Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1

Texas A&M University

Texas A&M University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University
• Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive3

• Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1

Notified: Buffs ([1]), WikiProjectHigher education, ([2])

See this discussion; additional notifications to WP Big 12, WP Texas, Karancas, Oldag07, BlueAg09, ElKevbo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Review section

This article was promoted over a decade ago and it is showing its age. Much of the content is dated, sizeable portions of the article are unsourced, and there is a heavy reliance on primary sources and even some unreliable sources such as IMDb. Some of the images also lack alt text. I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made. ~ HAL333 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, well, this is a bit of a joke. You hardly "expressed concerns with this article back in early April." In fact, you made one single vague statement and question: "I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed?" Just because no one answered your question then doesn't mean a lack of a response equates to "the article is lacking." To the contrary, this was brought up in the FAC nomination and had the requisite support, to include such citations as-is. Your opinion hardly overrides that consensus. The University providing such sources is no different than the Smithsonian or US Government providing such sources on themselves regarding general, uncontentious facts; falsification of such figures and statistics would incur financial penalties and/or criminal liabilities. They are an educational institution and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Accordingly, I don't see that you've satisfied the first requirement for a FAR.

As to the rest of your concerns that were FIRST brought up here (and never brought up prior), I would be happy to address them, but you need to be much more specific.

Which parts are "dated"?

Which portions do you feel are "unsourced"? By my quick count, there are a total of only 14 sentences that do not have a direct reference associated with them. Most of these were referenced by the previous sentences, are uncontentious facts, are frivolous facts that could easily have been removed, or, in the case of the single sentence in the lead, mentioned later in the article.

Which sources are unreliable? The sole reference to IMDb is Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. REK has told this story at hundreds of concerts. While a better source, such as the youtube video above, would be a better source, the fact itself is not in question.

Which images lack alt text? Alt text may be desired by you, but does not appear to be one of the requirements of a Featured Article

I'll be happy to address these concerns with specifics, but I'm not going to jump through vague hoops over vaguery/exaggeration. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed every unreferenced instance on the page that I could find by either finding a source or deleting the necessary sentence. I've also replaced the REK reference with a MUCH better one.

It should be noted that during the FAC, concerns were made that it was OVER-referenced. Given that there is not a single passage without a reference, I think this point can be pretty much put to bed. I await clarifications on your other contentions. This only leaves things you feel are "dated", which is completely subjective without further clarification. Buffs (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:

• Most of the Rankings section.
• Did the "University era" end in 2013?
• The last three paragraghs of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats.
• The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present.
• Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
• As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...)
• Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized.
• For it to be accessible to screenreaders, it still needs alt text for every image.

Hopefully we can address those. ~ HAL333 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. So my interpretation would be that yes, alt text is required for FAs. If there's a reason to believe that having alt text would make the article worse, I'd be open to considering an IAR argument for leaving it out, but if it's just that no one wants to put in the few minutes of work to add it, I really don't have much sympathy for that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I have little sympathy for someone expecting others to jump through hoops for something they could have fixed in a few minutes and threatening to delist a featured article. I do not believe this was EVER addressed on the talk page which should have been the FIRST place to go. Given the misleading rationale for this page in the first place, this feels much more like a person attempting to manipulate/exert control over forcing others to do something.

Now, I'm going to do it., but I do so under protest that this was done in exceptionally poor form. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. If you don't like the word choices, feel free to edit. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Now, to address each of the other points brought up:

• Most of the Rankings section. The rankings section includes some of the latest information from 2021...we will update 2022 when it happens.
• Did the "University era" end in 2013? No, but few major things have happened in the past 8 years. If you feel something has been missed, feel free to mention it, but you can't say you're missing something without specifying what's missing.
• The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present. I wouldn't say it needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I've since updated it.
• Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
• As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...) That statistic is 508,000 and is sourced in the Texas_A&M_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty section. If you have other specific instances, I will be happy to address them.
• Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized. Unless you have a citation from WP:MOS, that is your personal preference. Citations are provided in the middle of sentences when appropriate and at the end of sentences when the sources apply to the whole sentence. This is consistent throughout and is pedantic to edit
• The last three paragraghs [sic] of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats. While we can update more, it doesn't need to be 100% up to date with the most relevant stats or it should be delisted. I will do what I can to update the figures.

To be blunt, this FAR needs to be pulled as malformed and certainly not within the guidelines of how one of these should roll; borderline done in bad faith (based on the opening logic, specifically "I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made."). There's no reason this should have even been brought to FAR. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources:

• "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"
• "brazosgenealogy.org"
• Britannica is a tertiary source.
• asumag.com
• Is the Military Times considered reliable?
• Kiplinger?
• Applied Biosytems?
• Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?
• Etc.

I'm not being picky either. When I got my first FA through earlier this year, I was told that I couldn't use Politico. I have ignored places where primary sources can/should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. Sources also need to be standardized. ~ HAL333 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Re:"I'm not being picky either". Yes you are. And so were the people who said you couldn't use Politico. What is a reliable source depends highly on the claim being made. If I say "Biden/Trump said ______" and cite the primary reference for such a claim, that's perfectly accurate. The same could be said for the KKK or a Black Panther statement. Such a citation is not only appropriate, but desired so people can read the statement for themselves. The accuracy of said claim is irrelevant; so is the source as a WP:RS: they are the stated claims that were made from the organizations themselves. If Ben Shapiro states something on DailyWire.com, it's valid to cite that source as where he said it as it is the publishing arm of his organization. That does not mean the statement is accurate nor does it mean that DailyWire is somehow a more reliable source because of it, but it IS a reliable source for the statement itself even if it is self-published.

Re: "Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources" I'm not going to go through an article and address the few that "may not be high quality reliable sources" if you're going to be so vague and include even simple typos. WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. There's VERY little that you couldn't just fix yourself and would require far less work than what you're putting in here. If you are contending that any of these are unreliable sources, it's incumbent upon you to explain why, not vaguely claim there might be problems.

