Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas A&M University/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas A&M University

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it was an FA and the FARC/FAC were both shortcutted despite requests for feedback/clarification. Peer feedback would be appreciated

Thanks, Buffs (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Recent Reviews:

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Texas_A&M_University/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive1

Nick-D Review

[edit]

*** COPIED FROM THE A&M TALK PAGE ***

Buffs has asked me to review this article as a volunteer FAC mentor. I'd like to offer the following comments for consideration, noting at the outset that as an Australian I have only a vague awareness of this university:

  • "It is classified among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity"" - seems a bit obscure/detailed for the lead, and doesn't flow from the previous sentence
    I completely agree. However, this was added during the previous review at the insistence of a reviewer. No one else to-date has objected. While I don't think it's necessary, I'm in the minority. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enrollment climbed to 258 students before declining to 108 students in 1883" - when did it hit 258?
    1881, updated. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 1918, 49% of all graduates of the college were in military service, more than any other school" - what explains this?
    WWI, a sense of patriotism, and being a relatively new school. Buffs (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the college producing 20,229 combat troops" - no it didn't. The Army trained them. Sailors and airmen aren't "troops" either.
    Perhaps military training is different in Australia, but in the US, officers are generally trained in 3 ways: one of the service academies, ROTC through Universities with a sizable percentage through Senior Military Colleges, or officer training schools (for college graduates who did not take/complete ROTC in college). There are some exceptions for lawyers/judges and specialized medical personnel + wartime battlefield promotions, but that's the general way it's done. During WWII, the War Department enlisted colleges in the US, especially Land Grant Colleges, to boost production of US troops for basic and technical training. Those trained at A&M were officially enrolled as students and took some classes in addition to their military training provided by the University under the watchful eye of the Army & Navy.
    As for "troops", Merriam-Webster disagrees (see definition 1.c.). Buffs (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Of those, 14,123 Aggies served as officers, more than any other school and more than the combined total of the United States Naval Academy and the United States Military Academy" - the USNA and USMA are elite institutions, and trained relatively small numbers of officers, so this comparison is misleading and basically boosterism. If this is going to be highlighted, the reason for this should be noted as well.
    With all due respect to the Service Academies, they aren't that elite, though their entrance requirements are more extensive/cumbersome. They currently produce approximately 1000 officers per year (each) while A&M and other SMCs produce 100-300 (each...A&M is on the higher side). At the time, West Point enrollment was capped at 2,529 cadets, a total A&M only began to exceed in 1934. Keep in mind that graduates of A&M didn't have to join the military either, so officer production for the military was significantly below the Service Academies prior to WWII. They really ramped up rapidly and made a MASSIVE effort to do so to help that war effort...had to help you Aussies as quickly as we could! ;-) So, yes, this really is a massive difference and no, they don't train a "small number of officers. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically my point: the comparison is boosterism as the military academies remained fairly elite while lots of other ways of training officers were massively scaled up, so the comparison is misleading to readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it "misleading"? I could add that Clemson did the same thing to a lesser extent and the service academies doubled in size in the years leading up to the war while A&M expanded significantly. This is no slam on them in the slightest, just a comparison for perspective. Buffs (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until his death and burial on school grounds in 2018" - did he really die on the university's grounds? The article on him says he died at home in Houston.
    I think you might be parsing the words. The entire sentence reads:
    "Former President Bush remained actively involved with the university, frequently visiting the campus and participating in special events until his death and burial on school grounds in 2018"
    I don't think that implies he died on school grounds, but I can rephrase. How does this work?
    "Former President Bush remained actively involved with the university, frequently visiting the campus and participating in special events until his death. He was subsequently buried on school grounds in 2018" Buffs (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    rephrased without objection. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section doesn't note when women were re-admitted, only when this was approved
  • Or mention desegregation
    I believe both of these points are addressed in the following sentence:
    "In 1963, with the backing of State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore, also known as "the Bull of the Brazos" and "the father of the modern Texas A&M University", the 58th Legislature of Texas approved Rudder's proposal for a substantial expansion in its physical plant construction, facilities upgrades, diversifying and expanding its student body by admitting women and minorities and making membership in the Corps of Cadets voluntary beginning in the fall semester" Buffs (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The para starting with 'In 2017, the status of the statue of Lawrence Sullivan ' is awkwardly worded, and seems to be trying to dodge a few issues.
    Rephrased a little. What issues do you feel are being dodged? Buffs (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the statistics in the 'Student body' section look dated (e.g. the 2019 stats)
    The 2019 stats about the Corps of Cadets is the most recent info available. There are a lot of issues with COVID skewing and altering stats, so I expect more clear numbers in the future, but noting those variations without context could be misleading as well...time will tell. Buffs (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Research' section could have been written by the university's PR team. It should describe the university's areas of research focus in a more flat way, noting areas of weakness as well.
    I'm totally down with adding more. The thing is that most research schools focus on specific areas. They aren't "weak" in areas they aren't involved in. It would be similar in saying that a grocery store is weak in selling lumber. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From having worked in a higher education-related policy role, I can assure you that universities do not focus their research efforts purely on areas of strength. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was neither what I stated nor implied. I stated that research schools focus in certain areas, not that they only focus on areas of strength. It is difficult to quantify areas where they are "weak" if they do not participate in such research. For example, if they spend 20% of their research budget on nuclear engineering and 0% on civil engineering, that doesn't mean they are "weak" on CE. It just means they decided not to do it. I would assume the same for any such institution. I've not found a single educational article that allocates space for any such criticism. if you have a specific criticism or an example, that would be helpful. Buffs (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M leads the Southwestern United States in annual research expenditures, including research on every continent alongside formal research and exchange agreements across the globe" - as above.
    Could you specify what you want done here? I'm a little confused. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 1876, over 285 Aggies have served as generals or flag officers, as of 2021.[19][172][173][171][174]" - does this really need five citations?
    I don't think so, no, but others have requested additional sources and I provided them at their request. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " These drills must be drawn by hand as computer marching programs return errors without disabling safety features; their calculations require two people to be in the same spot at the same time" - hard to follow, and seems like trivia
    Removed Buffs (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume that there has also been opposition to the Corps of Cadets? (for instance, in the Vietnam War). The whole institution seems to have a decidedly military aspect to it, and it would be good to explore this thematically: I imagine it attracts some students and repels others.
    Oddly enough, no. There were some people who attempted to cause a ruckus/riot at A&M during 'Nam and they were thrown off the campus via a "vocal group consisting of a majority of the students" led by the University President (Rudder). By keeping the campus peaceful, some of the funding for A&M was a little easier to come by over the following decades because the school had been considered "good stewards" of the resources they'd been allocated. The school is the largest Senior Military College, so, yes, it has a military flair. But it's also 70,000+ students (largest in the US). You can basically find anything you want there. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The repression of anti-war views seems noteworthy. From reading this article without being familiar with this university, the military aspect really stands out, so it should be discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are scores of anecdotes like that, but they were trimmed at the request of previous reviewers (140,000+ characters already). Buffs (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aggie students founded the largest one-day student-run service project in America known as The Big Event..." this para also reads like promotional material
    Well, we're talking about a widespread program that Aggies started. Any particular rephrasing suggestions? Leaving it out would be a huge disservice. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and consume the substance to obtain a feeling that they have earned the ring" - bit clunky
    Yeah...never liked that phrasing either. But it's what we came up with to account for multiple substances. Eliminated some of the phrasing. Buffs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To symbolize their "readiness, desire, and enthusiasm", it is traditional for students in attendance to stand throughout the sports game" - how does this work in the modern era for students with mobility issues?
