Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Georgia Tech/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

History of Georgia Tech[edit]

Well-referenced, high-quality article that (in my opinion) meets all of the FA guidelines. From experiences learned from my first FAC, Tech Tower, there are no redlinks and very few mid-sentence refs. This article has had two peer reviews: one, two. For your information, this article is maintained almost exclusively by members of WikiProject Georgia Tech. Finally, note that the only other FA "History of Schools" article that I have found is History of Michigan State University, which seems somewhat inferior to this article's quality. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My concerns at PR were addressed. This article is well-researched and an interesting read. --mav 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (more below on my Oppose) - There is more to it than what I have here (yes, I have read the whole article), but I don't have time right now to get to all of it, so I'll give you a few quick things to work on.

  • Image sizing needs to be removed IAW WP:MoS#Images. If you want all of the images at 300px, please adjust your wikipedia settings accordingly. Please note the FIRST image at 300px is ok.
 Done
  • The lead needs some work since things introduced in it are not expanded upon later in the article (this is basically everything with a reference. If you need a ref in the lead because it is not mentioned elsewhere, then it needs to be mentioned elsewhere, not referenced). Please note some people choose to put refs in the lead, which is ok, but is duplicitous.
 Not done see below
  • Lead 2nd para: how is 1934 the school's early history if it was started in 1865? Right now, it's right near the midpoint. Replace with a more appropriate adjective.
 Done
  • "Historic District" does not need quotes IMHO.
 Done
  • Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (i.e. "100 men")
 Done
 Not done see below
 Done
  • Make sure all dates are wikilinked (see references for quite a few).  Done  Not done see below  Done

That's all for now, but I promise a full and complete review later.

Oppose by — BQZip01 — talk - Ok, now for the big review. In order not to spring a bazillion things on you at once and due to a lack of available time on my part, I'm going to make this a multiday review, so bear with me. While each item in each "subheading" may be addressed as you go through it, I still reserve the right to add to sections if I find something later before I am done. When I am done, I will state as such.

General
  • Variety in placement of images - consider putting some on the right and left. Any pictures of past presidents?  Done
  • Make sure financial claims are made IAW WP:$  Done
    • "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification (just $88), unless this would be unclear." I shouldn't have to quote these. You can read them. I even wikilinked them for your use, which you don't appear to be doing. — BQZip01 — talk
      • The sentence immediately after the one you quoted there: The exception to this is in articles related to the US and the UK, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34 and £22, respectively), unless this would be unclear. Georgia Tech seems to obviously be in the United States. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, the ambiguity of English strikes again. I read that as a requirement pertaining to UK and US articles, meaning articles with both currencies involved. I see what you mean and I think you're right on this one. — BQZip01 — talk 05:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALL dates need to be wikilinked. Again, still problems in the references.
 Done Per WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."
 Not done, but not as severe as I first thought. Per WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking (the first sentence of the guideline), "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users." These are missing in one of your references (#27). In retrospect, I may have gotten your article's references mixed up with another article I was working on. My apologies. Just fix reference #27 and this should be it.
 Done
  • Ensure no break spaces between numbers and their associated nouns (you still missed quite a few. An example is in the FIRST sentence. Please let me know if you can't find it.)
 Done ::Please specify explicit locations for non-breaking spaces or put them there yourself. Just telling me they exist is counterproductive.
 Not done I am not going to list every number in your page that isn't a year. Just go through the article by yourself. As a reviewer, this isn't my job. It's yours and the request is actionable. — BQZip01 — talk 04:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I believe I've found all of the remaining places a non-breaking space could reasonably be used. If you have any more, state them explicitly or fix them yourself, as you had to find them in order to tell me about them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WAY too much use of passive voice (this is a common problem). Please read this for some ideas how to improve the article.
 Done improved, although further copyediting by independent editors would be helpful
Lead
  • The bolded text in the first sentence does not match the title of the article.