Lastly, this is not the forum for such claims and you have not acknowledged/corrected your deceptive initial statement. I'm not inclined to address such concerns only to have a litany of new concerns and preferences brought to the table ad nauseam every time they are addressed.

So, for that last time...for each of these points"

• "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org" WP:SOFIXIT; you wasted WAY more space here complaining than it would have taken for what is clearly a simple typo fix.
• "brazosgenealogy.org" Do you consider this unreliable? All the facts I see are accurate.
• "Britannica is a tertiary source." So? What's your point? WP:RS "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."
• "asumag.com" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 1 2 3. I'm truly perplexed as to what the problem is here.
• "Is the Military Times considered reliable?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source).
• "Kiplinger?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source). This is the kind of asinine standards you're attempting to apply here. You clearly aren't even looking at the context in which they are used.
• "Applied Biosytems? [sic]" Again, an utterly uncontroversial claim. The other source was a press release by the school.
• "Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?" In general, yes. This was addressed in the FAC and has been addressed multiple times on the talk page. Please review the archives.
• "Etc." Sorry, but no one can possibly address what you're questioning here. There's not enough information.

You come up with a list of problems. I'll be happy to address them. But a vague "Here's a few, maybe, and there are more...because it was done to me" is horrible logic for proposing to delist an FA. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Some issues I spot:
  • Missing an "organization and administration" section (see WP:UNIGUIDE for what it should contain).
  • Veterans section is way too short to stand on its own.
  • Enrollment surpassing 50k in 2011 is history moreso than anything about the student body.
  • A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section.
  • It's promotional to talk about The Battalion's awards before ever introducing it.
  • Notable alumni section is significantly overlong.
  • Various prose issues throughout: "Note that", MOS:%, the promotional "over 500,000 strong"

There is probably a bunch more, but that's to start. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, not a requirement of WP:FA, I'll be limiting my responses to those that are FA requirements for now. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Criterion 1b of WP:FACRIT is comprehensiveness; I'm not trying to be picky, but this is something that needs to be fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So, then let's start with that logic then, not some circuitous reasoning that isn't mandatory. I still disagree that such a section is necessary in order to be "comprehensive", but I've added a section anyway and will update the bare urls in due time. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed the Veteran section; merged as part of the rankings.
• Removed 50K reference...not really needed.
• Fixed the Battalion reference.

  Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed 500K, "note that", updated percent -> % via rephrasing.

  Oh, MOS:% seems to say that writing out percent is more common for non-technical articles, but so long as you're consistent, % looks alright to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Notable alumni section was formed by consensus and agreed upon in the FAC.

  The FAC was in 2007, so I can't put much stock in it. Notable alumni sections have been discussed frequently recently, and as a WP:HED participant, I have a good sense of the range of them. This one is way longer than most—it'll need significant trimming to avoid undue weight. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  5 paragraphs to summarize the contributions of over half a million alumni (and this excludes faculty)? That's hardly extensive given the number of people and hardly undue weight. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: "A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section." What parts? All of this pertains to parts of the school that aren't on the main campus...I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• The Qatari campus is a campus. On second look, I think most of what's in the academics section is fine there, but the campus section should include at least a bit on the Qatari campus. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So...that one's a bit of an oddity. The campus at Doha, Qatar is considered part of the A&M College Station main campus. It is not considered a separate school. Those who graduate from TAMUQ have "Texas A&M College Station" on their diploma. Buffs (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Corrections last updated: Buffs (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

Extended resolved commentary (with plenty of tq templates that stall the FAC page) moved to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Should these be addressed (along with the ones above), I'll be happy to support keeping this as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• • I'm happy to see the great work put into this article by Buffs. At this point, I drop any objections and advocate keeping this article as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Motions to close

Close without FARC At this point, I think it's clear I'm happy to address any issues you find and respectfully request that this FAR be rescinded by its submitter as the pretenses for its listing are unfounded/unwarranted. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Review by Z1720

I have moved my initial review to the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Intent to review; please hold closing. (Particularly since correct notifications were not done and I just did them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sweet merciful heaven. It's been under review for 3 months...when will it end? Buffs (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies, but notifications were incomplete, and it's in all best interest (FAR process, editors, and article content) to make sure no involved parties are left out; that's why we have instructions about who to notify, which unfortunately were not followed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: I'm clearly willing to address/fix any shortcomings, but having the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over FA status for 3+ months is getting more than a little extreme...Please close this FAR without FARC and let's address it on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oldag07: Notes on article

Comment 1; First off, It seems like this article is in an archive. Does it mean it survived its review? We should move this page to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/

No, it is in the right place; all FARs start off automatically in the next open archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2; I am sorry about the grammar. I wrote this in a rush, and I don’t particularly want to spend the time to proofread it.

Introduction; It is impossible for me to review this objectively. The notion of getting the Texas A&M University article as a "Featured Article" is one of the reasons why I got into wikipedia editing in the first place. Hence my scren name. Originally written as a joke, it hasn't aged well. Moreover, when we made this push, I was a senior at A&M, and I was intimately familiar with the topic. I feel like my knowledge of the topic is not what it was. And while I am proud of the work I put in to this article, but I really don't have the energy to care if this is demoted or enough. I am literally training for a marathon and my job already puts me in front of a screen way too much. That being said, I got a lot better at writing during grad school. I am actually an administrator on a mid size Fandom (Wikia) site. And my unique perspective might help improve this article. While will try to give what feedback I can. Of note, I don't think any of my criticisms disqualify the article. It seems like Z1720 has done a fantastic job nitpicking over the article and Buffs has done a fantastic job of cleaning up these errors. Thank you so much for helping to improve this article. I, instead will look at the forest, not the trees, and go for a big picture critique of the article. Of note is the Georgetown University article, the only other featured university article. I feel that article has just as many problems as this one does.