    It's still the same. Students still stand for the game. Those unable to do so (due to disability and/or injury) are given handicapped seats at the front/nearby so their view of the game is not obscured. I don't think that distinction needs to be made in the article though. Buffs (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a rather ablest attitude to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Buffs (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing out the experiences of people with health issues, by pretending that all the students are able to observe this tradition. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the school is "writing out the experiences of people with health issues". Personally, I was on crutches and still participated as much as possible, but I had to sit down on occasion. I don't see that it's necessary to add caveats to represent the exceedingly small percentage who cannot stand or choose not to. Near as I can tell, we are literally talking about 13 words "...it is traditional for students in attendance to stand throughout the sports game." It doesn't say "students are required to stand". Nor does it imply that people who cannot are treated as lessers (to the contrary, they are given preferential seating at the front so people who are standing don't obstruct their view of the games). To be blunt, I'm not sure what you want here. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three notes need supporting references.
    Each of the notes have associated references right next to them. These notes have been added in order to spell out/summarize key points as discussed on the talk page. Re-referencing them seems unnecessarily redundant, but I'll do it if you feel it's necessary. Buffs (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in FA nominated articles needs to be covered by a citation. Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are covered by citations. Every single note is literally next to the associated citation and in the following format: [Note 1][1][2]. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reader should not have to search for the citation in the text above. You can use 'ref name =' to point to the citation if it is the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would they "have to search for the citation"? The associated references are literally right next to the notes in the body of the prose. All 3 notes simply spell out what is already contained there. This is common practice in research papers. That said, I added them anyway. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More broadly, and this is a bit of a tricky comment to action, the article seems to be written from the perspective of the university administration. The experiences and views of students and teaching staff and how they've changed over time don't really come through. For instance, what did the first women and non-White people to enter the university in the 1960s experience, and how has this changed over time? How is the university viewed by potential students and staff given it seems to promote a rather old fashioned culture? What proportion of students adhere to this tradition? (for instance, if only 20% live on campus, do the other 80% turn up at the various traditional events held after classes?) Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little difficult to condense the experiences and variances of nearly a million students over 150 years. As for the first non-white people and women to enter the University I'm sure there were some growing pains, but it wasn't enough to make a significant difference in the overall history of the University. WP:SUMMARY basically means we have to condense this information to only the most crucial.
    To be honest, I'd be a hard oppose if this article came to FAC in its current shape. The article covers a range of fairly minor issues, but has no space to cover the experiences and history related to massive changes in the student population over the last 50 years (from all white men to what seems to be a very diverse student population)? FAs need to be a cut above other articles. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are literally whole articles dedicated to much of this and they are wikilinked if you want to know more. Comparing Walmart to this article, as an example, it talks about the institution's history, not its employees. I would say their history paralleled the US's during that time. If they wish to view more on it, they are welcome to do so through any number of wikilinks. WP:SUMMARY requires a lot of condensing. While we can easily go into more depth (whole books have been written on the subject just at A&M...I own many of them and have personally spoken to several of the authors), it is impossible to summarize without cutting much of the detail. When discussing the history, we've literally condensed almost 150 years into just 58 sentences. As such, only major components are discussed and few in any detail unless central to the history of the school. Discussing how the student body has morphed and changed over 150 years is simply a topic for another article (or several). Now, that's just my opinion. If you have a way to add a sentence or two and capture this, I'm all ears and would be happy to add them, but it sounds like you want much more. Buffs (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for what percentage participate, Texas A&M has the largest student section in all of college football by a factor of about 3 (the next highest is Penn State if I recall correctly at just over 10K). I've added a bit there in the "12th man" segment to reflect this. The sources are bare URLs which I'll be happy to improve them once (or replace them with other sources) the text is approved. If it isn't, there's no point in wasting that effort. If I recall my stats correctly, approximately 80% participate in student organizations, but I'm still trying to find that source. Buffs (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say it is WONDERFUL to hear a non-American chime in. Our cultures are separated only by a common language! (that was sarcastic American humor...). I'm going to reply to each. If I've missed something or my comment doesn't address your issue with the sentence/claim, please let me know. I'll ping you when done! Buffs (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

