Talk:Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Florida (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Arizona (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 Arizona (marked as Mid-importance).
Former good article Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


There is information on the Daytona Beach page that isn't verified in the least and uses the ERAU website as a source. Please verify information in this article. I know for a fact that some of it is inaccurate... wiki should be objective, not an advertisement. Also, it may be worth while to get a list of former presidents of the school.

Page Split[edit]

I support splitting each campus into a new article because:

  • The current article is too long (approaching 60K and over 8,000 words)
  • It will foster growth in each article
  • It will improve the likelihood that this article can be made a featured article

Farside6 (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for separating these. Do we have any wikipeople at Prescott yet? Longbowe (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I could find. But I think eventually someone from Prescott will add substantial content. If we split the residential campuses, shouldn't we also make an article Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide? Farside6 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like good reasoning to me. Perhaps Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide? Other universities with multiple campuses are also split by campus in this way. ZsinjTalk 07:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Now all of this needs some help. My assessment thus far.

Farside6 (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably get some pictures of some Worldwide campuses this summer and some information as well in August. I'll start on that. As far as Daytona Beach goes, I'll see what I can do. Longbowe (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wichita, KS article links to Embry-Riddle. Is there a campus there too? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review?[edit]

Just wondering what the rest of you think about submitting the main article for peer review. Since you split off a lot of the details into the individual campus articles, I think it'd be good to have some outside input as to what still needs to be added and where we could improve the quality as a whole. Ideas? ZsinjTalk 02:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a wonderful idea. Anything that could help us make this a better article should be taken advantage of. Longbowe (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

GA review (see here for criteria):

I will do the review of this article. Lampman (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    It does not follow WP:LAYOUT; there are far too many short pararaphs and short sections. There are also issues with the language: "The building was occupied by Embry-Riddle prior to moving to Daytona Beach, Florida." Surely that big building didn't move anywhere? "an eerie turn of events" is an example of unencyclpaedic language. Most of all though, much of the article reads like a promotional pamphlet. "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is one of the best accredited aviation-oriented universities in the world.[5] Utilizing a fleet of over 90 aircraft, the university serves culturally diverse students primarily motivated toward careers in aviation and aerospace." No amount of sources can save that bit. Also: "Prescott is a short drive to Phoenix and within a day's drive of Las Vegas and California." How is that relevant for anyone but a university recruiter?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are five dead references that I've marked of.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There are sections that are far too short, particularly "Worldwide campus" and "Notable alumni". It's hard to believe there's nothing more to be said about these topics, particularly since there are actually sub-articles. Also "Organization" could probably be expanded.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Tagging and captions seem ok, but the images should be thumb size rather than forced.
  7. Overall:
    Lampman (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Since no significant improvements have been made to the article over the last week, I will now delist it. Lampman (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll start working on these now that I have time. Thanks for bringing those links to our attention. Longbowe (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

I went ahead and knocked out a lot of the stuff that was brought up in the GA reassessment today. Things like paragraphs that are too short (Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Paragraphs), citations that are out of date (Checklinks on the toolserver), and the Notable Alumni section (needs content, take it from the "main" article) still need to be addressed. I'll keep working on it, I just wanted to give everyone a heads up as to what I've been doing. ZsinjTalk 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


The current logo doesn't seem to be appropriate. Something like this or this would better represent the university, specially the Daytona campus. If necessary, I could attain the logos from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draemora (talkcontribs) 10:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I have uploaded a high-resolution modern logo. Sean Scheiderer (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Prestigious and the like[edit]

There has been a spate of edit warring to add terms of praise such as "prestigious". WP:PEACOCK applies to this. In particular, "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance". Instead of announcing prestigiousness, the facts that lead to people considering an institution prestigious need to be stated and documented. I'm not removing these words from articles because I consider them false, but because they're not appropriate. In the edit war here, references have been cited in edit summaries: this is pointless, they need to be in the article, and to support what is being said (and not be dead references). Again: by deleting the word I am not trying to assert that the subject is not in itself prestigious, but that the use of the word is inappropriate. (I don't have any personal opinion on whether the subject actually is or is not prestigious; it's not the point.) Anything added to an article by someone who knows the subject, without citing references, is considered to be Wikipedia:Original Research and is not appropriate - the undocumented opinion of a teacher at the institution is not verifiable, however accurate it may be. In point of fact, that Time magazine called it "The Harvard of the Sky" goes a long way to asserting prestige, and is properly cited. Pol098 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC

I've blocked all the SPA/socks that have popped up. I'll leave the page semi-protected to deal with their ips. Toddst1 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


Before a recent dispute on peacock terms, I deleted a long list of accreditations, mostly unreferenced, as too much detail and unreferenced anyway. I list the unreferenced list of accreditations here in case anyone wants to reference and reinstate them. Personally I would tend to say that there are several accreditations, with references, rather than list them - too much detail. But I have no objection to the details being reinstated if referenced.