History I have always found history sections difficult to write in Wikipedia articles, most notably at the end of these. Knowing what is significant and what isn't while history is "being made" is hard.

• Perhaps adding dates for each section like the History of Texas A&M page would be useful.

• The Black Lives matter protests belong on this page. But it seems out of place with what is going on with the rest of the history section. It is a weird way to end the section. Perhaps some sort of summary of what Texas A&M has become would be a good way to end the section. Something like "As of 2021, the university growing at a rate of ???. it is a leader in research in the areas of ???? Texas A&M continues the challenges of merging its rich traditions with the challenges of the 21st century". That definitely is a way to end the History of Texas A&M University article. Something shorter?

Student Body

• This article probably needs something about graduation rates.

• Conservatism/Religion- The word "conservative" is only mentioned once in the article. And that isn't something that describes the student body. I know we used to mention it more. I know recent events have redefined the definition of "conservative". The average student might even be more liberal than average American. But in academia, A&M is still on the right. The average Aggie is much more religious than most university students.

Research

• Research sections of any university article are also difficult to write. Summarizing all of the research at a university the size of this university is hard. This section highlights a bunch of interesting research this that A&M does, and then it ignores others. Great, A&M made its uranium safer. What about the university's work with knockout genes in mice? What about the 100 million dollars the university just earned from the DOD to research hypersonics? [3] I don't know how to prioritize what research belongs on this page and what doesn't.
• Here is some big picture things that could be added. What is A&M's are on total research expenditures, Where does get its funding, how much it spends its money compared to other universities. I also know A&M has been very aggressive in hiring Nobel Prize researchers. The word "Nobel" is not found with a quick Ctl-F search. Researching this critique, I found a great article on that very issue. https://today.tamu.edu/2021/02/10/first-in-texas-am-research-tops-1-billion-mark/

Campus

• Oh wow, the campus page is really outdated. Obviously not something that affects this article.
• I feel like this seciton is a very clinical description of the campus. But what does the campus "feel like". How is its architecture styled? What are the the major buildings on campus, notably the MSC and Kyle field.
• I haven't been back to main campus in years. Some updated photos would be nice.

Student life

• Certainly the section I am most rusty at. I am mixed on why Texas A&M Hillel is in the article. It is the "oldest" in the nation, but it certainly isn't a particularly large organization. Most people who graduate from the school probably never heard of it.

• CARPOOL’s notability isn’t the fact that is rideshare program. It is notable because it is one of the first student run ride share programs. https://carpool.tamu.edu/mission-vision-and-values/

• I know Greeks do not own the school like they do at some Universities. But I am not sure how to write that appropriately. The student body has voted against having a Greek block... on several occasions. Maybe that is enough?

Traditions

• I think this section is pretty spot on. It is emphasizes the importants of traditions, and gives a good overview of the topic. But it doesn't "go into the weeds".

Athletics

• Really… Is the basketball section bigger than the football section? This is a football school. Make me feel like it is one when I read this.

• The sports section doesn't mention the big elephant in the room. $$$$ A&M has the 8th largest athletics budget in the nation https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances. It doesn't use student fees to pay for sports. Our football coach is one the highest paid in the nation. How many scholarships does A&M have for players? https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/texas-ams-jimbo-fisher-becomes-second-highest-paid-coach-in-all-of-college-football/ College sports is a big business, and A&M is a big part of that system

• Basketball. Buzz Williams might be in is 10th year as head coach, but we should mention that he has only been at A&M since 2019.

• Other sports. This certainly could be longer. How many varsity teams does A&M have? I know A&M has one of the only equestrian teams in the nation. One way to discuss how comprehensive the school's athletics programs is to discuss how well the school has done in the NACDA Directors' Cup.

Alumni

• I think these are horrible on almost all university pages. I believe this section not only should list out notable alumnim, but it should include stuff about the Aggie alumni as a whole. Here are some ideas of what could be added.

• What are the typical jobs Aggies take after they graduate?
• Where do they typically live?
• How do Aggie alumni feel about their alma mater?
• How large is the alumni association?
• How generous are Aggies to their alumni association?
• How many and how large are Aggie booster clubs?
• How are Aggie alumni perceived by others?

• I think the hall of fame article in the sports section could be moved into a section like that.

Final Comments. I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article. They were written as a way to improve the article. I feel like I should add some of the suggestions myself. Maybe I will someday. Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oldag07: I'm willing to address each of these points in due course, however, as you state "I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article", I'm going to refrain from addressing them until after this FAR is complete. It's been 3 months and I'm not going to lengthen it when even the criticizer says it isn't necessary. Likewise, many of the points you address are there because of wikiproject guidelines, which are de facto rules. Changing those would literally require changing thousands of other articles. I don't argue many of your points, but I'm going to refrain from adjusting anything that isn't an FA hangup. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Some bits of OldAg's concerns will be an "FA hangup" for me when I do my read-through (which I won't start until others like Z1720 indicate they are ready). I understand your frustration, and it is unfortunate that notifications were incomplete, but we mark an article as passing FAR when it is at featured standard, and FARs have remained open for a year. What I would like to see from OldAg's writeup:

• History: I don't agree those changes are necessary.
• Student body: OldAg could well be right, but should have provided sources-- we can't go on a goose chase for that kind of content.