 Done
 Not done Please read this. — BQZip01 — talk 05:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:LEDE#Bold title: The name of the subject is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations. (emphasis mine) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Please address here, not below
 Done The title of the article and the bolded lead text vary because "Georgia Tech" is the informal but more commonly used and recognized name for the school, and Georgia Institute of Technology is the more formal name to be used in the context of a historical article.
  • 150 years is quite a claim since it has been only 142 since the end of the Civil War and the school didn't even open until 1888. Maybe "since the Civil War" and leave it a little ambiguous?
Eight years is a close approximation to "nearly" when discussing a period of time greater than 100 years. (8 is 4% of 150)
8 is actually 5.33% of 150. I think nearly a decade is too much, but that's just my opinion. — BQZip01 — talk 04:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that time, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) has undergone significant change, expanding from a small trade school to the largest technological institution in the Southeastern United States."
 Done Rephrased/ref'd
    • parenthesis not needed for Georgia Tech. Rephrase. Maybe change to "...Technology, also known popularly as Georgia Tech..."
 Done
    • The largest technological institution is a claim not expanded upon in the body, nor is the claim referenced. Expand upon it (or at least re-use it) and get a ref in the main body of the text.
 Done
  • "It was established after the Civil War (redundant with the first sentence of the paragraph and misleading since it wasn't established until the late 1880s, two decades AFTER the Civil War was over) in order to improve the industrial competitiveness of the Southern United States, with the first and (if it is the only degree, it is by definition, the first) only degree being in Mechanical Engineering. Other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter, including Textile, Electrical, and Chemical Engineering." Again a LOT of information that is not expanded upon or referenced (like "industrial competitiveness in Southern US" and Chemical Engineering.
 Done re-read #Establishment, I think you missed some paragraphs
you don't once mention industrial competitiveness or chemical engineering or the "only" degree, etc. after the lede. — BQZip01 — talk 05:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Removed specific list from lead. Also, "Industrial development" and "Industrial competitiveness" are used interchangeably in the industrial development of the Southern United States following the Civil War. Examples:
strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North
Such a method was seen as appropriate given the Southern United States' need for industrial development.
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Georgia Tech Research Institute has its roots in the school's history; it was created in 1934 to assist in the state's industrial development using the school's reputation and resources." I thought this was about Georgia Tech, not the research institute it spawned. Rephrase. Maybe something like "Georgia Tech has spawned many other institutions of research and academic study..."
 Done The mention of the Georgia Tech Research Institute in the lead is significant because it is very closely tied to the school and its history. The CEO of GTRI is also the VP of Georgia Tech. Re-read #Technological University for more on that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, please put responses with the individual problems — BQZip01 — talk
  • "The institute..." Uh...which one? the Research Institute or GIT?
 Done
What exactly did you do? I say, this isn't clear and you say I'm done??? Not trying to be too picky, but trying to understand what you did. — BQZip01 — talk
  • "...one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully..." Quite a claim, but not backed up by any sources nor expanded upon in the body. In addition there was the whole riot that took place in regards to the 1956 Sugar Bowl. In addition, avoid using weasel words like "few" unless backed up or quoted by a source.
    •  Done This was fully explained in the #Integration section, but I've reused that ref in the lead anyway. The 1956 Sugar Bowl Riot was because Georgia Tech was not allowed to play against a desegregated team: it's the opposite of what happened at UGA, etc. Tech was rioting for integration. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rioting for or against integration is still a riot and, by definition, not peaceful. — BQZip01 — talk
  • Before I go any further, the last paragraph is AWFUL with numerous redundant phrases
  • "...in 1996, it was the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics. The recent history of the institute has been focused on rapid expansion, including apartments and an open-air competition pool built when it served as the Olympic Village for the 1996 Summer Olympics..." serious overuse of "1996" and the Summer Olympics. One instance each of "1996" and "Summer Olympics" is enough. Condense into one sentence.