Text deleted some time ago, for reference: The university is fully accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools to award degrees at the residential campuses (Daytona Beach, FL and Prescott, AZ)and through Embry-Riddle Worldwide at the associate, bachelor, master, and doctoral levels. The engineering programs are accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). The bachelor degree programs in Aeronautical Science, Air Traffic Management, Aviation Maintenance, Applied Meteorology, and Aviation Forensics & Occupational Safety are accredited by the Aviation Accreditation Board, International (AABI).The bachelor degree programs in Business Administration and the MBA in Aviation program are accredited by the Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). The flight training programs and certificate programs in Aviation Maintenance Technology (airframe, powerplant, and airframe and powerplant) are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Pol098 (talk) 11:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored (with some updating) the accreditations above, with citations, as rightly suggested. While voluminous, the exhaustive specifics are important to legitimacy of the institution and its various programs. Sean Scheiderer (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


The rankings section, alleging this for-profit college was #1 at aerospace schools lacking a phd was meaningless. There are 3 schools competing in that category - 2 of them are this school [1]. Allowing such puffery to last is a joke. I've excised it. Carte Rouge (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with your contention above concerning puffery, ERAU is nonetheless non-profit, in that it is a tax-exempt educational institution organized under IRS Sec. 501(c)(3) and Sec. 509(a). Sean Scheiderer (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


ERAU's website says, "Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University — including the Daytona Beach Campus, the Prescott Campus and the Worldwide Campus — is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges"
That means that the three campuses (Florida, Arizona and online) are part of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, not separate entities and there should be only one wikipedia article, not four as there is now.

These three wikipedia articles should all be merged into Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide
Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach
Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

After discussion on its talk page, I have merged the separate article for ERAU Worldwide into the the main ERAU article. Sean Scheiderer (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating Content for University[edit]

I'd like to update and expand the content for the University. There is much left out in regards to campus information, history, student life, housing and residence life, and athletics.

I tried to update the page, but was flagged as being unconstructive? The information is verifiable and pulled from the university website.

I'm new to Wikipedia and am not sure how to go about with the content upgrades?

Thank you!

ERAU WIKI (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)ERAU Wiki 20 March 2014

i'd suggest the following proceeding:
  1. do not update your own content, you have a conflict of interest.
  2. do register a personal user. either clear name or some name. but not company name like "ERAU WIKI"
  3. do propose the change on the talk page. others will then judge it and edit the article.
  4. please be aware wikipedia is not a marketing tool, i.e. people write about you. and not you write what you think people should read about you (use your own website to do this).
  5. this also means: wikipedia is not there for copying information from your website, you can write whatever you want there. the information needs to be verifyable.
  6. this also means: if nobody than yourself writes about you, then you are not notable, and the article should be deleted.
  7. and _if_ you really need to link then to a stable link. but your website does not even have this. example: you link to which is a constantly changing and currently not even reachable link.
--ThurnerRupert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Information Updates[edit]

A number of the (since removed) statistics on this page are badly out-of-date. Even the most current official statistics are a bit outdated (Fall 2012), but giving those (with their dates) seems like a better idea than having no statistics at all. Here are enrollment and faculty statistics from a variety of sources:

The university ([2] [3]):

  • Daytona Beach - 4,534 undergraduate and 586 graduate students (Fall 2012), 392 faculty (2012-2013)
  • Prescott - 1,678 undergraduate and 46 graduate students (Fall 2012), 136 faculty (2012-2013)
  • Worldwide - 16,479 undergraduate and 7,759 graduate students (Fall 2011 - Summer 2012), 2,711 faculty (2012-2013)
  • Total - 31,820 students (Fall 2011 - Summer 2012)

The Carnegie Foundation (Their new website does not make for nice links, but [4] hopefully works.):

  • Daytona Beach - 4,959 students (2010)
  • Prescott - 1,672 students (2010)
  • Worldwide - 15,249 students (2010)

The US Department of Education ([5] [6] [7])

  • Daytona Beach - 4,534 undergraduate and 586 graduate students (Fall 2012), 315 faculty (Fall 2012)
  • Prescott - 1,678 undergraduate and 46 graduate students (Fall 2012), 104 faculty (Fall 2012)
  • Worldwide - 10,435 undergraduate and 5,127 graduate students (Fall 2012), 830 faculty (Fall 2012)

I would be inclined not to use the Carnegie Foundation, as their data are older. The university uses different calculation methods for faculty and for the worldwide campus than the Dept. of Education does - the university method seems more appropriate for counting the part-time students comparably to the residential students, but the government method has the advantage of consistency across all campuses and can better support realistic faculty/student ratio calculations. My inclination would be to use the government numbers, particularly since the calculation method mismatch between faculty and students in the university's statistics makes the faculty/student ratio look better than it may actually be. (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

i'd also use the government numbers. thanks for digging these out! --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)