Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive2

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 May 2022 [1].

Texas A&M University

Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback since the previous nomination as advised to include literally every listed FA Mentor, a FAC peer review for over a month, and addressed each and every point brought up in the previous FAR/FARC/FAC. If there is something missing/in error/inappropriate/etc, please feel free to point it out and I will rapidly address any shortcomings. While I still contend that the previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested.

Other discussions not mentioned above

Thank you for your consideration Buffs (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was very happy with the peer review process, and Buffs' commitment to making the article as good as it can be. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sourcing concerns from the January have been quenched --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Guerillero: Is that a Support? Buffs (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it passes my source review -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Buffs (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you removing the citations from the lead. They were only added per previous objections. I see no problem with having them or removing them. Buffs (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

Largely per my comments in the peer review. I was concerned by the nominator's dismissive and at times rude responses to some of them, and it's a shame they weren't addressed. In short, I'm concerned that:

The article does not cover the experiences of women and students from a minority background (it's noted only in passing that the uni went from an all white male institution to a very gender and ethnically diverse institution)
Those experiences aren't very different than the average student in any educational setting. Moreover, this is an article about the University, not the student body. I responded to this criticism in the peer review and you chose not to further reply or work with me further on it. Complaining that I didn't address it is very misleading.
There is an over-emphasis on the experiances of the minority of the student population who live on campus
That is the subject at hand: the school. What students do that is unaffiliated with the university seems to be an inappropriate addition to the article as it is outside the scope of the article.
It is incurious about some of the more unusual aspects of the university, most notably its militaristic flavour and range of rather old-fashioned 'traditions', and this isn't critically discussed.
There are other wikilinked articles that do discuss this in more detail. Per WP:SUMMARY there is not enough space to discuss such points in any significant detail.
The article contains boosterism, and is not neutral.
Which ones are not neutral? How would you suggest retaining such information while remaining neutral? Buffs (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Their early efforts led to HHS awarding the school and affiliates the responsibility for coordinating the nationwide production of the approved vaccines for mass consumption" - I'm struggling to see where this is supported by the citation, which seems to attribute a more modest role to the 'CIADM' (helping coordinate the approval of vaccines, with some vaccine production also taking place on-campus) and notes that there is an equivalent body in Maryland that was also involved with COVID vaccines. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the entire paragraph. While it was a big deal at the time, WP:RECENTISM probably made it seem bigger. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for your "intro", I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL calling me "rude" and "dismissive" is inherently uncivil and completely unnecessary. I responded to your comments and you chose not to reply. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to be rude and dismissive towards me, and your response to Sdkb below is worse. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint about my behavior (in any way), this is not the forum. All of my responses have been to address what you suggested, queries for more information, or an explanation as to why I disagree with your assessment. That is a simple discussion, not "rude" or "dismissive". Buffs (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Can you provide examples of what you think is missing with coverage in the available high quality sources? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments in the peer review, but as some examples:
  - There is almost nothing on how women or minority ethnic groups entered the university and their experiences
  - The material on the Lawrence Sullivan "Sul" Ross statue is poorly written, and never explains the concerns some people had about its presence on campus - the focus is on the views of the university administration (a common flaw throughout the article)
  - The research section reads like PR for the university, and fails to critically consider the issue of the university's research strengths and weaknesses. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I responded in the peer review. The idea that we have to have a section on how minorities were integrated, another on how women were integrated, etc seems unnecessary. They were not significant in the University's ~150 year history. Given that we are summarizing whole decades in a single sentence, such inclusion would fail WP:UNDUE. There is an entire separate article on the history of the school, that's where such specifics should belong or possibly even an additional sub article.
    - As for the research section, it focuses on what they do and how they are ranked. I'm unable to find any academic article that "critically considers the issues of a university's research strengths and weaknesses". I'm unable to find any significant coverage of weaknesses since few people report on what a University doesn't do. As previously requested, if you can find something that discusses such critical commentary, I will be happy to integrate it. Until then, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, not what we think the body of articles about a given subject should be.
    - As for Ross's statue, I've added a wikilink which expounds in more detail. If there is something specific about the sentence or is unclear, please clarify. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sdkb

