Talk:Angelo State University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 / Texas / Texas Tech University (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Texas Tech University (marked as Top-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Social sciences and society.
Taskforce icon
This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.7 test release, which is of limited size. It is now being held ready for a later version.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Angelo State University:
  1. Expand prose in "Notable People" section
  2. Provide sources for all statements. (Non-ASU sources are preferred.)
  3. Convert "Academic profile" to prose.
  4. Convert "Facts and figures" to prose.
  5. Arrange images for best look and compliance with WP:MOS.
  6. Ensure all spelling and grammar are correct.
  7. Discuss splitting "Notable people" into its own article. - Discussed and Implemented MarkRomero (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Keep this list update by adding new concerns and striking ones that have been addressed.

Prose needs a clean-up[edit]

This page is starting to look pretty good, especially with the new images and content. I have noticed that much of the text appears to be pulled directly from ASU sources, and some of it contains peacock terms. Specifically some of the best athletic facilities, honored guests, proud recipients, etc. Again, it's starting to look like a top notch article, but these things need to be cleaned up. Also, I'm not sure, but I suspect some of the images are stock photos and not released by the actual copyright holder as indicated.--Elred (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think the pictures that uploaded are from the ASU website or another similar source (case in point: both Image:Ramshead.jpg and Image:ASURing.jpg, the latter of which I think I saw on promotional liturature about the ring ceremony a while back). Any edits by Stu8912 should be looked at carefully, and the proper copyrights should be looked up, since his talk page seems to indicate a history of image and copyright trouble. Other than that, I agree, this is shaping up to be a fine article...--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You should be bold and tag the images which you think are being improperly used. I've wondered about some but only handled the ones I could verify. Editors in or near San Angelo could help out by taking pictures around campus and at various events. →Wordbuilder (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, most of my assumptions came from off the top of my head. It's been a trick trying to find the true sources of the images, but I was correct about Image:ASURing.jpg, which seems to have come straight off of the ASU alumni page. I've tagged it accordingly.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I had a hunch about that one but couldn't find proof. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an image tagger. I'd feel like a taddle tale if I did that, but I'd like to see the suspect images replaced by legit ones. I haven't done any research on this, but I'm assuming the wiki-editor who added some of those photos didn't rent a helicopter. If he did, I'd like to get him to buzz by TTU's campus and get some shots for us too. If anyone over at ASU takes some photos I can slick them up in photoshop. Also, if anyone wants to take some shots of an ASU ring I can make one of those images like I did for Tech.--Elred (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think User:Stu8912 gets it...the user has re-added the exact same ASU ring picture, and the new gum tree picture isn't his (I just looked it up with Google Images). He seems to be pulling pics from the ASU alumni website without permission. We need an admin to talk to him.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iffy images[edit]

I hate beating the dead horse, but it seems that Stu8912 (talk · contribs) might be operating through a couple of sockpuppets now... (talk · contribs) follows Stu's pattern of incredibly numerous ASU-related edits within a few hours, and ASUPHOTOG (talk · contribs) over at Commons uploads some of the same type of improperly-tagged copyvio photographs, some with Stu's distinctive doctoring to cover up watermarks. If both turn out to be Stu, then we need someone to take care of this problem, quick.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CHECK. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just another comment...I am tired of being the only one who tags these copyvio images that Stu keeps uploading. A little help would be gladly appreciated.--Dynamite Eleven (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

But you're doing such a good job. I'm dedicating plenty of time to other areas of Wikipedia—including at times tagging bad images—that I don't worry about areas that seem to be better handled by someone else. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated, I have taken some images for ASU, though to my knowledge never signed any waver saying I could not use them elsewhere. Or I will take them from a slightly different angle if need be. I have little knowledge on IP addresses but this is a computer at Angelo Place Computer center so over 500? students have access, whether they have the same IP I have no clue.... Though I do think the new format needs some serious work. →ASUPhotog

If by "new format", you're referring to the changes I made yesterday, then I completely agree. I moved the information into the ideal arrangement. However, in so doing, made a bit of a mess of the image placement. It's a pain, but the change had to take place in order to eventually reach GA, A, or FA status. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, the ramshead image seems a little to prof. I personally like the image, and can't find a duplicate, so I'll leave it, but I kinda doubt its not somewhere on ASU or the Alumni site, or maybe shared with another school signal somewhere? Not sure about what "helicopter" images your talking about , but ASU has 3 ten story buildings, but "if" (still trying) you have rooftop access its more than possible. →ASUPhotog

ASUPhotog, please don't add the black border to your photographs. That type of embellishment is frowned upon at wikipedia. Also, when we put the images in a thumbnail box, that box frames the image in a grey border anyway. Also, if you take a lot of photographs, you should upload a higher resolution version to the page. Wikipedia will thumbnail them for the main page, but ideally people would be able to click on the image to see the hi-res version. I really like the content and the angles you've used in most of your photos, but I'd like to see higher quality versions of them uploaded.--Elred (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Enrollment figures[edit]