***Copied from talk page***

Similar to the above, I was asked to review the article. I hope there's no overlap with the above.

  • I hate to ask, but is there a reference for note3 - "Public" schools in the United States are generally funded by the state
    removed Buffs (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder in the 1960s, A.M.C. desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets and enrollment began to rapidly expand." - I feel like this could be split up. Maybe like - "Enrollment expanded again in the 1960s under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder. The college desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets."
    I like it! Rephrased w/ minor tweaks. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice a lot of refs in the lead. There shouldn't be refs there unless anything is particularly controversial, as the lead is supposed to reflect the content in the article. Does the lead need all of those references?
    Believe you me, I totally agree. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have any references in the lead at all. These are here solely due to the ambiguity of current policies which state that if anything is challenged, it should have a reference...and here we are... Buffs (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But is the founding date really that challenged? It's backed up in the history section. Likewise its R1 status shouldn't be that in dispute - you mention it in the article, and no one can claim it's a different classification. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For #1, this has been repeatedly brought up (see the talk page). For #2, again, I don't disagree. If it were up to me, I'd remove all references in the lead as they are contained within the body of the article. Buffs (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 5,500 acres (22 km2)" - it might be nice to have the same style of unit, using mi2 along with km2, because I'm not sure people can grasp what 5,500 acres looks like. Then again, IDK if people know what 8.5 square miles looks like.
    I'm not against any such changes, but square meters vs square kilometers...seems the latter would be more appropriate. For better or worse, acres are how land is generally measured in the US and I think square miles is generally unnecessary. I'm open to other opinions or other options that are common measures of land in the metric system. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you mention the student body being the largest in the US, and you also mention that one-fifth lives on campus, but you never mention the size of the student body in the lead.
    Correct, but it is mentioned in the info box immediately to the right. Mentioning it in 3 places seems overkill. Buffs (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But after working through initial faculty resistance" - you're not supposed to start a sentence with "But"
    Take your pick for a reference, but that's no longer the case. Still, I appreciate the thoroughness. Buffs (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " With the backing of State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore, also known as "the Bull of the Brazos" and "the father of the modern Texas A&M University." - I was gonna mention the nicknames as being unnecessary for Sul Ross, but he has a statue, whatever. But I don't think we need to know Moore was the Bull of the Brazos. Maybe just say who considered Moore to be the father, rather than having an unattributed quote?
    The quote was attributed by the reference, however, I don't think it's 100% necessary either. Removed. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general in the history section, it would be nice if the paragraphs were closer in size to each other.
    I see your point; consolidated some of them. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the backing of State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore, also known as "the Bull of the Brazos" and "the father of the modern Texas A&M University",[40] in 1963, the 58th Legislature of Texas approved Rudder's proposal for a substantial expansion in its physical plant construction, facilities upgrades, diversifying and expanding its student body by admitting women and minorities and making membership in the Corps of Cadets voluntary. " - similar to the lead, this bit seems a bit rushed, as it seems like one of the more important historic events at the university.
    How is it "rushed"? I've also rephrased per above. Maybe this addresses what you were getting at. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a lot in one sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...well, it's been rephrased, hopefully to your satisfaction! :-) Buffs (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think it's too much for one sentence. I'd rather have one sentence on the legislature approving the proposal, then the next sentence explaining what it is. Remember, not all of our readers are native English speakers. I'm not going to be too picky here, but I think it would read better split up. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the following 35 years" - from Rudder's death in 1970?
    Yes. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that should be specified, since it starts a new paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, point taken & fixed. Buffs (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of thirteen American presidential libraries operated by the National Archives and Records Administration" - the presidential library article says there are 15