• I am trying to clean up the mess I gave Buffs. I added graduation rates and a few additional stats. Oldag07 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Research: OldAg's comments rightly indicate a problem with how we assign due weight to mention of the University's research. Education articles tend to become promotional as we add content based on non-independent sources rather than using independent coverage to assign due weight. I see that here, including press releases from the University, and would rather see more independent mentions used to determine what research activities warrant inclusion in this article (over press releases). Some of the sources in that section, also, are old, making me wonder whether currently significant research is given appropriate weight. A comprehensive search for sources should be done in this area, and I see OldAg already supplied a source.
• Campus: some of what concerns OldAg can be conveyed with images rather than text (Stanford University is gorgeous, but that is not conveyed in the text, rather than images). If OldAg wants text in this area, then supplying a source would help.
• Student life: it looks like some of those points should not be difficult to fix.
• Athletics: some needs to be incorporated, and OldAg even gave sources. But it seems to me that the basketball section is larger than football simply because basketball has a women's team, so I disagree with that critique of OldAg's.
• Alumni, ugh (as they always are): convert it to a list, move it off the page, link to it, and focus on broader discussion of the type that OldAg mentions.

• True. Though we already have a list. Oldag07 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me know when some of OldAg's commentary has been completed, along with Z1720's work, and I will read through. In advance, please keep an eye as to whether the article is using good sources, or just a publicity brochure based on University press releases (I haven't looked yet). Also, please remember that when a FAC or FAR closes, that version is marked in the Article milestones, so it would be awkward to close a FAR when there are still improvements needed, leaving a less-than-best version flagged in article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete comments from Sdkb

First, I acknowledge Buffs' understandable frustration that this FAR has been open for so long. Higher education articles are notoriously difficult, and this one has undergone a lot of changes to bring it closer to the 2021 FA standards. However, looking through the article, I'm not yet persuaded that it has met them. Comments:

Lead

• ”the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution” reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.
• MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.
• ”Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas: is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.
• ”Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder” Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.
• The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.”, the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, “The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference.” gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.
• ”Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas.” appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.
• Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.
• Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?
• Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.
• Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).
• Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.
• Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.

Other

• The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.
• The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.
• In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.
• The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
• ”as follows” is poor wording.
• The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.
• The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.
• The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.
• ”Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall.” The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?
• ”The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".

  The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station".: Needs grammar fix.

• My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.
• The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.
• In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb thanks for the indepth review! Templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause the FAC page and archives to exceed template limits, which then cuts off the page. You have made extensive use of the tq template above. Would you mind if I go through and just convert them to straight (non-colored) quotes? Because of problems like this, there is consideration to remove the FAR page from FAC, to the detriment of FAR, so we should be sure to not use templates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sure, go ahead; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Buffs responses to each

Lead

• the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.

  NASA would disagree and it has been there for ~14 years based on plenty of prior consensus. Texas A&M is a prominent research institution with ties to US space programs nationwide.

  Actionable (no independent sources for this content in the body), this has not been addressed. If this info is so significant as to be in the lead, it should be covered (better) in the body, with sources other than Brittanica. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Brittanica is an acceptable source. IIRC, the space telescope was the primary piece in the article, but it looks like the space grant reference was omitted; fixed. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.

  Since anything that may be challenged needs a source, a source has been provided. I disagree as well, but that was the consensus in the FA.

  The FA was passed in 2007; this is a new FA. I am comfortable that the items cited in the lead are worthy of citation, but “one of six” is cited to a 2008 source, and the one of ten is WP:CITATION OVERKILL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am 100% on board with removing ALL citations in the lead as all of the lead should be contained in the body of the article. You won't get any argument from me. However, WP:V states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Ergo, MOS:LEADCITE cannot override it. I think it's pedantic too, but you've put me between people who want to uphold WP:V to an extreme degree and MOS:LEADCITE/you. I don't want to do that, but it's also required. As such, I'm not going to comply with it as WP:V overrides WP:MOS. I think it's dumb and probably needs to be rewritten, but that's where we stand. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.

  Not at all. It's a link to the history. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.

  It explains who was in charge and a simple variation in "Under X, ABC happened...Under Y, DGH happened". Doesn't sound promotional to me in the slightest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes., the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference. gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.

  This sounds very much like preferences, not standards. I have no objection to addressing these, but not as part of FAR. SEC is included in the lead paragraph because there is a very strong popular association with athletic conferences in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb raises legitimate concerns about structure and organization (of the article and the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I never said they were not "legitimate concerns". I simply stated they were preferences. Does the lead have to follow the organization of the article? If so, where is that stated so I can make sure to follow each and every requirement to the letter? I'm not against fulfilling every single requirement for FA/MoS that's possible, but I'm also not going to waste time/effort on something that's not required at this time. Buffs (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas. appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.

  removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:49, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.

  Actually, it isn't. The first one links to the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. The second links to Corps of Cadets (the generic term). Rewritten for clarity. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?

  List_of_United_States_public_university_campuses_by_enrollment was removed initially per WP:OVERLINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.

  I see nothing with "College Town" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).

  fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.

  Is that a standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  WP:WIAFA, 1b, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  There's a significant line between "comprehensive" and "too much detail". This may not be it, but it's getting close. I'll look those up and add them. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added as requested Buffs (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.

  This was recently added. I have no objection to its removal or addition. As for whether it should be in the infobox, that's a matter of opinion, not an objective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs)

  The question was, does it have official status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I can find nothing to show it does and I already removed it. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Other

• The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.

  What needs improvement? As for photos, some were removed because it was "too cluttered". WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies in spades to preferences. The "sandwich" was noted above; moved photo anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.

  See talk page and history for the rationale behind the word choice. If that isn't to your satisfaction, please specify what is "poor" about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.

  Basic acceptance averages seem acceptable. Many look at these pages to look for colleges and this is pertinent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.

  What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Consolidated to below list for ease of reference

• as follows is poor wording.

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Rephrased anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.

  The University confers degrees in such a wide list of studies and various ranking systems have wide-ranging criteria. There is no set standard. What would you propose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.

  Swapped with Zachry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.

  If you'll note the caption, it's from the TAMUQ campus in Qatar; the part of the main campus located in another country...it's pretty unique. What's not compelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall. The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?

  WP:OVERLINK. If you feel it would be beneficial, please add it. If you think the wikilinks are unnecessary, please remove them. Your criticism could be easily fixed rather than voicing such a vague complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".

