowned." – Are they world-renowned? Can this be proven?

World-renowned, replaced with popular. Oldag07 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, in this same section, the word “legend/s” is used three times and the word “legendary” is used once.

legend word removed. Oldag07 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Other - The first paragraph in "Student traditions," "Aggie Ring," reads, "For decades, though unsanctioned and often discouraged by the University, it has become an unofficial tradition among willing students to 'dunk' their newly-acquired Aggie Rings." Is the tradition unofficial or merely unsanctioned by the school? If only unsanctioned, I would remove the word "unofficial."

Reworded the whole paragraph. please check over. removed mention that dunking was a "tradition" but instead left it up to reader's interpretation. Oldag07 15:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my 2¢. --Wordbuilder 14:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you took care of my concerns. --Wordbuilder 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - The length is still a concern but I think that as much has been done as possible since the citations are adding so much. They are necessary, though. --Wordbuilder 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is anyone else bothered by this? This seems to be a trend; almost the entire article is cited to primary sources, from Texas A&M. Is Wiki just a PR machine for these university articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not bothered by it since it is a university. As such, its very nature is to provide accurate data, and citing that data should be reliable. If it was a commerical enterprise, such as a retailer or a recording artist, I would have a harder time with it. I expect some articles to be able to rely on sources provided by the article's subject (universities, governments, NASA, etc.). The recent Featured Article Ohio Wesleyan University does the same thing, so maybe it is a trend. --Wordbuilder 16:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also am not bothered by it. If you are citing how many students there are, wouldn't you ask the school? Who else would keep track of that information? If you were doing an article on the United States, wouldn't you expect most of the facts and figures to come from government sources? How about information on public buildings? They also keep information in the view of the public and online in many instances. Wiki is certainly NOT a PR machine and few University articles are Featured Articles. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are a lot of primary references, I would like to see more secondary especially on sports and history sections where you would expect more to be available, also where peacock terms are used. Citiing primary of stats on student numbers, dates, buildings etc are fine. Gnangarra 01:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed most of the history sources and many of the sports sources so that they are no longer primary sources. I could change more of the sport references, but that would require replacing a single citation with multiple citations. I haven't done that at this time because others have complained about the number of sources and the slowness of loading the page already. Do you have a suggestion on what we should do in this instance? Thanks. Karanacs 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The infobox is broken at the moment. I'm not sure how to fix it, personally. Would someone take care of it? Fieari 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with it now -- it must be fixed :) Karanacs 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one was my bad. I accidentally put a bracket where it shouldn't have been, but didn't realize it for about ten minutes. I fixed it about an hour ago though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

<grrrr ... > someone is striking comments from other editors. Please undo it, and read the FAC instructions. Editors will strike their own comments when they consider items done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment The level of referencing is rather excessive. Considering citation templates are also used throughout this means the article is extremely dense in excess code (and therefore more difficult to edit). I've never seen the point of repeating citations every time a fact from the source is mentioned, which the article appears to be doing, but what's stranger is that fairly straight forward fact statements are doubly referenced. If this is not justified by that fact being quite controversial it just leads to footnote dinkiness. Just like with images, more of them doesn't automatically improve the article. And why does the lead have footnotes? It's supposed to be a summary. Peter ^Isotalo 09:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I went through the article and was able to get rid of nine references that I felt were unnecessary. I took a close look at the double references, some of which I left alone since they cite possible controversial statements, such as those in the "Rivalries" subsection. What do you mean by the lead? If you are referring to the infobox, it has enrollment figures that need to be cited. Are there any other problems/concerns with the article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard policy that says "cite each figure individually or the article is unverifiable". I agree that there's a general notion sloshing around about figures somehow being harder facts than prose statements, but I don't think it's in the least merited. Figures are actually much easier to reference than prose statements since they're usually very easy to search for. The idea that figures are somehow harder facts than prose statements is obviously just a rather crude over-generalization. And I'm not really a fan of saying that any information about a controversy is per se controversial. That the statement "Texas A&M's primary rival is the University of Texas" would be questioned by anyone but POV-warriors is very unlikely.

The lead has five footnotes, and they certainly aren't all related to figures either. Interesting that you brought the infobox up, though, because I realized that it's also supposed to be a kind of summary. So, again, why would we need multiple citations of the same uncontroversial facts in the same article?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand of the citation policy, all facts need to be referenced or are subject to be summarily removed. From Wikipedia:The perfect article, a perfect article is "is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources." WP:Lead states that the lead "should be carefully sourced as appropriate." BQZip01 and I have streamlined the citations over the last day and have managed to eliminate 22 duplicates. I hesitate to remove any more because I would hate to mislead someone into thinking a fact is part of a different citation and I don't want to venture into the realm of original research. Unless there is consensus on what exactly needs to be cited and what doesn't to meet the verifiability standards, I'd prefer to leave the citations as is. Karanacs 14:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur here. The references are not there to prevent controversy, but to provide reliability. Excess references are obviously not needed and I think we cleared them out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, I'd be against taking out any references. Double references are to be applauded, not condemmed. One never knows when a given source will be challended as unreliable or biases, when a web link will go dead, or when a source book goes out of print. We should encourage (but not require) multiple references to confirm each point given. If we strive for that, every piece of press on Wikipedia will applaud us for making it very easy for the reader to confirm our facts. It also gives the reader that many more references where they can go to learn more about the topic. Johntex\^talk 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article for its GA listing, and it has improved even since then. There are a few VERY minor fixes I would like to see, but I will not hold up my support for these; they can be easily completed, but are relatively minor issues anyways:

• Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, footnotes should come at the end of a sentance. I understand that the MOS section dealing with this is ambiguous, as several sections appear to contradict each other on this requirement; I personally think it looks better that all footnotes follow periods, as mid-sentence footnotes interupt the path of the eye across the sentance and make it harder to read. In all the places where a mid-sentance footnote is used in this article, it could easily be moved to the end of said sentance without introducing any ambiguity.

Thanks for you support. changed references with non compound sentences. i guess could go even further, but compound sentences makes sense. we have been so aggressive with editing that we have made some stylistic changes were ignored. Thanks and Gig em.Oldag07 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Again, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, it usually isn't neccessary to footnote the lead. Since every fact in the lead should be expanded and referenced in the body of the article, there isn't really any reason to footnote each fact twice (once in the lead and once in the body). But again, this is minor and not worth holding up support.

Done (thanks bqzip) Oldag07 22:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As a whole, great job and good luck on garnering consensus to promote as an FA. You have my support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Support - only one thing, would like to see another sentence or two on the bonfire, mainly the loss of life and cause. It was a very important event for the campus. Joe I 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We've fleshed out the Bonfire paragraph, with more information on the cause of the collapse and the resulting lawsuits. Karanacs 19:08, 25 May 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.