    It was 1 of 13 at the time...now 15...updated. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With strong support from Rice University and the University of Texas, the Association of American Universities, the leading academic association of America's top research universities, inducted Texas A&M in May 2001, on the basis of the depth of the university's research and academic programs." - this could be a lot clearer
    rephrased Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning Covid in the history section? That seems a bit more important than a statue's non-removal.
    Sully, both the person and statue, are part of A&M history. COVID seems to be part of American history and A&M wasn't impacted more than any other school. YMMV Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, COVID is just as much a part of American history as the World Wars, which both get a mention. Even a passing reference to the school going remote (if it did) would feel more complete. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, but the world wars were mentioned because A&M contributed massively to the effort...then again, A&M contributed a BUNCH to the vaccine effort... Buffs (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added! Buffs (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The university and colleges are generally accredited - eh?
    Yes. Most are accredited by that organization, but some are accredited by other entities that have such control (like the law school and the medical school). BuffsF (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think those should be mentioned. "Generally" feels like a weasley word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are mentioned, but there are some that were accredited by other entities, but SACS is the source of accreditation for a significant majority of the school:
    "The university and colleges are generally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and associated professional organizations"
    Any thoughts on how to rephrase? Buffs (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-re-re-re-reading it, I see what you're getting at now. Yeah, removing the word still encompasses the entire meaning of the sentence and "generally" isn't actually needed at all. Buffs (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The institution self reports, that in 2019, the school had a four-year graduation rate of 59% and a six-year graduation of 81.7%." - is this figure pre-Covid for a reason?
    Yes, those are the latest non-COVID-impacted stats. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school is rated as "more selective" by US News & World Report - what does this mean?
    As defined by US News & World Report...approximately 60% of applicants get admission letters, but less than half of the applicants actually attend.
    Then that should get a mention. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't clearly define it as such. I was just citing some basic stats, not what USNW reports. Sorry for being unclear. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying, by just saying "more selective" in quotes like that, it's missing some context. More selective than University of Texas? Texas Tech? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a ref link to their classification system definitions. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016, the university was targeted by animal rights group PETA, who alleged abusive experiments on dogs. Texas A&M responded that a video had been posted by PETA with insufficient context, and it said that the dogs had a genetic condition that also affects humans, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for which there is no cure. "The dogs, who are already affected by this disease, are treated with the utmost respect and exceptional care on site by board-certified veterinarians and highly trained staff. The care team is further subject to scientific oversight by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, among other regulatory bodies." - this seems a bit too much detail
    I'm down with completely removing it. PETA's an extremist group that rarely makes well-founded accusations. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any way to trim it down rather than removing it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Trimmed a skowsh Buffs (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 2013, geographic researchers named the largest volcano on Earth, Tamu Massif, after the university." - since this isn't directly related to the research by the university, this should be in the "history" section
    This was added to the "flavor" of the article as a fun tidbit. It could easily just be removed. Your thoughts? Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly is fun, and shows how important the university is, so I'd rather not see it removed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    rephrased to make it more related to research Buffs (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M leads the Southwestern United States" - Texas is Southwest?
    Yes, Texas is in the Southwest...and Southeast...it's pretty much right in the middle. El Paso has a New Mexico flair while Houston is practically like Mobile, Alabama. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you can see why that ambiguity stuck out to me? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2nd in the South overall, 14th in the country (#1 in Texas and virtually the southern half of the US). Buffs (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M owns three international based facilities, a multipurpose center in Mexico City, the Soltis Research and Education Center near the town of San Isidro, Costa Rica, and the Santa Chiara Study Abroad Center in Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy." - I think some more syntax is needed. I believe it would be "international-based", but double check on that. Also, I'm not sure if it should be a colon : or a dash or something else after "facilities". Lastly, any more details on these facilities?