 Done
  • "The school has also established several new campuses, most notably Georgia Tech Savannah (how notable is it if this is the only instance of its use in the entire article? It needs to be expanded upon in the body. In addition, the notability either explained or the term "most notably" should be removed) in Savannah, Georgia and its first international campus, Georgia Tech Lorraine in Metz, France.(You already mentioned this. Why do it again using the exact same phrasing?)"
 Done
  • With the recent rewrite, some of my comments have been addressed with new problems arising. I will go back and check on those comments that have been addressed in a little while, but will finish a re-critique of the lead here
  • Again, the term "Georgia Tech" should be used in the first sentence, since it is in the title. Even the given example of a first sentence in WP:Lede uses the term in the title. This is an ideal time to intermingle the use of the terms for further variety in the article. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly did the school open with construction? Wouldn't it be with the completion of the given buildings and not their actual construction? As a suggestion, why not simply rephrase to "opened with two buildings, the Tech Tower and the shop building, and offered only..."? — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1948, the name was changed to the Georgia Institute of Technology to reflect its evolution from a trade school to a technical institute and research university." You never mentioned it was called anything else. What did it change from? — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is WAY out of line. I missed one word in a good-faith comment. I personally am tempted to just oppose this article on the basis of how you are handling it. If you want honest feedback and an FA-quality article, assume good faith in all comments or don't expect feedback. A public apology is in order. — BQZip01 — talk 03:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't meant to attack you, just to add a bit of humor. You're doing a good job copyediting, and being very thorough; while I may disagree with you on some points, I appreciate your work on the article. I apologize for any offense incurred. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference in the lead is unnecessary as long as it is used later in the article. Delete accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the importance of the two other schools in the second paragraph. This is the history of Georgia Tech, right? Ok, the night school makes a little sense, but its history, links to the University of Georgia, and subsequent name changes makes the connection a little vague. Though Georgia Tech didn't take women, its associated night school did (beginning in 1917). In addition, it's like nothing happened from 1901-1980s except one sentence about the name change. Please expand the history of this school. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those two other schools were part of Georgia Tech. There's a comment in this part of the lead to expand this part of the lead after I've fixed other reviewers' suggestions, particularly those dealing with the article's content in that timeframe. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand they were part of the school, the lede doesn't explain what happened (other than a name change) from 1901 to 1980. Please expand. — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the term "peacefully" does not take into account the riots. Please eliminate the term. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The riots had nothing to do with integration of the school. The students just wanted to play the football game; the fact that integration was involved is incidental. It just happened to be the reason that they couldn't play the game. The account is given to show that Tech students cared more about football than any sort of racial issues. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hardly call that incidental then. It was a riot because of race relations, it's hardly calm. Football was more important than racial integration? — BQZip01 — talk 03:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a riot because of football. It had nothing to do with integration of the school. When it came to that, it was completely peaceful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph: "...amid significant controversy." Amid implies that he did the stated actions while other (unmentioned) controversies. "with" would be more appropriate here. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1996" and "1996 Summer Olympics" is redundant. Use [[1996 Summer Olympics|Summer Olympics]] instead. — BQZip01 — talk 22:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have done this section, I think it should be noted that there are a LOT of problems already and I recommend this article get a better copyedit by someone.
I don't want you to be disheartened. There is a lot of good stuff here too. Firstly, I am impressed with the quantity of references that CLEARLY show the article is well-researched. In addition, the basic layout appears very professional. Good job there.
