Talk:Campus of Texas A&M University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Campus of Texas A&M University was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject United States / Texas / Texas A&M (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas A&M (marked as Top-importance).
 

Texas A&M University[edit]

I believe the main article should have the same information that in contained in the intro paragraph of this article. Also, we should select five buildings from the list of facilities list here to place on the main article.

Branch campuses[edit]

Should we add Galveston and Qutar. they are technically part of a&m Proper.Oldag07 20:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
How though? BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just mention that they exist i guess. Oldag07 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate source[edit]

This is a really good source on the campus of Texas A&M. Unfortunately it will take a very long time to summarize just the campus sections. http://www.tamu.edu/campusplan/

Read the 90 page "final report" I already started to outline some stuff.

Campus History

Page 18 After World war two in 1960 7000 students, 4,500,000 square feet of buildings on 375 acres all on main campus. Can travel in 15 ins.

Today campus is over 1,100 acres and it requires 45 minutes to traverse campus.

pg 33 The first building on campus was named "old main". Oldag07 01:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging article[edit]

The OEM Building is kind of out of place. If any building needs its own article it probably should be the MSC. The building would be good in the notable building section. just my thoughts. . . . Oldag07 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns[edit]

"The base was activated in 1943 as an instructors' school assigned the task of developing a standardized system of instrument flying. The Full Panel Attitude System developed at the base was one of the most significant contributions the base made to pilot training. The instrument-training school at Bryan AAF was the only one of its kind in the United States Army Air Forces."

This portion is a copy-and-paste from its source.

"In 1943, Bryan Field was the starting point of the first intentional meteorological flight into a hurricane."

"Gus Grissom, later one of the first astronauts, was a jet instructor here."

The first of these two is currently uncited. My main concern is that, because they're single-sentence paragraphs, they both look like trivia. --Wordbuilder 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one that seems like triva (under Riversaide Campus):

"The runway is also used as an SCCA racetrack."Wordbuilder 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Transportation[edit]

This section seems a little silly. Students can travel by walking or riding a bicycle or driving a car goes without saying. I think we should trim it down to mentioning the shuttle, the bike paths and sidewalks, and the parking lots. Or, better yet, just remove the section altogether. →Wordbuilder 03:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under construction[edit]

Should there be some sort of mention about the 4 (i think) new buildings that are being built on campus, just so that there's a mention of how the campus is still growing and such? Robhakari (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My GA Preliminary Review[edit]

Before I conduct a full-blown review of this article, I feel there are a few serious concerns that must be addressed first:

  1. The History section of the article is too long and tangential to the article. The History section of a Campus article (versus that of a University article) should share the History of the campus, not the university. Some supplementary information may be needed to provide context, but this is too much...especially since there is also a page dedicated to the History of TAMU already.
  2. The pictures seem to be "thrown onto the page"—especially towards the end of the article. It seems you're trying to place pictures close to their respective sections, but it looks very scattered. Would you consider creating a photo gallery?
  3. Can you consolidate the Footnotes and References sections to just References?
  4. Please remove all non-working links (in red)

If you can resolve these issues within the next week, then I would be happy to evaluate all the little things to meet the good article criteria. For now, I will put the article "on hold." Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't galleries within an article discouraged? Hence, the template Cleanup-gallery. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it just depends on the situation—I mean, there must be a reason Wikipedia provides a Picture Gallery button at the top of the edit page. Consider Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Images, which discusses a few points that I believe pertain to this article:
  • Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is frowned upon.
  • Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images.
  • If an article has many images, so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself, you can try to use a gallery


Comment I did the peer review on this article and am surprised that most of the changes suggested have not been implemented. I would oppose this making GA without most of thoise changes as well Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As one of the significant editors of the article, I agree. I currently don't have much time to improve the article now. I will definitely get to it later. If no one else decides to make the changes within the one-week time frame, go ahead and remove the nomination. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The person who opened the peer review and nominated the article for GA has not made a single edit to the article, and none of the regular contributors has had time to implement changes. Like BlueAg, I won't be able to get to this article anytime soon, so if the GA nom needs to be failed for now, that's fine. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As you noted, consolidating the Footnotes and References sections is unnecessary.EagleAg04 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

Failed the article for GAN since none of the preliminary review issues were addressed in the allotted time. Best --Eustress (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Old picture of Academic Plaza[edit]

Hello, I'm a current student and the Academic Plaza looks completely different than depicted in the picture at the beginning of the article. The two plaques for Silver Taps and Muster have been moved to either side of the Class of 1912 Flagpole, Military Walk has been redone so the flowers are gone, and the Flagpole itself completely rusted out last Spring so it was removed, fixed, and put back. It now rests on a completely different base. I am not a regular editor, so if a rule has been broken or my comments are irrelevant, please be kind.Andy Marchbanks 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Split[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved: discussion started 38 days ago, no consensus, no discussion in last 16 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


Campus of Texas A&M UniversityCollege Station Campus of Texas A&M University – With the unprecedented growth of TAMU through the merger of TAMHSC, acquisition of TWU Law, and establishment of the "Texas A&M University Peace Campus" this article needs to be updated to highlight it's focus on the College Station campus. There are already examples of multi-campus institutions like: Homewood Campus of Johns Hopkins University, Southwest Campus of Florida State University, Centennial Biomedical Campus of North Carolina State University, Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University Busch Campus of Rutgers University, etc. Also the Other facilitates section should be split off into a separate article titled Campuses of Texas A&M University with sections for each campus (College Station, Fort Worth, Round Rock, Nazareth, etc.). --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 75.111.174.87 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's an inital list of Texas A&M campuses: Bryan, College Station, Dallas, Galveston, Houston, Kingsville, Qatar, Round Rock, Temple.
    • Tentative support and Comment: Responding to Jax, there already are already many individual articles for each of the campuses. Second, a Main campus of Texas A&M University and Branch campuses of Texas A&M University article would solve that problem. Responding to the I believe Mr. IP address, Kingsville are part of the A&M University System, not A&M proper and should not be included. The HSC, Galveston, Qutar, Law School, and Peace campus, would be included because they are branch campuses. I believe the Bryan, Round Rock, and Temple campuses are part of the HSC. Absent from your list is the Riverside campus. Moving the page will take some work, but if someone is willing to do it, I won't stand in a way. I personally believe no matter what happens, this page needs reorganization and some copyediting. Oldag07 (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as long as there are no other articles on other TAMU campuses. Once they do exist, this move shouldn't be controversial, though I'd suggest the base title should still be a WP:CONCEPTDAB. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.