  Fixed, but I would argue that they were allowed to attend. I don't think they were "accepted" as readily/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station". Needs grammar fix.

  Fixed a missing comma. Please be more specific if it's something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: - maybe "three" instead of "the", if that's accurate? Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  point taken. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 20:41, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

• My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.

  We indeed have addressed and trimmed the page substantially. Pretending we've done nothing is absurd. All of the people mentioned are on the people page. These were largely chosen during the FA process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  This section needs a tighter summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.

  "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Consolidated/addressed below. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).

  Their athletics page makes since as that and college admissions are the two primary reasons people popularly look up information about a school in the US, and certainly A&M. For the other sources, feel free to add them as you see fit. If you have a link and don't want to add it yourself, post it here and I'll happily add it. Likewise, I will correct any sloppy links after this round is complete (I prefer to address formatting en masse for the sake of consistency). Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Last updated: Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh...I responded within 5 hours (almost 4 months ago). To say that no one responded is highly misleading Buffs (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No improvements since OldAg's post a week ago, and no movement on Sdkb's list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, still no progress on lengthy lists above, and a move to FARC does not preclude further work happening, but keeps us moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  You have got to be kidding me. 4 months of work on this article and tracking this page. I take a week off and we move to FARC based on ONE person's nomination? This is a joke of a process. Buffs (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Many edits were made during the review section but progress seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding me. 4 months of work on this article and tracking this page. I take a week off and we move to FARC based on ONE person's nomination? This is a joke of a process. Buffs (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2 re the difference between FAR and FARC (none if work continues). (Also, it was ten days, so it did appear you had stopped working.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've patiently waited for weeks/a month for a reply (see above). Patience is apparently a one-way street. Buffs (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  So you want me to read Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2? Why? moved from FAR to FARC after three nominations, no objections, no reply from anyone after 18 days. Contrasting this with an extensive and responsive/patient editing history, I think I've CLEARLY demonstrated any necessary changes can be made. FARC is simply unnecessary at this point. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  As the fellow who opened this FAR (feel a bit guilty now), I think Buffs has got it up to snuff. In fact, he got it up to snuff a few months ago. Let's wrap it up here. ~ HAL333 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  There are considerable issues listed still at FAR; if Buffs wants to keep working on those, the Coords are always amenable to leaving FARs open as long as needed. We just need to know if Buffs needs more time and plans to keep working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• MOS:SANDWICH in the Student body and Rankings sections, and when I edited to attempt to fix it, I found an inline comment indicating a missing table of data that needs to be completed and uncommented. I suspect it is related to one of Sdkb’s comments, unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed sandwich issues. By this interpretation, virtually all images have to be on the right which seems silly...done anyway. Buffs (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is some other commented out text (has it been resolved), and this is an inline comment: “ Simply adding the low scores together, and the high scores and getting one range of average scores is statistically incorrect.” And, the data used is cited to 2009. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  This was added about 3 years ago, IIRC, due to people adding inaccurate information and to indicate why. It seems to be serving its intended purpose. Are you advocating removal? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why bolding in the Academic rankings chart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  No idea. It's part of the infobox. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please take note of MOS:ACCIM on images after hatnotes (I think I got them all [4]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Noted + fixed one more. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep dates in order (done for now [5]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Noted Buffs (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn’t appear to me that a MOS review has been done. I’ve corrected some as I go, and run scripts, but for example … “The system is governed by a ten-member Board of Regents, nine appointed by the governor to 6-year terms and one non-voting Student Regent appointed to a one-year term.” Ten, nine, one and yet … 6-year which should be six-year … please review throughout for basic MOS things like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Another example in the lead: “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.” Use of digits or spelling out should be consistent within a sentence (ten needs to be 10). Please check throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  fixed both. Buffs (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• The entire paragraph starting with “Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges. The school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is one of the largest uniformed student bodies outside the service academies. Many members participate in ROTC programs and earn commissions in the United States Armed Forces upon graduation. Members of the Corps have served in every armed conflict fought by the United States since 1876 … “ is cited to 2004. Inadequate; we don’t know how much of the paragraph is still true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Um...why? Just because it was cited to a 2004 article doesn't mean things have changed (they haven't). If you have evidence to the contrary, fine, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or outdated just because it is a ref >10 years old. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is cited to a 2003 Aggie network email !!! “ Texas A&M has over 1,000 student organizations, including academic, service, religious, Greek and common interest organizations.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  "It's cited to an email!" is a bit overblown. It's an official e-newsletter (an official publication) of the Association of Former Students that they also hosted/published on their page. Is that invalid? If so, why? Buffs (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Bouncing around the Athletics sections, everything I clicked on is a very old citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  They are hardly "very old". Many of them simply reference when an event happened. Old rivalries are not going to have new sources until new games are played. Coaches that have been here a while aren't going to have new articles on when they started. Just because a source is more than a few years old doesn't mean it isn't accurate (this is a recurring theme/issue/standard that your critiques have here and it's generally invalid). That said, some needed updates and those have been done. Please cite meaningful errors in the future. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• This, for example, needs an “as of” date: “ The women's soccer team, formed in 1993, has been in every NCAA Tournament appearances since 1995.” Also, the publisher on the citation is not specified, and the reader has to rummage around to decipher what 12thman.com is, and that the publisher is Texas A&M Athletics. (Suggest using in situations like this, |work= 12thman.com |publisher= Texas A&M Athletics ) Please check that all publishers are specified. Also, original research again (the source does not say the team was formed in 1993, we can guess that from the data presented, but don’t know if that is factual based on the source given). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added "as of" It isn't original research to say they formed in 1993. No one forms a sporting team with the intent to not play games. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• More dated: “ The women's volleyball team is a frequent qualifier for the annual NCAA tournament including 13 consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances from 1993 to 2005.” Frequent is original research, or needs an independent third-party source to say that. It is 2021, almost 2022. And almost everything is cited to Texas A&M; no independent coverage of anything. Do the newspapers not cover sports in TX? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  How is that statement "dated"? "Frequent" is an appropriate descriptor of the referenced facts per WP:SUMMARY. Yes, it is cited to Texas A&M, a government institution with a strong reputation for accuracy. If you want to get technical, they meet all the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. They have no incentive to change the record and no one contests their records' accuracy. No newspapers are going to write articles about the history of the volleyball team every year. Lastly, the snark is not needed. Buffs (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilinking needs review throughout. As examples, Qatar and Galveston are not linked on their first occurrence in the article, there is MOS:OVERLINK (eg World War II), Governor of Texas is linked repeatedly, and returns from user:Evad37/duplinks-alt should be checked (some dup links may be useful, but not all are needed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Governor of Texas was linked twice (as were WWII and one other which escapes me)...hardly the egregious error you imply. Fixed the rest. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• “ The University and Colleges are generally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and associated professional organizations.[63]” Bare URL in citation, and what is the meaning of “generally” ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I noted at the time that I would use bare urls until completion. I find it WAY easier to go back and edit urls en masse than as I go. Too many things get changed or details are requested to be added like quotes linking authors, etc. There are a few departments that are accredited by other institutions as they were either initially part of another system or were certified by a professional association's accreditation source (see ref). Putting the certification sources of all 150+ seems onerous and I stuck with a more general tone. If you have other ideas, I'm all ears. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Assuming you will correct them before this FAR closes, no problem. This is one of the lengthiest FARs I have seen in a long time, so it is to be expected that not everyone will notice everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• WP:LQ review needed, sample "Texas A&M University," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Review complete. Let me know if you see anything else. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is cited to a 2007 source (!!). “The university consistently ranks among the top ten public universities each year in enrollment of National Merit scholars.[68]”. This is precisely the sort of thing that should have been detected and updated in the course of this FAR. (It is also original research.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  updated Buffs (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why are we talking about 2008? “ In the fall 2008 semester, the Dwight Look College of Engineering had the largest enrollment of 20.5%.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Updated info for all colleges. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is cited to 2012 (almost ten years old): “ About 80% of the student body receives about $420 million in financial aid annually.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Updated + new ref Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are still copyedit needs, samples:

  The Washington Monthly ranked Texas A&M ranked 21st nationally in 2021 based on their criteria … ) and please find ways to vary the word ranked throughout (eg placed etc).

  In the lead: Many students also observe various university traditions, which govern daily life, as well as special occasions, including sports events.

  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed Buffs (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• “According to the College Board, the fall 2008 entering freshman class consisted of 54% students in the top 10% of their high school graduating class, … “ followed by a lot of text cited to the College Board, but the College Board gets their data from the universities, so this is not independent. And, why are we even mentioning the 2008 class? Has this article been updated to 2020 data? When using promotional data (54% in the top 10%), should we be using the university’s own data ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'll be happy to deal with the rest of this once we resolve the underlying complaint: I'm completely perplexed as to what data you would expect us to use? These are the official records. Of course A&M produced them. They are required to do so. By the same logic, every article about the content of the Bill of Rights is based on the same government source...the primary source. By that logic, none of the official US government records can be used in articles about the US government...which is absurd. Buffs (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed this with A&M data. If that is insufficient, I'm not sure what to tell you. Buffs (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.

  What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Demographic information added. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please check throughout that promotional claims are not made based on the University’s own sources, that reliable sources are used, and that all old data (from when this FA was promoted) is updated. This article has not been adequately updated from the FAC version. Regardless of the time this article has been at FAR, it has serious issues and is nowhere near FA quality. These items I have noted are only samples, just from bouncing around the text, not a complete read-through. A considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star here. I can revisit when a top-to-bottom rewrite has been undertaken, comprehensiveness is addressed re outstanding comments from both Sdkb and OldAg, Research is rewritten to independent sources, all content is rewritten and updated to include close scrutiny to more recent sourcing, and incorporation of “as of” dates throughout (see the error cats at the bottom of the article, that don’t even capture all of the old data that has no “as of” date listed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  "Promotional" is in the eye of the beholder. As a government entity, they are the creators of many of these numbers. They are presented as facts from a reputable source, not boosterism. If you find them to be "promotional", then please point them out and I will see what else we can find, but every article will be based on those figures. 4 of 5 people that have commented disagree with your assessment of the status of the article. Just because a source is old doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be updated. A "considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star" is absurd. It already has the star. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)

  This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added faculty. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) noted by Sdkb above

  I did not write the statement above. Buffs you have repeatedly moved text from where it was, and in this case, removed the sig attached to it to put it over my sig as you moved it.[6] The constant moving around of text and comments and unsigned posts and sectioning in this FAR have rendered it lengthy, difficult to read, hard to know where to respond, or even determine if my original comments have been left or removed. I hope the @WP:FAR coordinators: will provide some guidance on talk for how to proceed next. A large portion of what is on this page could be better dealt with on talk so that reviewers can determine what remains to be addressed. Please start respecting proper threading of posts and signatures, and please continue off-topic discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1 to minimize the length of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  The attribution was an unintentional error and has been corrected. I didn't "move" anything. I clearly annotated where it came from and have responded directly after each one exactly as you have requested. However, given the verbosity/breadth of the voiced issues, it is nearly impossible to track what has/hasn't been done in the insanely long wall of text/easy to make errors. As such, I consolidated those that were not completed. Otherwise things can be missed. However, if you feel it's an egregious error, I'll simply undo it all and we will be stuck with a wall of corrections and miss each other's replies left and right. If you want a conversation elsewhere, please start it there. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Addressed above. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• 1b Comprehensive is also failing, per Sdkb comments in FAR phase. Article organization is odd, and Sdkb’s concerns should be addressed (branches at Qatar and Galveston are mentioned in the Academics section— organization, administration is lacking as a separated section per Sdkb, and the grouping of several sections under “Academics” is odd). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think I've got them all with the most recent changes. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC points still under review