  • There are too many semicolons in the entire article and they are generally in sentences that go on WAY too long. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Establishment
  • "The next twenty years would be was a time of rapid industrial expansion; during this period, Georgia's manufacturing capital, railroad track, and property values would each increase by a factor of three to four" Georgia's manufacturing capital is what exactly? It and "railroad track" expanded by a factor of 3-4? please explain. I'm kinda confused on this one. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's were, not was. Also, added "mileage" to the railroad bit.  Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris"
  1. Major links to the US version. The CSA wasn't exactly the equivalent of the modern day version of "Major". It might be better to link to Major instead. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What was the rank of Nathaniel Edwin Harris? Either include both ranks, or none at all. — BQZip01 — talk 03:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found Harris' rank in any of my sources. They're always listed as "Major John Fletcher Hanson and Nathaniel Edwin Harris." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A technology school was thought necessary..." Who thought it was necessary? Again, more passive voice that needs to be dealt with throughout the article. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passive voice is avoided when it would cause confusion as to the acting subject. However, in this case, the preceding context makes it fairly obvious as to who thought it was necessary. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the committee eventually reported" Why "eventually"? Was there some sort of delay in the report? Just delete the word. It isn't necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but there were efforts to repeal the law that were suppressed by supporter and Speaker of the House W. A. Little." — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were known for those things. They're not known for anything these days. They're kind of dead, and footnotes to history. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The act that created the school had also appropriated $65,000 towards the construction of new buildings." needs a citation. — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Early years to be added in the near future
Trade school to be added in the near future
Technological university to be added in the near future
Integration to be added in the near future
Reorganization and expansion to be added in the near future
Modern history to be added in the near future
See also to be added in the near future
References to be added in the near future

— BQZip01 — talk

Please stop for just a minute and please respond to each item. You keep putting  Done by everything that you don't seem to want to address or you don't think is important. Please slow down and answer anything that you don't do anything on. — BQZip01 — talk 04:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through each suggestion and either implementing it or explaining why it isn't productive or relevant. Isn't that what I'm supposed to do? If I mark something as done and don't explain it, chances are I think I fixed it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please tell me what you did in the sections where you don't appear to have done anything. — BQZip01 — talk 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, please indent and put  Done underneath each item (as it is, it makes it look like I put them there). — BQZip01 — talk 05:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is understood (yeah, passive voice) around here that the  Done stamps are from those who fix items while strike outs are from the person who mentioned an issue but then found that their concern has been addressed. --mav 06:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mav, not the way it is being done here. Please just put them on the next line. so it is clear who wrote them. This becomes especially confusing when I believe things HAVEN'T been done. — BQZip01 — talk 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—Not written to the required professional standard. If the contributors are academics at the institution, they need to lift their game. Here are samples indicating the larger problem.
    • Obtuse chronological opening: "The history of the Georgia Institute of Technology began shortly after the American Civil War and extends nearly 150 years." Our readers have to do mental arithmetic to arrive at the year of establishment.
    • False contrast. Use a semicolon or reword rather than using "but": "Initially, Mechanical Engineering was the only degree offered, but other engineering degrees were added soon thereafter."
    • "Georgia Tech has spawned both Georgia State University and the Southern Polytechnic State University, with the former enrolling Georgia Tech's first female students in the 1920s. The school did not officially allow women to enroll until 1952, and it did not allow them to enroll in all programs until 1968. Georgia Tech was also one of the few southern educational institutions to integrate peacefully, doing so in 1961." Uncomfortable coupling of the female students idea with the previous idea in the first sentence. Separate into its own sentence, integrated with the subsequent points. "Also" is redundant. So is "it".
    • "The recent history of the institute has focused on"—No, history doesn't focus on things; historians do. Reword.
    • "an open-air competition pool built when it served as"—Unclear referent for "it". Rephrase.
    • "The school has also established several"—Weed out all of the redundant "alsos" in the article. There's yet another in the subsequent sentence. Much stronger without either.
