Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas Tech University/archive2

Texas Tech University

Texas Tech University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Texas Tech University

• Featured article review/Texas Tech University
• Featured article review/Texas Tech University/archive1
• Featured article review/Texas Tech University/archive2

Notified: Wordbuilder, Elred , Almosthonest06, WikiProject Big 12 Conference, WikiProject Texas, WikiProject Higher education, 28 April

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been maintained to standards. In places, it is outdated. Some info in the lede isn't repeated in the body (f.i. having over 25% of students identify as hispanic). There are problems with citations (heavy reliance on primary sources, sporadic uncited text) and citation formatting (all caps, bare urls). Depending on how deep the problems with outdatedness go, this might be salvable. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Some editors were fixing up the article in mid-June, but work might have stalled. A quick skim reveals many uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs. "Online and regional learning programs" section should be expanded or merged with another section. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• The images also lack alt text. ~ HAL333 18:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC Since this FAR was opened, there has been no significant effort to address these issues. ~ HAL333 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - the edits in June seem to have been primarily the removal of one particularly dated statistic and fixing a reference error. There are still significant amounts of dated statistics in the sections about Recent history, Academics, and Student life in particular, as well as elsewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Question: Is a featured article review opened with an eye toward improving an article to keep it featured or with an eye toward stripping the featured article status so there are fewer of these elite entries? With the former, editors would come together to improve the article and make it the best it can be, thus improving Wikipedia as a whole. With the latter, editors would merely talk about what's wrong with it and invest no time in correcting the deficiencies. While I worked with others to see this article elevated to featured status, I honestly don't care what becomes of it. I'm just trying to better understand this process. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work back then! With the hope of restoring it. When there are volunteers for the job, FAR regulars often help out to get it over the line. I think almost half of our core articles are significantly improved during a FAR, but that percentage drops off for more specialist topics. The accuracy of the FA symbol is sometimes an issue for me too: for sensitive topics we would not like to mislead our readers into thinking the information is vetted, when it hasn't been in a long time. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for helping me to better understand this process. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delist No edits since end of June, concerns still remain about sourcing and currency of article. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - nothing since end of June, and significant currency issues remain. Hog Farm _Talk 04:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist' per above. Sourcing is still an issue Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)