• Update bare url refs (this will be done last). Buffs (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  Will update upon confirmation everything else is done. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, could you please stop duplicating information in new sections that you add? That is unnecessarily chunking up this FAR, where it is near impossible to see what has been addressed, and is adding to the overall length of the FAR. Also, please sign your entries to help avoid confusion about whether work is ongoing (you added answers to Sdkb in the FAR section 13 days after they were entered, and without signing). There remain many unaddressed issues in the FAR section. I have organized my points above so that you can directly respond under each, without the need for creating a separate response section, duplicating my commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I did sign my entry...once, SandyGeorgia, rather than several dozen times as you've now added. I did not add answers to Sdkb without signing; it was signed at the bottom upon completion. To jump in here after 4 months and now complain I'm doing it all wrong is getting very tiring. I'm simply trying to address each point the best and clearest way I know how. Of note, you don't seem to have the same irritation toward Sdkb's list or anyone else's and I'm not sure why my list is unacceptable but others are fine. You certainly don't need to accuse me of "chunking" up the FARC multiple times. Very perplexing.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm well aware of the effort needed to have an article reach FA status (as are others). However, if we are strictly discussing personal preferences, then I'm not sure anything will ever make FA status. Objections need to be substantive. "I don't like the phrasing" (I'm paraphrasing from prev remarks) is not something that can be addressed beyond guesswork. Criticism needs to be clear, substantive, and addressable, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OldAg07 stated that nothing he wrote would keep it back from FA. As such, I see little need to waste time in this forum to address those points, but will be happy to address points of others as able. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I am out for the evening, and will catch up tomorrow. If you will put your lengthy comments unrelated to actually resolving items on talk, the FAR will be much less burdensome for all to review. (No, you did not sign most of your entries, which caused great confusion and makes it look like I asked to move to FARC over responses that you only made later: this is easily verified by reviewing the diffs.) I did say that some of OldAg's comments would be concerns for me (eg the Research issue). I don't find any of the comments to be of an IDONTLIKEIT nature, so we are at a point where we need to know if you intend to address issues, or if we should move forward with Keep and Delist declarations. I will catch up as I am able tomorrow, but am at the point of family arriving for Thanksgiving, and suggest focusing on addressing each item on this page, while keeping discussion about the process on the talk page of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I appreciate the constructive feedback that SandyGeorgia and the other editors have given this page. I just don't want my feedback to be the thing that is holding the closure of this FAR. I can understand Buffs' frustrations with the process after putting in over four months of work into this page to try to "save" its FA status. Wikipedia is project maintained by volunteers. Ultimately I would like to remind everyone involved with this review why we are here. Because we enjoy it. Oldag07 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

TAMU FARC Break

In the FARC phase, editors should declare Keep or Delist. They should not post comments in other editors' name. Thank you, Nikkimaria, for moving commentary to the talk page. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The FARC phase never should have begun in the first place and there was ample support opposing such actions. No one posted comments in other editors' names. Comments were indeed moved to provide clarity (as you have done as well). Jumping in 4 months after the start and saying we've done it all wrong is not helpful. I don't oppose reasonable breaks, but labeling them something more useful than "Break" would be helpful; please be mindful that others disagree. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I had to introduce the break because it was the only way I could edit this page. I have difficulty editing any page over 100kB in size because of bandwidth issues. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding breaks here and there so we have a chance to edit sections and not the whole page/LARGE sections. SandyGeorgia has expressed the opposite opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Some breaks are helpful and some are not; they are generally discouraged, and should be used carefully. This one is helpful. As an example of those that are not ... Duplicating entire editor commentary in a new section, and then responding there, just adds unnecessary length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALK would indicate otherwise. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#INTERPOLATE which is what I was trying to follow. You injected my signature everywhere I made a comment. Had you asked, I could/would have done that. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep None of the issues are severe enough to warrant delisting and any issues are actively being worked. This never should have been listed in the first place. By some people's standards, apparently every article that was FA is nearly immediately noncompliant and should be listed here as soon as the standards change. There is a process and it has not been followed every step of the way. None of these issues were asked on the article's talk page so it shouldn't have even gone to FAR and it was moved to FARC after just 9 days of "waiting" despite ample evidence of consistent work during FAR. Throughout FARs, some people are adding personal preferences as if they are the gatekeepers to WP:FA rather than focusing on objective standards. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep My feelings are the same as Buffs Oldag07 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• On a quick glance only. MOS:ALLCAPS. WP:MOSNUM who won 3 Super Bowls, ... There are still bare URLs in the citations; we can't record an article milestone for an FA with bare URLs. MOS:CAPTIONS "should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text." Alumni has not yet been trimmed to the truly outstanding (eg former "Austin Mayor Will Wynn are all graduates", I didn't look beyond that). The Corps of Cadets still has an entire paragraph cited to 2004, with no time context mentioned in the article for a reader to know if the facts remain true. There is still purely promotional content cited to the University itself, including press releases, eg "Texas A&M works with both state and university agencies on various local and international research projects to forge innovations in science and technology that can have commercial applications." There is still promotional content either uncited or cited to a 2002 (!!!) source, eg "Texas A&M has led the world in several fields of cloning research."
  Based on this quick glance, I can see that issues raised have not yet been addressed, so I haven't revisited yet line by line. I will revisit the article thoroughly once all issues raised have been addressed, including those raised by Sdkb. While good progress is now being made, and I have never before entered a "Delist" while work was progressing, I am contemplating breaking that tradition out of concern that there are several more A&M articles that have the same issues, and with the absence of Karanacs, I hope the updating of those articles will not result in such an arduous FAR as this one has been. It would be optimal to get things moving here so this can be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please do not just do this and expect a revisit; prune all of the alumni to the most significant. Same here; the entire article needs to be checked (lots of CAPS left, eg in citations, and I haven't done an exhaustive MOSNUM check). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  (ECx2) I've now mentioned to you 3 three times that I will do the urls at the end and it is still in the "to do" pile (see above) and you acknowledged it; there is no need to repeat it yet again. Why you've added more corrections here is beyond me. As for which alumni are the "most significant", all were added because they were significant to someone. You tell me which ones/groups are not significant and I'll prune them. You've made it clear that you don't like old references (which is bizarre...the facts haven't changed and don't need recent publications to verify them. For example, Texas A&M was the first to clone half a dozen animals. They will not become more "the first" as the years change and a more recent article isn't necessary). Indeed, the Corps of Cadets section has a paragraph cited to 2004. That doesn't make any of the information incorrect. For example, the law hasn't changed: we still have 6 SMCs. Citing another source for that is simply unnecessary busy work and I've addressed that above. I added "as of" to the prose and added a few of references anyway. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please, give me a chance to address each point. I make one edit and your response is "Please do not just do this and expect a revisit"? Really? I just started on it. Give me a chance. You are also being very nonspecific. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Down to 3 paragraphs from 5...smaller paragraphs too. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  LOTS of updates, if you'd just given me the time to finish them before assuming I'd only do a little. Buffs (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  “Still working” would suffice, while minimizing the length of this page. My apologies for jumping the gun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  Been done for almost a week now. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I've not found any additional references with all caps. after correcting three of them. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have never before entered a "Delist" while work was progressing, I am contemplating breaking that tradition out of concern that there are several more A&M articles that have the same issues... What? Wait, your logic is that you are going to mark as delist (despite progress) because there are other articles which need work? That makes no sense. Why would you ever downgrade one article because of the status of another article?Buffs (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that's all the MOSNUM issues. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's now been ~2 weeks. At this point, with no further objections, let's call it done and move on with our lives. Buffs (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  In previous FARs I've worked on, I pinged the reviewer if they haven't responded to ensure that they saw my comments. I think it is very clear that Buffs wants to close this as keep, but I think it would be quicker to ping reviewers who have not commented yet instead of continuing to ask that this be closed. Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, and please ping me once Sandy's review is complete. If there are other reviewers that need to weigh in, please ping them below and I apoligise for missing you. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping, Z. Buffs, feel free to ping me when everything is finished. On a quick glance, I see it is not. https://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf?gid=2&pgid=61 is a bare URL; I do not intend to keep revisiting until you are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  You've responded many times without a ping. Didn't realize you needed one. I'll just ping you on every reply from now on, once my response is complete.

