Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas Tech University/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Texas Tech University[edit]

I would appreciate any general feedback on the article, and suggestions about content changes/additions that would help advance it toward FA status. Thanks.--Elred 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as a very, very good article - so much so, that I can't actually find much/anything to critisise =P (but then I'm not hugely experienced). Seems very well referenced, a nice number of copyright-safe pictures. Reads very well (except for a slight hiccup in the introduction, which I corrected). I don't have a huge amount of experience with peer reviewing, but it seems to me that this article could certainly be worth FA status. Well done ;). TheIslander 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Elred 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oldag's review[edit]

I am kind of busy today to do a full review. Id think the guidelines for structure from the universities wikiproject could be of help. Oldag07 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Oldag, but are you saying we're off the guidelines? I believe we've adhered to them pretty well. Is there something specific that you think is contrary to how it should be? Thanks.--Elred 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
ill be busy until wednesday. I wish i could read the article more carefully. Keep in mind, i really don't pay much attention to official guidelines. I generally make BOLD edits, and if you don't like it than change it back type of person. However here are some observations:
as for the advice above, well, the article doesn't violate the guidelines, but i feel it could be expanded according to the guidelines. notable people for example could have a paragraph or two with a pictures. I am not exactly sure why you have a libraries and research centers section and a notable buildings section, but no "campus" section. notable organizations could be merged into a expanded "student life" section. A campus section should describe the campus as whole.
There isn't a "notable buildings" section, unless you are talking about "facilities" which I agree should probably be folded into the (soon to be created) Campus section. My way of thinking with the libraries/research part is that these are entities more so than 'brick & mortar.' While they are housed in buildings, the buildings and physical aspect of them isn't the aim of the entry. It's more about the scope (and the work done within.) Perhaps that heading should be relabeled simply "research facilities." The Campus section seems to me that it should plainly entail the physical design of the campus (architecture, area, physical relationship, etc) whereas actual description of what goes on inside the specific buildings belongs elsewhere (mostly.) Do you agree?--Elred 00:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel: libraries/ research laboratories should go onto research i guess isn't a major section according to wikiproject university. parts of that paragraph could be merged into a research paragraph that goes under a a subsection of academics. part of it should go onto a brand new campus section with is another major section on wikiproject universities Oldag07 04:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha.--Elred 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Academics needs a major expansion.
  • Another big picture thing that i have seen. Well I can't exactly find where the guideline is, but i believe for either GA status or FA, most lists should be converted to prose (academics and facilities). bqzip01 probably could tell you more about that.
  • the school songs probably could move to another page. Much like the a&m fight song:
  • Not really a guideline, but i put athletics well below academics. I argued that athletics should be placed in a location reflective of its order of importance. The student life aspect of the school in my humble opinion is more important than its sports section. Traditions at a&m make sense to be above athletics. at another school, i can see the argument being the opposite.
  • so far so good. i have seen the a&m article in far worse condition. keep up the good work. i guess this is good enough for a peer review, but Id like to make a more detailed one. but keep up the good work. Oldag07 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thanks mate.--Elred 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I notice that a bunch of the references are just URIs. You need to redo these using the cite web template. Look at the article World Community Grid for an example of how to appropriately cite web pages. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BQ's review[edit]

I am WAY too busy to do a full review, but at the request of Wordbuilder, I shall acquiesce. In addition, (start sarcasm) if there has to be another Big XII school that is a featured article (end sarcasm here), I'd prefer this one or Baylor. Your school (sadly) seems the most reasonable when it comes to matters of professionalism off of the playing fields (my sister-in-law and her fiance both went there). As Wordbuilder and the guys that submitted the OU page for FA status will tell you I can be a nasty SOB when it comes to editing.

That said, I'll give you a quick overview of the problems I see and I'll give you a full overview sometime in the near future.