There is some extensive history here, given the rather arduous 5-month-long FAR, but I tried to approach this with an open mind. Here are my comments, beginning with the lead:

"Fall 2021" violates MOS:SEASONS—not all readers are in the northern hemisphere. Recommend "fall 2021 semester" throughout the article to remedy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SEASONS states "Referring to a season by name is appropriate when it is part of a formal or conventional name or designation". In the United States, There are generally two semesters separated by Fall and Spring. This terminology is determined by the US Dept of Education and, as such, is the conventional name for the semester. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As previously raised at the FAR, I'm highly skeptical that being a space grant institution is important enough to warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead, and that the land/sea/space factoid there is anything other than boosterism. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning it's a land and sea grant school, but omitting it's a space-grant school in the lead seems like an unnecessarily omission. Given that it's the only one with all 3, that's of note, not boosterism. If you want that removed from the lead, just say the word and I'll do it/remove it yourself and I won't oppose. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As previously raised at the FAR, why is sports in the very first paragraph, rather than with the rest of student life in the last lead paragraph? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As explained, the most publicly facing/exposed portion of the school is its athletics program. As such, it's (appropriately) in the lead. If you want to argue about placement within the lead, that's pretty much semantics and I'll move it where ever you want. Please clarify. Buffs (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Carnegie Classification needs an "as of" attached, as it's not the sort of thing that changes year to year. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but others have complained, so it was added. No one can possibly address such opposition (some want it added and others want it removed). I'm happy with either one, but this sort of standard is impossible to achieve if this is the feedback. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A comma is very definitely needed after "and scope"; I've gone ahead and added it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
appreciated, thank you. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same text, "Corps of Cadets", is linked twice in the lead, once to the specific link and once to a general article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fixed Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The A.M.C. abbreviation is introduced twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned twice in the lead, once for clarification as to what the abbreviation AMC stands for and second for what A&M stands for...two different things. Buffs (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't Traditions of Texas A&M University linked in the sentence Many students also observe various university traditions which govern conduct in daily life and sporting events? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, added. Buffs (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Senior military college" is uncapitalized in the infobox and at its own article, but capitalized in the lead prose. To what extent is it a formal title? This should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If being a senior military college is important enough to go in the type parameter of the infobox, why is it left until the end of the lead? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was a good point to conclude it on. You seem to be assigning importance and emphasis based on where things are mentioned in the lead (beginning = more important, end=less important). WP:LEAD has no such requirement. It states "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic".
The student body is discussed mainly in the last paragraph of the lead, except for the factoid about being the largest, which is put way up top. I'd recommend against splitting like this, especially given the boosterism concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize this reply wasn't saved. It is known for being the largest. That's probably worth leading with even if we don't discuss it directly. Splitting it up a little adds some variation to the order without being a point-by-point summary of the article in the same order. Do you disagree? Is this a preference issue or is it an WP:MOS issue I'm unaware of? Buffs (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox has discrepancies in the establishment year. It's explained in a footnote that both 1871 and 1876 can be considered the establishment year, but 1876 is used for |established= whereas 1871 is used for the former names field. We need to be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a discrepancy. The institution was given the name "the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" in 1871 under Texas law. Omitting that fact would be misleading. The inconsistency is clearly explained and is a function of the ambiguities of the term "established". Added an additional note with the exact same references. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As previously raised at the FAR, two references shouldn't be needed to support |established=, as this information should be in the body and thus isn't needed in the lead at all per WP:LEADCITE. They're both from the university, one appears to be a dead version of the other, and the quote isn't needed when there's also an explanatory footnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one voiced such objection in the linked review. As for "there don't need to be two references", extra one deleted as requested. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The explanatory footnote for |established= notes on the 1876 date for the seal This is not a discrepancy, as though |established= has 1871, but it has 1876. It needs to be rewritten. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very vague, but ok. Done. Buffs (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|academic_affiliations= is only for affiliations that provide essential definition of the institution. What makes e.g. CONAHEC qualify for that? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped CONAHEC. Are you looking for a justification of each inclusion? Buffs (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a missing space between the parentheticals in the infobox; I've corrected this for you as well. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are years given for the student counts but not the faculty counts in the infobox? I can see arguments for/against, but both are equally variable, so we should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Main Campus" is capitalized in footnote 2 but not in the rest of the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "Midsize City" is some sort of formal term, "city" should not be capitalized in the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annual budget is missing from the infobox. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens of parameters that are not used in this infobox. Such inclusion is generally determined by consensus, but no parameter is specifically required. Is the annual budget somehow required to be in the infobox? I looked at all the SEC schools for additional examples (at a glance, other schools seem to have a similar percentages with a bias toward smaller schools including it and larger schools excluding it). Less than a third include it in the infobox. Two more mention it in their article, but do not have it in the infobox. Schools are generally ranked by their total endowment, not their annual operating budget. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of issues in this important section alone, and that several were previously raised at the FAR and went unaddressed, I have to oppose at this time. I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues. They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review. After that has been completed, the GAN and GOCE processes can provide further feedback. Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor. I'm sorry to have to land here after the nominator has put in so much effort on this article, but FAs need to represent our best work, and this article is regrettably not there yet. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of actual technical problems (capitalization and commas for example...such feedback is appropriate and quite helpful as were the corrections [THANK YOU!]),

