Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

LINK TO MAIN TALK PAGE

LINK TO ARTICLE

Things to review

Overview

• Best work
• General
  • Well written
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Referencing Checked. Need verification.
  • Neutrality
  • Stability Checked. Need verification.
• Style
  • Formatting
    • Dates and numbers
    • Other Checked. Need verification.
  • Lead
  • Headings
  • Table of contents
• Images see page for more picts to add.
• Length

Pulled from AndyZ's suggestions page.

Best work

Posted by — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If we take care of everything else, I think this will take care of itself. Of course, tweaking a bit of phrasing here and there is certainly warranted. As before, we will cross off completed sections. In order to make sure we get everything right, I think at least 2 people should check each subbullet. Once 2 people sign off on it, it should be crossed off.

General

Well written

An article should not be list-weighty.

The only thing I can see that might have a problem is the list of notable facilities, but I think that this list serves a use to accentuate the article rather than detract from it. Given its prominence, I think we should add Kyle Field. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

remove easterwood airport. switch with kyle. Oldag07 13:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kyle Field is the most prominent building when a visitor goes to Aggieland. It should be definitely added.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit for grammar/spelling errors.

Correct anything you see. We'll do a big scrubbing right before we send it up for FA review. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Make sure your article flows.

No problems here, but the order of events can be editted a little. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Expand/merge short paragraphs and short sections.

Scan and fix as necessary. Let's try not to have paragraphs with less than 4 sentences. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate/remove "Trivia"

I think our popular culture section has been pruned down quite a bit and is appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I checked the article for these things today, and I think we have it covered. There are a few short sections in the Traditions section, but they cannot be expanded more without being expanded too much. I think the article does well here. Karanacs 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

It covers Texas A&M pretty well. Anyone disagree? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I can't think of anything we left out that non-Aggies would be interested in.Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Articles need references.

I think that is pretty well documented. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just found 2 sentences in the history section (2nd paragraph) without a reference. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything that needs a reference at this point other than those stated below — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles need inline citations.

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes should be cited according to WP:CITE.

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Make sure sources are reliable.

Recheck, but I think our sources are pretty reliable and don't come from conspiracy sites. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked. All references are from reliable sources. -- Hut101 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All quotations should have footnotes

I'd say complete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Karanacs 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Use proper templates

I checked each reference before it passed GA to verify that they were using a citation template (and using it properly). I've also tried to make sure the sources are reliable (I replaced a few) and that everything is documented. I'd feel better if one more person could verify this just in case I missed something. Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Avoid WP:POV and stay WP:NPOV

I think we are ok here, but we need to make sure we stay that way. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked. Need verification.

Avoid weasel terms, and make sure that it is listed exactly who supports a view.

Review and make sure we avoid these terms unless it specifically supports a view. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stability

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Style

Formatting

Dates and numbers

Month and day names should not be linked unless they are likely to help the reader to understand the article.

Checked. Need someone to verify — BQZip01 —^talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date may be linked to trigger the auto-formatting function.

Before GA passed I checked through the dates and made sure we were following the above 2 formatting rules. If someone else can verify we'll cross this off. Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whenever information may become dated, try to give the time at which it was accurate (from WP:MOS#Time)

Need to look at anything with a number that can change, such as enrollment, faculty, size (in area), etc. How can we denote this and make sure it remains accurate?— BQZip01 — ^talk 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about putting "figures are as of 2006" and cite our source at the bottom of the info box? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea -- do you have the source? Karanacs 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I do now and it's been fixed. There is also a later reference to the number of cadets I added as well. Notes have been placed with each reference stating the time. I had no idea that the Corps had expanded to 2,300+ cadets!!! That said, I have checked the article for any of those problems and it seems all right. I just need someone to verify it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've verified this too, as much as possible. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Full dates should have either two or no commas, depending upon the subject of the article.

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After a single year, there should consistently be a comma...'In 2015, this happened' (American)

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Other

All numbers with units of measures should have conversions from the metric system to the US customary units (Time units are exempt from this).

Just need to double check. I think we're good on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed everything to use the conversion templates before GA passed. If someone can quickly verify we'll be fine. Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ensure all units of measure have a nobreak space between the value and the unit of measure, &nbsp;, to prevent the unit of measure from appearing alone on the next line.:This one will be a chore. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The conversion template does this automatically. As long as we are verified to be using those correctly, we're fine here.Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all have the conversion template. I'm not sure how to use the template, so if you could check it, I'd appreciate it. Manually, though, they are all there. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out! Verified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers should keep to the same accuracy; instead of 800 miles (1287.48 km), use 800 miles (1300 km), unless a case such as 1 mile (1.6 km).

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Source units should be spelled out in text, while converted units should use standard abbreviations.

Instead of 5 in (13 centimeters), use 5 inches (13 cm). Note that there are no periods or "s" in the standard abbreviation. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates should have taken care of this.Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow WP:MoS in terms of currency

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not extraneously bold terms unless necessary.