  1. The lead is WAY too short. For an article of this length, you would expect 2-3 paragraphs. In addition, I am not a fan of citations in the lead. Everything in the lead should be addressed and expanded upon in the body of the article. Read WP:LEAD for more info. I think the last sentence is more speculation than fact and should not be mentioned in the lead. "Doctoral" is redundant since all universities grant doctorate degrees.
  2. Lots of passive voice throughout. Be more assertive and specific. Example: Though plans for opening a college in West Texas had been in the legislature since before 1900, it had long been thought that any such institution should be a branch of Texas A&M. In 1923, however, the legislature decided to create a new university system to best serve the needs of the region. How about: The Texas legislature discussed plans for opening a college in West Texas as early as (insert actual date here, not ~1900)[citation needed], but the planned Texas A&M branch did not materialize as envisioned. Instead, in (insert the FULL date of the measure) 1923, the government of Texas (note variety in word choice) decided to create a completely new university system "to best serve the needs of the region." (get an actual quote here, it adds credibility)[citation needed]
  3. Work on reducing lists to prose. It should be compelling, not a list. Example:
  4. Serious problems with commas and apostrophes Example: Texas Tech University offers 150 Bachelor's, 104 Master's and 59 Doctoral degree programs. Apostophes not needed
  5. Do a double check on the spelling. I didn't see anything jump out, but it is always good to do a double check for sanity. I recommend getting Firefox. It does a spell check as you type.
  6. I recommend putting the songs and traditions in another article and expand other sections.
  7. Get sources for ALL of your claims Examples: "1839-acre campus", the entire athletic section, etc.
  8. Wikify all dates IAW WP:DATE

I promise a much more expanded review later.BQZip01 talk 01:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks.--Elred 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
RE: Spelling. I ran it through Word a couple of days ago and everything looked good. I think we should continue to be vigilant in this area as material is added. Thanks for weighing in, BQ. →Wordbuilder 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (Unfortunately, after posting this comment, I edited the article, successfully MAKING a typo/spelling error. →Wordbuilder 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC))
There is a tceh spelling joke somewhere in there :-)
I set myself up for that... →Wordbuilder 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: Apostrophe usage. They are called bachelor's degrees, master's degree, etc. So, aren't the apostrophes appropriate and shouldn't they be put back in? →Wordbuilder 00:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The people who wrote the main articles on that seem to think so. For some reason I have it in my head that they aren't supposed to have an apostrophe. I believe older "Driver's Licenses" used to simply say "Drivers License" and I would assume a similar syntax was in use. But TX DL's now say "Driver License." It would appear that the wiki consensus prefers the apostrophes though. I'll stick em back in since I pulled em.--Elred 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops on that one. I guess it technically could go either way. My bad. BQZip01 talk 04:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ****. Karancs beat me to most of my comments. I second her inputs and others, but that is a really good start. Keep up the good work! BQZip01 talk 06:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 13:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Review by karanacs[edit]

I'm an Aggie like BQ and OlAg but I promise to be fair :) We got a lot of feedback when we brought Texas A&M University to FA and are just trying to share the knowledge. Some of my comments might mirror theirs; sorry for the duplication.