    • "Academically, the school has gradually improved its rankings and has given significant attention to modernizing the campus, increasing historically low retention rates, and establishing degree options that emphasize research or an international perspective." Perhaps too much info for one sentence. The readers would like a time anchor or two here: since when? "given significant attention"—yuck; try just "and has modernized". Tony 00:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are stylistic issues in the lead, which doesn't represent the article's quality. Additionally, these particular "issues" are typically choices made by the writer, and not things that are considered "correct" or "incorrect." Bringing them here as a reason to oppose is particularly inappropriate given that there were two peer reviews designed to address preferences regarding style and structure. Nevertheless, you found a few confusing pronoun references that I endeavored to fix. I appreciate that as it's hard to catch everything. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The overall quality, quantity, and continuity of the writing isn't up to FA-snuff. I get a general sense that more than just stretching some google searches, it might pay to go to the library/archives. (I apologize if this comes across as sarcastic, it's meant more as a stream of consciousness.) Madcoverboy 08:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Lead: I had a hard time getting through the lead without wanting to click on the edit button repeatedly. The first paragraph in the lead just needs to go as it says absolutely nothing substantial about dates, people, or places beyond making a booster-claim about engineering graduates. Who founded it? When? Why? Where? The second paragraph of the lead discusses other universities which have no apparent relation with the present topic until you read the article. Integrate peacefully? As in there was absolutely no violence whatsoever? (But weren't there riots in front of the Governor's Mansion?) Perhaps it is better said "non-court-ordered" integration. Few as compared to what other southern universities? The final paragraph again says nothing substantial about the material contained within the article except that the university has expanded to other campuses, an idea that could easily be condensed into a sentence.
      • I went ahead and just put in an altered paragraph from the main Georgia Tech lead to replace the lead and it already solved several of the problems. Obviously needs to be expanded, but don't just revert or copy and past the dif back in. Madcoverboy 08:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That paragraph (that you unceremoniously dropped in) is vastly inferior to the newer (and extensively copyedited) lead of the history article. In my opinion, specific dates aren't relevant enough for the lead- the lead is supposed to provide a general overview and introduction to a topic and that's what this lead does. If they really want to know when the school was established, they can continue reading. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reworked the lead again since the previous version is completely unacceptable. From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The complete lack of specifics, dates, locations, and so makes it fail every aspect of the guideline. Madcoverboy 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much better this time. I still like mine better, but the one you just wrote is acceptable, and conforms to your recommendations. What do other reviewers think of this new lead? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you paid more attention, you'd notice that the riot wasn't about integration, it was about football. The school integrated peacefully. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Establishment: What is this about fortifications on a hill before any discussion of the motivations for a university? This sentence is just full of loaded terms that need to be deconstructed and explained (see Technology and society): "strongly believed that the South needed to improve its technology to compete with the industrial revolution that was occurring throughout the North." Is the South a geographic location, the defeated Confederate states, or something else? Does this collective entity need to improve its technology (little "t" technology, i.e. artifacts and infrastructure) or economic, social, and education systems (big "T" technology)? What is the North? Which industrial revolution was occurring and was it present throughout or just in major industrial centers like those that Atlanta wanted to emulate? This loaded sentence is later followed by a : "A technology school was needed because the American South of that era was mainly comprised of agricultural workers and few technical developments were occurring." Again what is "mainly" and "few"? The concepts of "mercantilist-agrarian roots" and "market-industrialization aspirations" in both need to be merged. Why just WPI and MIT in Massachusetts? Certainly West Point, RPI, any of the (soon-to-be) Ivies, or Edison's Menlo Park, New Jersey, or other western Land Grant universities would have been likely models for higher education and industrial development in the 1880s. Why were Mell's arguments for an Athens campus rejected? How and why did Peters become interested? What ties to the military (analogous to Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M, etc.)? What was the university established as (board of trustees, corporation, state agency, etc.)? Who constituted this body and how were they selected? What powers or limitations or general mission was the body/university charged with in the charter? What impact did land grant or tax-exempt legislation have on its ability to buy and sell real estate to fund operations?
      • "strongly believed that the South...": the context should automatically make it clear; if it doesn't, then whether or not I'm referring to the geographic South or the former Confederate States is irrelevant; regardless of which one I'm talking about, they were both very agrarian compared to the industrial "North" (geographic or Union) of the era.
        • Some context on industries would be relevant. Was someone espousing this view or is it just a historical perspective? What was Georgia doing to industrialize or de-agrarianize? What were neighboring states doing with regards to education and industrialization that might have been influential? What industries were important or prevalent? (railroads, telegraphs, mechanized farming, food processing, etc.) Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • little t vs big T: most of the South's infrastructure was destroyed after the Civil War, so they needed both of these. Again, there's not really a distinction.