I am concerned with the lack of subheadings in History and Notable buildings sections. These were deleted by BlueAg09 (not calling you out or anything, but I wanted to show how they were deleted by one of us and not some random IP address).

To quote from the Wikipedia Manual of Style, "[u]se the == (two equal signs) style markup for headings, not the ''' (triple apostrophes) used to make words appear bold in character formatting...Nest headings correctly, for the same reasons as above...the sub-heading of '==' is '==='."

As such, I am changing them back.

On that note, it's been checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified.Karanacs 19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not extraneously link terms unless necessary.

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes should appear after the punctuation mark, without a space. :Another tedious item to double check.

I've checked all this once; just need a quick verification from someone else.Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait on this until everything is referenced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw heck, we're getting pretty close and I went ahead and checked. Verified! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should not introduce information that is not discussed in the rest of the article. However, it should establish the notability and importance of the subject.

I think we might be able to better emphasize our subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See if there is an applicable infobox if the article doesn't have one already

Already have one, but we should make sure we aren't missing anything from the infobox. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Headings

None have wikilinks inside them. Relevant wikilinks should occur in the prose of the section immediately following the heading.

We need to fix a few of these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, please verify. Karanacs 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No capitalized words, besides the first letter and proper nouns

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified

Don't repeat the title of the article unless necessary.

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 18:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't start with the word "the", if possible.

Should be good here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Karanacs 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Be concise

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified. Karanacs 18:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow applicable Wikiproject guidelines. We need to make sure we are following the Wikiproject University and Texas guidelines. Be hierarchical

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow the order at WP:GTL

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Verified Karanacs 18:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents

Should have a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Double-check that all images have an image copyright tag that is not obsolete-the {{PD}} tag is no longer acceptable and should be replaced by either another tag or a fair-use tag.

Better double check all images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Double-check that all images for which fair use is claimed have appropriate fair use rationales(see WP:FUC).

A fair-use rationale should claim that an image can be used because there is no free-use image replacement and that it meets the four criteria on WP:FU#General. See the entire list of fair use templates at WP:FU#Tagging fair use image files. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not inundate the article with images.

If anything, we don't have enough images, especially in the Research section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are a perfect number of pictures, with some sections given more pictures based on their length. -- Hut101 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All images should have concise captions.

A few of ours need some pruning. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken over 200 pictures on campus the last couple of days. of course i need to trim down them. maybe 50-60 good ones. i got a bike and i live on campus. I am ideal for this position. I'll be around this summer living on northgate. didn't really take a good one of the airport. just didn't want to pay for parking. and after 9/11, well, it isn't smart to run around taking pictures of places like airports. I'll post them like i said by Sunday. my parents are bring me up a graduation gift, a new laptop. so i guess ill upload after that. ill put them up on the wikicommons. Ill need help captioning them all. good luck. gig em Oldag07 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The view from the east side of campus is great. I think we should replace the current campus picture with a picture like this. Kyle Field is to be included in the picture too. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY!!! That pict would be perfect! — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Done with my picture uploads. As for that picture, any suggestions on where to take it. Maybe i should go to the petroleum engineering building. i don't know. good luck everyone. Oldag07 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, with all the construction being done on main campus, i don't think we can get a good overview picture like that. Looking at Duke University's page, a FA, they have made their pictures larger. what do you think? Oldag07 02:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

IAW with Wikipedia policy, their images should not be manually sized. Those panoramics crossing the entire screen would be ok, but we need to be careful with images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

An article should be of appropriate length.

(My 7th grade teacher said it best) It should be like a girl's skirt, long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting. I think we meet that definition, but we could trim it back to 50K or less. Any suggestions on things to delete (I expect a lot of controversy here). — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions: we don't need info on Student Gov't or Easterwood Airport. We could probably shrink the rankings section by half; right now it is just a list of rankings in paragraph form. We may be able to further consolidate the history section.Karanacs 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

History section could be the mandatory corps Era, and the after Rudder era. Oldag07 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Beginning/Pre Ross, Ross, Rudder & after are pretty good (as it is). Any other thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with reducing the history section to the beginning of A&M during the early Corps era, Sul Ross, and during Rudder's administration when Texas A&M began its largest transformation. -- Hut101 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Those dates are just too arbitrary. we could divide our history in a more logical fashion. looking at featured articles, such as Duke, we can afford to be a little longer. well good luck Oldag07 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly are they arbitrary? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OldAg brings a good point. Perhaps we can use titles instead of the years as section headings?BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the section headers in the actual history article are pretty good. ex: "1890s: Sul Ross era", they include the time period so individuals can relate an event to a specific time period in general history, while also understanding that a particular event was very influential in shaping A&M in particular. -- Hut101 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)