Does anyone have a source for the current enrollment figures? The existing source seems to contradict this new article. Maybe my reading comprehension is taking a day off. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they round up in that article, though I could be wrong. I'll look into it but I doubt our enrollment falls exactly at 6,200, that would be odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASUPhotog (talkcontribs) 06:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
My reading comprehension really was taking a day off. When I take another look, I see that both articles say essentially the same thing. The current enrollment is 6,155. However, I'm not sure how many of those are undergrads and how many are postgrads. When we find that out we can add the updated figures to the infobox. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable figures[edit]

Separate Page? I think this is a poor idea, but has been mentioned & looking for input. For a large D1 school or national university who have tons of nationally known alumni I can understand. But as a relatively new small state school I don't see the need. It will be harder to access & harder to edit, not to mention I can't find another example of a school of ASU's size & stature which splits this off on Wiki. Unless you start adding alumni like "Distinguished Lawyer in BFE" I see no need, at least for the next decade or so, maybe longer, considering who comes out of ASU . Any Comments? —ASUPhotog (talk · contribs) 22:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. It's just that the article is a bit long now and will get longer as we strive for GA, A, FA status. This is the most logical section to spin off. Plus, I don't know that we can make it all the way to A or FA status with a list in the article. Both the ASU article and the ASU template will link to it and editing it will be as easy as editing any other article. However, I'm not sold on the idea and would like to hear more feedback from others. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the list needs to go. I understand ASUPhotog's perspective though, it does make sense. However, I think a lot of that has less to do with the size of the university and more to do with the fact that those smaller universities do not typically have well-built wikipedia pages. There's a standard model for the 'optimum' university wikipedia article, and it pretty much precludes the use of such lists. What I would recommend is to look at Texas Tech's page and see what we did with the notable people section. Write a bit about the most prominent people, and then add a link to the 'catch-all' page with the list. I point out TTU's page not so much because Wordbuilder and I recently pushed that through FA, but because it was probably the most scrutinized university FA candidate in wikipedia.--Elred (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed over 6 months ago, and I believe we came to a consensus, so I have go ahead and created the article. --MarkRomero (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 0.7[edit]

This article is of a fairly high standard compared to many college articles, but the subject is not really prominent enough to warrant being in the top 100 articles on Wikipedia. There are thousands of colleges in the world that are of comparable importance. If it were a GA, though, it would have been selected by the bot, so clearly it's pretty close, so hopefully it'll make it next time around? Walkerma (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Facts and figures[edit]

I was going to work on converting the list into prose, but noticed most of them cite the ASU facts page. I believe for these types of claims should come from 3rd party sources, especially because most of them cite other studies. When I tried to independently verify some of these claims, I was unable to find sources. I have marked the ones that I have not been able to independently verify with the appropriate inline template. I will work to help clean it up, but some help would be appreciated. -- MarkRomero (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take a look, too, and help out when I can. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to break it into prose but finding the references became to tedious & time consuming. There are some facts that I'm just not sure who if anyone would compile other than the University itself such as grad school & med school admissions, but I'll keep looking. Changed wording on some when I couldn't verify facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

While non-ASU sources are ideal, some non-third-party sources are permitted. I recommend converting to prose and then trying to add to or replace the ASU sources when possible. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize that some facts require ASU sources. It just seems that after I did a little digging that I couldn't find the original source that ASU was citing. I.E. the highest per student endowment, I went to the website of the organization that ran the survey and could not find anything w.r.t. endowment per student. It is possible that ASU has a different report (I know that NACUBO charges for some of their reports), or that ASU is generating statistics based on the figures in the report. --MarkRomero (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. For the claims that might be questioned because ASU is the only source, we should probably exclude them until a third-party citation can be added. Many things are innocuous enough that most editors will not care, but some will raise red flags. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with you but I think someone went to far or didn't understand, it seems they took down all the Facts where ASU wasn't the source material. I think at this point it would be better to just remove the whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They were not removed, I converted them to prose and placed them in other sections throughout the article where I felt they belong. (Mostly in the Academic profile section.) The facts and figures section is being phased out, as the article would never be able to make A, GA or FA status with a list and I haven't gotten around to the last few points left on the list. --MarkRomero (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, wanted to say that I am sorry if I stepped on your toes. I was being bold and I am trying to get the article ready for review. --MarkRomero (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Your right, I missed that, it looks great. I do question whether some of that info belongs under a section titled Academic Profile, but I cant think of a better way to organize it, so good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that it is not the best section. But I too couldn't think of better place to put some of them. Maybe Elred or Wordbuilder can offer suggestions. --MarkRomero (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)