    Fixed punctuation (good call). WP:SUMMARY on the facilities...unnecessary detail. Buffs (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The campus is part of Qatar's "massive venture to import elite higher education from the United States" - it's not good to have unattributed quotes. Can't you just describe this without the quote? If not, list who said it.
    Well, the quote isn't unattributed. The source is right there and is appropriately mentioned. The quotes indicate it came from the article, not that it's a quote from a person. I think you're misreading how that's supposed to work. However, the quote is from the Qatari Kingdom's official statement and is therefore attributed as well (by coincidence). Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not good to have quotes in an article without saying who said them, that's my point about quotes in the article. You shouldn't quote a source as a way of getting around plagiarism. It would be different if you said - Qatari Kingdom described the campus as [quote]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not "getting around plagiarism" by any stretch of the imagination. That is applying exactly what WP:REFERENCE dictates should be done (not to mention MLA and a dozen other documentation styles). It indicates the quoted phrase comes from the given source. This is literally research writing 101. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't writing 101, this is Wikipedia. From the Manual of Style section on Quotations
    It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright).
    Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted.
    The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion
    I think the article would be better served if more of these quotes were paraphrased. See also the essay on Wikipedia:Quotations which backs up a lot of this, and which opines: Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. Readers should not have to follow a footnote to find out the quotation's source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are unintentionally conflating attribution and quoting an individual/entity. Likewise, this is exactly the format used for over a decade and you're the first to bring it up.
    That said, I have rephrased anyway...I think I got all of them or provided direct attribution. Buffs (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that makes the article much better IMO, thank you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead, Texas A&M opened a $6 million marine biology center in Haifa, Israel." - when?
    2016. Added Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Corps Arches, a series of twelve arches that "[symbolize] the spirit of the 12th Man of Texas A&M", mark the entrance to the Quadrangle." - I'm not sure what you're linking with the 12th Man of Texas link.
    That was apparently an internal article link that no longer exists...fixed. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reveille, the Aggie mascot, lives with her handlers in the Corps in the Quad." - is it worth mentioning that Reveille is a dog?
    good idea. Added. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Activities", I found the coverage of the GLBT organization to be odd. You say: GLBT Aggies, the descendant organization of Gay Student Services (GSS), successfully sued the university for official recognition in the decision Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University, in which the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the First Amendment required public universities to allow students the freedom to assemble. So you mention the group suing, but not that the organization has been around since 1985, and that it exists beyond just a lawsuit.
    A Supreme Court case involving the school deserves a mention, which is the point being highlighted. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that I get, but there could be more context there, even something as basic as "The Gay Student Services began in [X year] to support..." Something to set up the group before the lawsuit. Something with a bit more context would be nice. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    reorg'd...I think it flows better now Buffs (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "W5AC broadcast the first live, play-by-play broadcast of a college football game, at Kyle Field, in November 1921." - was this station affiliated with the college? Or did it just happen to broadcast the play-by-play here? Considering it was a first, I think a bit more context would be nice.
    It is a student-run radio club...calling it a "station" is a bit too much. Added. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To symbolize their "readiness, desire, and enthusiasm" - I'm noticing a pattern in the article of some unnecessary quotes that are unattributed
    See Qatar issue above...same logic. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, my beef is that it implies that it's a quote, but it doesn't say who said the quote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    same as above, no need to rehash the discussion here. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hall of Fame section isn't that long, so I think that would work best at the beginning of the sports section, so that way the sub-categories are about different types of sports.
    done Buffs (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The women's team has been coached by Gary Blair since 2003." - needs updating, their season is over and he is now retired.