        • It goes to the question of whether or not the initial mission of the university was to provide technical training for an increasingly industrial south or if it was meant to address the shortcomings of a traditional liberal education. Was GT intended to be an important educational component within a larger framework of industrialization (which you imply) or just a vocational school? If the latter, then some mention of the founding mission or charter would be appropriate. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "mainly" is generally assumed to mean "mostly" or "primarily"; things like this are usually understood by readers. "few," meaning "not many."
        • These are weasel words, if it is the most or least, say so and provide a cite. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • From what I can tell, the instances of these words remaining in the article (that I was able to consciously detect, mind, it is a lengthy entry) are used for the sake of clarity, brevity and simplicity and are in the context of facts that are either not generally disputed or in regards to a historical event or situation that would require unnecessary digression in order to provide a more precise wording. I refer you to WP:AWW#Follow the spirit, not the letter, which makes allowances for these circumstances. A pertinent example from the article is from the History of Georgia Tech#World War I section: "However, the state and federal governments provided little initiative for the school to grow significantly until 1919." To describe what "little initiative" was exactly would require an unnecessary digression into governmental budgetary concerns and academic funding structures during that era. Even to provide an exact numerical comparison (before and after) would be cumbersome and to obtain any such numbers would border on original research, as those numbers would likely have to be discovered through extensive synthesis of budget documents. I should point out that in the article, there is a reference immediately following that sentence which expands upon what "little initiative" translates to, at length. LaMenta3 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why just WPI and MIT? I just looked it up, and they also visited Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey and The Cooper Union in New York City. Those are the four schools they visited. I don't have any sources that indicate that they visited the other schools that you listed. I suppose those two could be mentioned, but they're relatively obscure compared to MIT and WPI. (source: Dress Her in White and Gold, page 5)
        • It doesn't matter if they're obscure now, they were important enough then to warrant a visit. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With some more research, I fleshed out the rest of the "Establishment" section, and hopefully answered the rest of your questions.  Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early years: Repetition of the "contract shop" marketable goods and need for Southern US industrial development memes. Discussion of the number of initial enrollments lacks authority – encyclopedias aren't the place for airing historical inconsistencies, commit to a number in the body, make a footnote about the inconsistencies and provide the citations for the reader to verify the claim. Enough about the damn newspapers, WHERE'S THE FOOTBALL HISTORY?! :) Oh, and other sports as well.
      • What about the repetition of those phrases?
        • It was repeated in the establishment as well as the early years sections as a distinguishing feature of the early university's operations. I believe it's more appropriate in the early years since the university wasn't established for the expressed purpose of the contract shops, but came about and later disappeared. I feel the "establishment" section should speak more to the university's early mission and history before opening rather than bygone activities which should be early years.
      • I fixed the enrollment problem; it turns out both numbers were correct, but referred to different points in the year.  Done
      • There is a significant amount of football history in Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football. Perhaps you'd like to copy some of that to this article? The problem is that there's so much of it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Content can certainly overlap between articles. Given the modern emphasis and historical importance, it definitely deserves a summary-style berth in the article that can link over to the main page. Certainly any other sports' national championships or dominant era should also merit mention. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technological university: What is the distinction between a trade school and a university? If it's research programs and advanced degrees, then the reader should know when these are introduced. Moreover, mention is made at the beginning that only Mechanical Engineering degrees were offered, when did this change? What are engineering experiment stations? When was the school of commerce founded (it suddenly pops up as its being spun off!)? Likewise for Aeronautical Engineering and other departments (EE). What of Georgia Tech alumni's involvement in WW1? The impact of the Great Depression? How was GT "swiftly enlisted" for the war effort other than providing young men?
      • Titles: The distinction is that the school grew. If you have better ideas about section titles, do tell me; however, I feel that those adequately represent the school's development.