As for the rest, it is very difficult to read it as anything more than condescending remarks:

"I would suggest that the nominator first review the extremely extensive feedback that has been generously provided to them by others and address the outstanding issues.
I have literally gone through and "addressed" 100% of the outstanding "issues". Some of that "addressing" includes asking for clarification and/or explaining why it shouldn't be done. A great example is when one person asks for more references and another asks for me to trim the number of references, it is completely impossible to address both points to everyone's satisfaction and a discussion should ensue. That doesn't mean such concerns were "unaddressed". Despite repeated requests on my part, such discussions never happened. "Addressed" means changes were made OR a response was given.
"They should then go over the entire article to comb it for possible errors or improvements—it is evident that they have not done this, as several issues above would have been easily spotted during such a review."
Of the 17 points you brought up that were "new" (not in the previous FAR), literally all were present in previous versions. The idea that they would have been "easily spotted during such a review" is laughable considering no one in the past year has spotted them in five separate reviews (including yours). Of the 3 points that were allegedly repeats, I replied to your space grant points during the previous review and you offered no further objections. Furthermore, the source you cite as your rationale for removing such references (WP:LEADCITE) states "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Making demands for me to follow your personal preferences despite policy which contradicts you and pretending I haven't done anything when you haven't replied in almost 6 months is more than a little disingenuous and feels maliciously misleading.
"Only then should this be brought back here, ideally alongside a mentor."
I've literally asked every single FA mentor. Most couldn't be bothered to reply and none were willing to serve in such a capacity...this is another example of an alleged point that wasn't accomplished, but is impossible to actually achieve. By this logic, the article will never achieve FA status, but not due to quality.

You claim points from the FARC/FAR/etc were "unaddressed", but I have literally responded to every point you brought up. In many you claim were "unaddressed", I asked for further clarification and you/others did not respond.

WP is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere. This interaction feels much more like an adversarial interaction or a circus where I'm a caged tiger expected to jump through every hoop tossed in my direction regardless of the validity of the concern or contravening policies of WP. I'm certainly willing to discuss and come to a consensus on such points, but the idea that everyone coming to FA must acquiesce to the whims of all other editors without consideration as to whether it is a valid point is antithetical to WP's functional procedures. Asking questions/voicing concerns/explaining my rationale about such points is not hostility, but clarification and part of the consensus process. You need to be willing to discuss such points rather than "do X" and anything short of caving to your demands means it "wasn't addressed". Buffs (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for @FAC coordinators: - I'm recusing myself of any coordination actions here because I was highly involved in the FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 17:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

Given the strong opposes above I am archiving this. I suggest that the helpful comments by the opposers - and those by others - are taken more fully on board before this returns to FAC. The usual two-week wait will apply.

@Gog the Mild: What the hell? The "strong opposes" with outstanding clarification requested for months from TWO people vs the THREE that support it? You consider insults "helpful"? Literally every objection has been addressed (led to a change or a reasonable explanation offered) and the objectors have not responded. Buffs (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.