Talk:Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Florida (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Former good article Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
February 26, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

verify[edit]

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

Page Split[edit]

I support splitting each campus into a new article because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Wichita, KS article links to Embry-Riddle. Is there a campus there too? 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review?[edit]

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

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

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

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

GA review (see here for criteria):

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

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

March 2011[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

Prestigious and the like[edit]

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

blah blah blah with advertising-only sock/SPA Meatpuppets

"Embry-Riddle Keeps Top Spot in U.S. News & World Report's Best College Rankings for Ninth Year in a Row." (2011): 1,2. Web. 2 Jul 2011. <http://www.amtonline.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=6237&pageNum=1>. What Harvard is to law, Embry Riddle is to Aviation and Aerospace Engineering.The FACT its Ranked number #1 in the world, not US, but the world and accepted by its community and peers to be a Prestigious University should be more than enough to reflect a world such as "Prestigious" to this article. If Harvard is considered prestigious on Wikipedia so is Embry. Until you can prove otherwise, please stop Vandalizing Embrys Wikipedia page. The Ref. to this will be cited by the end of the weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGodfather1987 (talkcontribs) 13:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that some references are available I've modified the article, introducing a Rankings section. Note that the reference given is "America's Best Colleges"; I haven't found any reference for its being world number 1, though it may well be. The point here, as I keep saying, is that if it's "ranked number one" in a published list, you say and cite that fact, rather than deciding and saying that it is consequently prestigious. Anyone or anything can be called prestigious, it actually means little; ranking number one is reasonably factual (depending upon who does the ranking, etc...). The article on Harvard cites two references to support that it is considered prestigious. (added later) A previous entry here says "Until you can prove otherwise" [stop removing "prestigious"]—this totally misses the point. As I said before, I am not asserting that the subject is not, in fact, prestigious, but that anything in an article must be based on published sources. The correct thing to say according to Wikipedia's guidelines is "until you can document that it is prestigious, stop using the word". Pol098 (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, ref. to it being the best in the world, sorry i dont have much time to completely discuss my point at this time. http://www.erau.edu/about/l-about.html http://www.erau.edu/er/newsmedia/newsreleases/2009/usnews.html In these ref. you can find multiple accreditation facts and figures showing Embry Riddle being the Best University in Aviation and Aerospace Engineering in the world. I personally do not have the time this weekend to completely revise the article but i will give it a shot later. Ref. to it being Prestigious....please revise the article according to this ref. http://www.erau.edu/about/fast-facts.html "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace. It is the only accredited, aviation-oriented university in the world." I will add this note to the beginning of the Embry Riddle Article once i muster enough time this weekend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGodfather1987 (talkcontribs) 20:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The websites which do, indeed, say that ERAU is the best in the world are ERAU websites advertising themselves, and not reliable sources. See WP:Reliable. Pol098 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Now you are just being ridicoulse, the things that i said will go onto the article with the correct ref. and if you do change it you will be reported for vandalism and here are more references, it seems to me you have a personal grudge on this subject. http://www.bestaviation.net/school/embry_riddle_aeronautical_university/ http://www.universityparent.com/erau/2009/07/29/about-embry-riddle http://www.usnewsuniversitydirectory.com/USNewsSchoolInfo.aspx?rid=9&cid=1&schoolid=1479