    Valid, but that just happened in the past few weeks. Thanks for the catch! Fixed Buffs (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The school has 20 sports, of which football and basketball get a section, and only women's soccer and volleyball get an "also" mention. I think you should list all of them here.
    Done. Buffs (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't mention men's soccer or volleyball, or rugby or archery. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. I don't. They are not official school teams. Those are clubs on the A&M campus, not official A&M teams. Most schools have many club teams for other sports that aren't officially endorsed by the school. A&M also has a hockey team, competitive shooting team, an Army Ranger team, an orienteering team, etc. This list has no such end. Buffs (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I appreciate your thoroughness here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aviation pioneer Fred Weick did much of his post war research at Texas A&M. - should it be "post-war"?
    yep, fixed! Buffs (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I expected a mention of the current college president somewhere in the article outside of the infobox.
    The current president hasn't done much of note at this point. There are some restructuring plans underway, but they and their effects are still unknown/incomplete...seems pretty common for any new administrator to do. Buffs (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it worth mentioning in the history - "In 2021, Katherine Banks became the current president"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    YMMV, but, in my opinion, no. If we open up that can of worms, we'll literally end up with a list of all the Presidents and dates (the list isn't brief). Buffs (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One random thing that came to mind after finishing reading. How many buildings make up the main campus?
    Oh my goodness...um, probably near a thousand. I dunno. Buffs (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked it up. Currently 943. Good guess! I'm sure many of these are very small structures like Communications rooms. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth mentioning? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I frankly don't think so. It's a number that is going to be constantly changing and doesn't really have any meaning. Let's say I build a beautiful 5-story architectural wonder that can house 4,000 students and faculty. Is that "less" than a school that adds 100 portable buildings? Buffs (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having all of the images on the right looked visually boring. Maybe switch it up?
    I wanted to do exactly that, but images on the left continually broke up paragraphs and there were complaints...figured it was easier to move them to the right/remove them than fight it. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when 25 Aggies "mustered" during the battle for the island of Corregidor." - see, the "mustered" quote doesn't help because I don't know what happened!
    removed quote for a single word...not sure why we kept that after all this time. Added a wikilink to the term "muster", which is probably a more obscure term for those outside of the military and/or A&M. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not sure what that meant that 25 Aggies mustered. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    muster (as is hyperlinked):
    The term muster means the process or event of accounting for members in a military unit. This practice of inspections led to the coining of the English idiom pass muster, meaning being sufficient. When a unit is created, it is "mustered in" and when it is disbanded, it is "mustered out". If a unit "musters" it is generally to take account of who is present and who is not.
    A muster roll is the list of members of a military unit, often including their rank and the dates they joined or left. A roll call is the reading aloud of the names on the muster roll and the responses, to determine who is present.
    Hopefully that clears it up. Buffs (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't, I clicked the link and I'm still not sure what happened. Under the US section, it says "Within the United States Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, muster is an annual event used for screening purposes of soldiers not otherwise required to perform any duties." The paragraph talks about students who died that year, but I'm not sure what happened to these Aggies on Corregidor. Did they die? If so, that's much clearer saying they died in the Battle of Corregidor. If they fought in the battle and survived, great, then say that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    YES!!!!! Now I get it, that's so much clear, thank you. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 doesn't seem to cover - "Texas A&M was the largest public American university"
    No other school is listed as anything larger, but point taken. Added ref that specifically mentions it. Buffs (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning that the Aggie Bonfire continued unofficially after it was stopped? Also, should the bonfire get mention in two separate parts of the article? Seems overkill.
    yeah...I see your point...Bonfire's collapse and dissolution was a pivotal event in the University's history. Let me see what I can do to consolidate...
    Consolidated Buffs (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments from my first read-through. The article does a good job at being current and thorough.

