Jump to content

Talk:Technique (newspaper)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTechnique (newspaper) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2004Articles for deletionKept
February 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 10, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

The paper creation process

[edit]

It seems to me the entire paragraph starting with "The paper is first assembled..." is pretty much superfluous. It is not asimilar to what any other newspaper is set up like and does not strike me as encyclopedic knowledge. I've not removed it for the moment, but if no one opposes within a few weeks (or whenever I remember) I probably will. --Elepsis 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment. If the paragraph stays it should be edited to be more accurate to the actual process at the least. --Entertainingfate 1:14, 6 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

Title and format

[edit]

It looks as though the definite article was an historic part of the paper's title, but that this is not true of the current paper. If so, shouldn't the article instead be moved to Technique (newspaper) or something similar? Also, is it really printed in tabloid format? I realize this refers strictly to dimensions and not content, but while I've not held a copy in my hands, it looks like neither a tabloid nor broadsheet, maybe a Berliner or something. Just curious, anyone care to break out a ruler? -Tobogganoggin talk 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about moving the page, yes. And I'm fairly certain that it's considered a tabloid-size newspaper. The image on the article was captured from a PDF, and doesn't necessarily represent the dimensions of the actual paper. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

[edit]

I have reviewed this article and believe it meets criteria at WP:WIAGA. I think the article is a well referenced and well written piece about a college newspaper. I also think considering it is a school newspaper and not a national publication the article is broad enough for GA class. However to improve especially if considering nominating to FAC then a few parts could do with expanding. Firstly the history section? Perhaps a list of some of the more contentious articles/issues of the past? Or perhaps a list of some (if any) famous contributors from the past, who have now gone on to other things? I have placed a few wikilinks I thought were missing as well. Anyway good job to all those who contributed to improve! LordHarris 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It is clear from the sheer number of broken links to the Technique website from various articles on Wikipedia (numbering over a hundred) that some major sea change has happened there. No media web site for a public institution would break links on its website en masse like this unless it was done intentionally to distance itself from past reporting. The breakage coincided in time with the loss of the famous "Two Bits", as we read here, as well. There is nothing in this article to indicate what sort of conservative takeover led to this. It should explain something. Please add it. -130.207.229.86 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Bits was discontinued because all of the writers graduated, and didn't recruit anyone to replace them. The website was broken because they redesigned it and weren't bothered to include the archives. You can still access all of the Technique content through the Georgia Tech Library here, but I haven't had the time to go through and update all of the links. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're talking about media sites breaking links, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is particularly notorious about that; articles from just a few years ago have rarely been accessible, much less the kind of age I'd need for the research I focus on around here. So at least we have the Georgia Tech Library to archive the GT student publications for us. :3 —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on The Technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]