I can show you dozen more references which back up what i am saying about Embry....please find something else to do..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGodfather1987 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 
This seems to be getting personal: "it seems to me you have a personal grudge on this subject". In point of fact I tend personally to agree that ERAU is prestigious as a specialised institution from what I've seen (I have no personal knowledge). However, it's necessary to state referenced facts in an encyclopaedia article as discussed ad nauseam above. "...if you do change it you will be reported for vandalism" yes yes yes, please do that immediately without delay, bring this to wider attention. Adding more and more references which simply copy statements from the ERAU website doesn't make the references reliable. Incidentally, a few other people have reverted the bald statements of "prestigious" and the like in the past. Pol098 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think if everyone else agrees with the statements posted on ERAUs site and claims, its reliable? This will continue till a moderator setps in. Since i have delegated several references on this matter i will post this as stated "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace. It is the only accredited, aviation-oriented university in the world." and i will reference it. After i have posted references which you are not in position to question because you are not an expert on the matter nor have you done any kind of research with it, mind i quote you "(I have no personal knowledge)", i will report this incident. And come up with your own argument about a grudge don't copy me. Under these circumstances Wikipedia's position is to inform the reader of what the subject is, what better source is there than the subjects own definition, which has been accepted by everyone except you. "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace. It is the only accredited, aviation-oriented university in the world." 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGodfather1987 (talkcontribs) Just look at the title of this reference "FACTS" http://www.erau.edu/about/fast-facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGodfather1987 (talkcontribs) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

As it seems "The Godfather" might be right with this one, i read through several references he posted and i cant argue the fact that the best place in this matter to find out about a subject is the subject it self, and i tried cross referencing his claim "Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace. It is the only accredited, aviation-oriented university in the world." and could not find a valid opposition. In my opinion this is right, however i personally am not associated with this university. Jao234 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally I consider the following text or similar to be totally inappropriate for any encyclopaedia article on any subject: "... ERAU is the world's oldest, largest, and most prestigious university specializing in aviation and aerospace engineering." I'm not going to keep on correcting this, but I see (from edits made rather than discussion here) that others agree with me. The article already quotes far too much praise from not particularly reliable sources (often quoted verbatim from an ERAU publication). As I've said several times, I'm not trying to criticise ERAU itself (I don't have the information to make any informed comments); but to praise it in Wikt:fulsome terms without totally independent WP:reliable sources does the institution no favours. Pol098 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
From what i have observed you and the godfather have a situation here, and i viewed the history of this article the only person who saw it your way was Jao234, who openly agreed with The Godfather on this, i have also checked the references posted by him and they all seem to be right, whether its reliable or not is not your concern a you have stated you are not an expert on this therefore the references are more credible than you are at this point. I personally know Embry Riddle and i reside in Europe, its the Best University specializing in Aviation and Aerospace Engineering in the world. Its not even easy to get into, i am sorry Pol but i do not agree with you, until you disprove his claim. Thank You. Tupac84 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that someone else reinstated that fluff, and it's not going to stay. There is no apology for such terminology in the lead, and the lack of an independent reference makes it even more damning. Pol098 is correct, no matter how many new editors, involved editors, SPAs, and what not come out of the woodwork. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've notified the wider community of the issues here, including accusations of dishonesty by a multitude of apparent SPAs. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Embry.E2.80.93Riddle_Aeronautical_University. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What was said at this article was not done by "SPA's" another reference to the wording of the article, by a leading Job Hunt Company!! You have been shown multiple references to this. http://www.universities.com/edu/Associate_degree_in_Professional_Aeronautics_at_Embry_Riddle_Aeronautical_University_Worldwide.html Jao234 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
...which raises WP:COPYVIO questions, given the nearly word-for-word copying of the original text. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've blocked all the SPA/socks that have popped up. I'll leave the page semi-protected to deal with their ips. Toddst1 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Accreditation[edit]

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

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

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

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

Ranking[edit]

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

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

Merge?[edit]

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

These three wikipedia articles should all be merged into Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Worldwide
Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach
Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott

http://worldwide.erau.edu/about-worldwide/accreditation/index.html 208.105.78.10 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Updating Content for University[edit]

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

Information Updates[edit]

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

The university ([2] [3]):

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

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

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

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

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

I would be inclined not to use the Carnegie Foundation, as their data are older. The university uses different calculation methods for faculty and for the worldwide campus than the Dept. of Education does - the university method seems more appropriate for counting the part-time students comparably to the residential students, but the government method has the advantage of consistency across all campuses and can better support realistic faculty/student ratio calculations. My inclination would be to use the government numbers, particularly since the calculation method mismatch between faculty and students in the university's statistics makes the faculty/student ratio look better than it may actually be. 121.98.124.75 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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