        • This goes to my question below about the growth of research and graduate programs. Certainly vocational schools weren't expressly founded to conduct scientific research, but many like MIT, Caltech, GT, VT, Texas A&M, Michigan State, etc. came into this capacity. By the 1920s and 1930s, many American colleges and universities were emulating German and French research universities by funding faculty research and graduate programs. Other schools emphasized it after WW2. When did the shift to graduate education begin, what were early programs, etc.
      • Engineering Experiment Stations: I expanded the explanation a bit.  Done
      • Degrees: Looked it up, added more info on the new degree programs offered by Lyman Hall.  Done
      • School of Commerce: It was founded at the beginning of the #Technological university section.
      • Aeronautical Engineering: Fixed.  Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • World War I: Fixed in the article body.  Done —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great Depression: (next task to do) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Integration: Shouldn't we have known at the very start that it wasn't called Georgia Institute of Technology originally? What's this about a Southern Technical Institute's contributions to WW2 after the section on WW2? What's this about a split in 1981 within a section about integration in the 1950s? Ah finally, the third paragraph is discussing integration in a meaningful way. GT students "too busy to hate" is a cop-out: there has to be a lot more history on the racial integration of the university beyond "the student body voted to endorse all qualified applications" and some guy closing his restaurant in protest. Presidential addresses, dissension among the board of trustees, student group opposition, politiking in the legislature or governor's mansion, lessons from the UGa forced integration.
    • Reorganization and expansion: What the hell happened to the end of the 1960s and entire decade of the 70s? Nothing about Vietnam protests, women's rights, environmentalism, civil rights? That's some nice back-scratching on the centennial, but some book and a time capsule are not at all important or notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article body - kill that whole opening paragraph. Apparently President Pettit served for 14 years but didn't do anything to warrant mention, even being inaugurated or stepping down for any reason. Looking back, likewise for Van Leer and Harrison. Interesting that Hansen only served for 2 years during the most tumultuous era of protests and social movements in the last 50 years, probably a story behind that too! There must have been more costs and benefits involved with the Crecine reorganization than just management style to warrant such narrow approval margins. Does GT have any other schools of arts or humanities, because I haven't heard about those. That crytpically-worded cquote about being under fire should probably be a citation, not a prominently displayed feature of the article because it provides absolutely no depth or context. I imagine GT was just as affected by budgetary belt-tightening during the 80s and 90s, how did they respond? (tuition increases, program cutbacks, etc). I definitely want to hear more about how the Olympic Village was secured, the construction and changes impacting the campus and community, boost in admissions after being featured prominently, etc.
      • Georgia Tech has three schools that could be considered arts/humanities: the College of Architecture, the College of Management, and the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Collectively, those three (of the six) colleges make up 25% of Tech's undergrads and 17% of its postgrads. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I only ask because I notice that there are points in the article in which the reader is presumed to be familiar with the organization, or sports, or traditions, etc. of Georgia Tech when it is not always the case. As I said before, just because a topic is discussed in greater depth on another page doesn't mean it doesn't warrant mention at all here. Madcoverboy 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh. Anywhere in particular that needs to be worked on? I probably couldn't find those places if I tried, given the amount of time I've spent working on this stuff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modern history: Probably the best section so far. If a Hesburgh Award is so great, why isn't it important enough to have an article about it? Whoa, Master Plans have existed for over 50 years and the reader just finds out about them now! Probably some interesting stuff in those earlier ones. The article misses a legitimate opportunity to boosterize by not discussing changing demographics (women, minorities, international), recent sports successes, and increasing admissions competitiveness as well as controversies like rising tuition, town-gown relations, greek life, etc.
    • I also realized that any History of Somewhere University article absolutely needs a discussion of the symbols: backgrounds on the logo, motto, colors, mascot, nicknames all absolutely need to be in any history. Madcoverboy 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made mention of this in the lead, but there is little to no discussion of the establishment and growth of the graduate and research programs at this major American research university. Likewise, the contexts and occasions of the 3 presidents' visits also warrant more attention. Madcoverboy 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Georgia_Tech/archive1&oldid=1136097401"