  • The lead is too short. It should contain one or two more paragraphs, and should mention more of the school's history and campus information.
    • Also, it isn't necessary to put major in quotes. The way that sentence is written it makes it sound like Tech competes in another division in minor sports. As I don't think that is the case, you might want to reword.
  • When Tech opened, was it coed or all-male?
  • make sure that all full dates are wikilinked
  • "In the 1960s, it was decided that " -> who decided or proposed the name changes?
  • Should board of directors be capitalized (Board of Directors)?
  • Need a citation directly after all quotations. This includes the sentence from the letter to the University Daily and the quote from Ed Whitacre.
  • "there is talk " of making Tech a flagship university. Who is talking? If this is the legislature, that should be noted.
  • The Organization section should be fleshed out more. If you choose to keep the list of colleges, you need to at least lead into it more (yes, you mention that there are 10, but then there are intervening sentences about locations). I prefer to see the list became prose, possibly containing the numbers or percentage of students who are enrolled in each college.
    • Although you mention in the lead that Tech has the 5th largest student body in the state, this is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. The Organization section would be a good place to add this. If it isn't in the body, then it should be removed from the lead.
    • The last paragraph, about the 1839 acre campus, should not be in organization, but instead in Campus. This fact is also listed in history -- does it need to be in both places?
  • All measurements should have both standard and metric versions. I use {{convert}}
  • Do not include external links (such as Museum of Texas Tech University) in the body of the article
  • The research facilities section reads like a list. It needs better transitions, or, at least, try to vary the beginnings of the sentences.
  • Is there anything else noteworthy about the campus?
  • Do you need to specify that the United Spirit Arena is in Lubbock?
  • First paragraph of athletics needs to vary the way the sentences start -- they all begin with Tech Tech or the university
  • Athletics section needs citations.
  • I would retitle the section Sports Traditions to Mascots.
  • You should mention in the athletics section that the team used to be called the Matadors (as is mentioned in traditions).
  • We got slammed in our FA for having a lot of citations reference various A&M websites, and percentage-wise we had a lot fewer that you. If at all possible, try to find non-university references for your facts. The Lubbock or school newspaper would be good places to look first.
  • Reformat your citations, and make sure to use named refs, as I see several of these are duplicated (10 and 11, 12 and 13, 24 and 25)
  • You need more citations -- everything should be able to be easily verified, and it's not from the article.
  • If the citation issues were fixed, I think this would have a good shot at GA. For FA, though, the prose is going to need major work. There are a lot of short and choppy sentences that don't flow well together. You would do well to go through each section and see if you can rewrite them into more cohesive, "compelling" prose.

Good luck! Karanacs 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Great feedback.--Elred 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I have an issue with some of the images. Image:TTUamin1923.jpg lists as the source but I can't find the image anywhere on the site. Also, you state the image was released under the CC Attr 2.5 license. Did the photographer state that? Is there an OTRS ticket number? There is no proof the photographer credited released the image under the given license. Same issue for Image:MRstatue.jpg and Image:Techsubwide.jpg (which appears to be an HDR image which I'm not a fan of as far as being encyclopedic) which list as the source. I can't find either pictures on the site and there is no verfication the photographer released the photos under the given licenses. Please clarify the image issues.↔NMajdantalk 17:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've corresponded via email directly with the photographer's grandson (and copyright holder) and received permission to use the 1925 photo. As for the HDR aspect, if these are HDR they are very subtle examples (i'm an amateur photographer at best). I believe, however, that the majority of the dramatic effects are due to the time of day both of these shots were taken (dusk.) Apparently they were both shot in the short period of time where the campus lights are on and it's still a bit light outside. Other than that, I don't believe they've been manipulated dramatically, and certainly not to the extent that they create a false impression of the subject matter. --Elred 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Elred, what do you have in the way of licensing/permission on the other ones that NMajdan mentioned? →Wordbuilder 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
All the photos on the page came from four sources: 1. I took them myself 2. Are the property of David Kozlowski (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 3. Are the property of Ken Sharpe (whom I corresponded with personally and received permission) 4. are in wikicommons (the mastodon). If there is a problem with the manner by which they are authorized I'm sure they will be willing to help. They both showed interest in the article and endeavor.--Elred 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll leave most of the issues to Elred since he uploaded the photos. I do have one quesiton. Is the use of HDR images—if that's what it is, I'm not sure either way—forbidden or discouraged? Thanks! →Wordbuilder 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just my opinion (although, knowing Wikipedia, there may be some buried policy/guideline on it) it comes down to a matter of encyclopedic content. That image isn't blatantly HDR (look at the shades of blue around the tree and building compared to the rest of the sky - its the biggest HDR give-a-away in this image) so it could be a lot worse (like this one). I would probably say this photo is OK since its not heavily altered but generally photos in an encyclopedia should have only the minimal post-processing and nothing artistic (which is what HDR is). The only post-processing for images should be things to clean an image such as remove dirt, brighten or darken an image, etc.↔NMajdantalk 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)