  I explicitly said I'd do references last, multiple times. No one else has had an issue with that until you. Currently through reference 140; will do the rest later. If someone sees an issue now for 1-140, it'd be appreciated if you mention it now before I get through the next ~140. Buffs (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: Complete. Please review. Buffs (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  I will get to it after Christmas guests leave; thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

With this being a bit of a pause, I'll give this a review, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 20:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist - having made it through only the lead and the history, academics, and campus section, this needs a massive amount of work to correct source-text integrity issues, replaced obsolete sources, and updated outdated numbers. Hog Farm _Talk 21:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  Looking at the source for basic reliability, we still have issues with: Largest.org, which was challenged all the way back in July, and there doesn't seem to have been given a justification for why this is reliable and Tomahawk Nation falls in the unreliable range of sports blogs. Hog Farm _Talk 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist, regretfully. Many editors, on both the nominator and reviewer side, have put in a Herculean effort over the past five months to try to save this, but when there are still major issues (per HF, multiple instances of text in lead but not body, severely outdated figures, etc.) this far in, it's time to call it. At FAC, nominations are archived if consensus to promote does not begin to form within two weeks or so, and while there is considerably more leeway at FAR, it cannot extend indefinitely. Even though ongoing work has been done in response to individual issues, and I hope will be in response to this latest round too, it's unfair to continue placing the burden on reviewers to point out every issue rather than on those who would like to see this be an FA to first bring it up to standard and only then have others review. I very much hope to see this (and many other education articles) reach FA again someday, and in the nearer term, I think it would have a relatively easy time passing GAN given all the work done during this review. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist. As HF reviewed Lead, History and Academics, I decided to skip those and look at a few other sections. My first stop was the "Student life" section. The first sentence

  As of 2021, approximately 23% of the student body lived on campus, primarily in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus.

is "as of 2021", but the first citation given is to the enrollment profile of 2015 (with a plural pp to a single page, pp. i.) There is no p. i; what is this citing? The next citation, [7] says that 20% live on campus in 2020, not 23% and not 2021. So we have confusing citations, or inaccurate citations, or dated citations, and citation formatting issues. Considering the amount of effort that has gone in to this FAR, and that this is the very first thing I checked, I think it time to call this and move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sample sourcing problem:

Texas A&M has participated in more than 500 research projects in more than 80 countries and leads the Southwestern United States in annual research expenditures. The university conducts research on every continent and has formal research and exchange agreements with 100 institutions in 40 countries.[8]

Cited to a 2007 press release from the University. First, this would need independent sourcing. Second, it needs updated sourcing. This has been typical of this article for months now, and issues like this have not been corrected. Reviewers cannot be expected to keep going back, again and again, to check the same problems. (By the way, some numbers have commas, others don’t, eg 1000 compared to 1,000.) And it was not “TAMU researchers” on the volcano; check the source; that’s a misrepresentation (Sager was once a prof there, no longer.)

With two first sentences in two sections I checked failing verification, it seems unproductive to dig deeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist per Hog Farm's sound analysis on the talk page. Unfortunately, it looks like this would need a lot of work to get it up to par, despite the improvements during the FAR. (t · c) buidhe 07:13, 26 December 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. DrKay (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)