Cas Liber

[edit]

Queries below:

  • Lead reads well.
  • The first day of classes was slated for October 2, 1876, but only six students enrolled on the first day, and classes were delayed and officially began on October 4, 1876, with six faculty members and forty students - (a) I'd split this sentence. Also (b) does it mean "six students had enrolled by the first day" (?) - surely they don't enrol on the first day of classes...?
    Actually, back then yes, that's when they enrolled in classes. Obviously we've drastically improved that process over the years. I'll break that up. Buffs (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of "enrol-" in that first bit, diversifying words is good
    Point taken! Buffs (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little bit wordy in places. Trimming here and there would be good. look at my contribs for examples
    I'll make some trims here and there. Buffs (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: edits made. Does this suffice? Buffs (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim

[edit]
  • It is classified by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education among "R1: Doctoral Universities – Very high research activity is this a permanent status? If not, need date.
    Good point! Dates added Buffs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning years" As a Brit, I'd expect "Early years", perhaps you can reassure me that your version is standard in the US
    I'm fine with "Early years" Buffs (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admission was limited to males who were required to participate in the Corps of Cadets and receive military training... (1963) student body by admitting women and minorities. Should it be limited to white males?
    Valid question. Hispanics were allowed as were other races. The racism of the Old South was somewhat complicated as "white hispanics" were not viewed the same as "black people". That said, there certainly was an (undeserved) air of superiority of white people throughout the Old South and minorities other than black people were generally not admitted. It's notable that the first touchdown for the football team was by someone with the last name of Garza/Garcia (records are a bit hazy on that due to poor penmanship). I think your concern here is not without merit and it's probably best to say "white males" as that statement was most generally true. Anything less will either be wordy or could be seen as misleading. adjusted accordingly. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enrollment climbed to 258 students in 1881 before declining to 108 students in 1883 Not sure you need to repeat "student"
    Rm redundancy. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • affiliates the responsibility for coordinating the production of the first vaccines for mass consumption Am I missing something here? The first vaccine put into mass production I believe was the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. You also don't name the vaccine(s) they were working on, and the ref for this has a bare url
    This is in reference to the production efforts to mass-produce for the US, not the development of the vaccine itself. Rephrased accordingly. Hopefully that makes it more clear. Bare urls updated. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: edits completed for your review. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, thanks, it all looks OK to me now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Buffs (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda

[edit]

Late to this, it looks very good to me, lead and infobox fine. TOC fine, I just don't see why "notable" is repeated for "7.2 Faculty". Just bits:

World Wars era

University era

  • "By his death" - I misunderstood that on first reading, but may again be the only one.
    Point taken; rephrased. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the student population increased, so did the school's diverse academic offerings." - It's no surprise, and a bit complex construction, no? I'd expect details about these offerings.
    I don't think it's necessarily a given. Many schools get bigger, but only increase the number of classes for their specific specialties. A&M has removed departments over the years even as they expand (notably Theater and Journalism). As for the expansion, the next two sentence highlight the addition of medical and law degrees...pretty substantial expansions. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Addressed each of your points. Please provide further feedback/clarify if my response doesn't address your concerns. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
some given, and tired for today - didn't get "my own" projects done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt:, just get to it when you can. 2 responses to your queries are now above. I won't be submitting it for FAC until I can dedicate a week or so toward running down any loose ends and that probably isn't going to be for at least a week or two. Thank you for your review as a non-native speaker. I know that produces additional challenges, but a point of view from a different angle such as your own is immensely helpful. Thank you! Buffs (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice to say, thank you. The coming week looks unusually busy (in a pleasant way), so perhaps don't wait for me. I'll try to look further, though, learning a lot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed. Done. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student body

Research

Campus

  • For the two branch campuses with a link, mentioning the town which is already part of the title seems redundant to me.
    I think the intent was to disambiguate the location. That said, your point is well taken. I've removed anything that was redundant. To your point, Galveston and McAllen both redirect to the intended cities. The only alternatives are very small towns for Galveston and none for McAllen. I don't think people are going to make such a mistake given the context.
    I come from opera, - when an opera has an article, we don't link the composer, to avoid too much "blue".
  • Mentioning Texas each time seems also redundant, for a Texas institution anyway, and especially if the name of a facility is already Texas Medical Center.
    point taken (see above). Buffs (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Residential life

Corps of Cadets

  • Two instances of refs not in numerical order, and do we really need five for one fact?
    Ref order: see above. As for five-in-one, I agree with you, but that was requested by a previous reviewer. I'm happy to delete such over-referencing if that's brought up in the FA process. Buffs (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see the image of the band where the band is mentioned.
    I'm a little confused...they are... Buffs (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lights a candle, to symbolize that although their loved one is not present in body, his or her spirit will shine forever and is traditionally followed by a three-volley salute" - please check construction, - it tells me that a spirit is followed by a salute, which may not be intended.
    Point taken, comma added

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Texas_A%26M_University/archive2&oldid=1091380604"