Talk:Georgia Tech/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"called Tech home"

I think the use of this phrase for alumni is overly flowery and while it might be a stretch to call it POV does not sound encyclopedic in tone but reads more like an ... alumni newsletter or advertisement. I just want to ask on the talk change before I / someone else changes it. gren グレン 00:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

With help from User:Durova, I re-worked lead according to the WP:Lead section and subsequently removed the "expandlead" tag. If my work is appreciated, please drop a note on my talk page. Thank you. --Otheus (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Crime Rates

the intro mentions atlanta used to have some of the highest crime rates in the US. Are there any statistic to back that up. I've never noted Atlanta's high crime in any of my research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.14.129 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have added several times information regarding the armed robberies we have had this year. This information has promptly been deleted. While I realize people might want to feign a better image of the school, people should know that when going to the library there stuff can be stolen at gun point. I don't wish to have people avoid the school, but they should be made aware to make an informed decision or at least to know going in what to expect and how to avoid potentially dangerous scenarios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.75.101 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

People get robbed all the time in Atlanta, so it's not notable enough to be included here. I don't understand why you would be concered about safety with regards to information on a the school's Wikipedia article. I get emails from GTPD about the roberies all the time. It's just not neccesary to include that info here. Ndenison ^talk 12:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Address all of the citation needed tags.
3. File:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg needs to be reduced in size since it's non-free.
4. Why is File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png used twice in the article?
5. There are multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.
6. "He then sold five adjoining acres of land to the state for US$10,000,[1] approximately equivalent to US$183,000 in 2006." This should be updated for 2008.
7. "Women constituted 28.6% of the undergraduates and 25.8% of the graduate students enrolled in Fall 2006." Same thing, any more recent figures?
8. "The student body consists of 18,500 graduate and undergraduate students, and more than 900 full-time instructional faculty." A date should be added to this to know if it's up-to-date or not. See if the other stats in the paragraph can be updated.
9. "In 2006, the Institute's revenue amounted to approximately $879 million, with 27% of that amount from the state, and 12% from tuition and fees." Any updates?
10. In the "Rankings" section, rankings go from 2nd, to No. 4, to #8, etc. Try and make all occurrences uniform.
11. "The university further collaborated with the National University of Singapore to set up The Logistics Institute - Asia Pacific in Singapore." I removed the external link to the campus site. External links should only be included in their respective section.
12. I'd recommend trimming the "Alumni" section a bit. There are already two well-developed lists that cover the topic which readers can look to.

This article covers the topic well. Due to the length of the article, I will wait to review the prose for any other issues until the above points have been addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, I'll have a look at some of these. Initial thoughts: I don't think the size of an svg file really matters; it's a vector graphic, it's going to be accurate no matter what size you display it at. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know that, but the fact that it's a non-free image, it would be beneficial if it was a smaller size. You don't necessarily have to do it, but it'll remain tagged for somebody else to take care of. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just afraid that somebody who sees that template will try converting it into a png. Tech is very particular that anyone that uses that seal use an extremely accurate version of it; read the conditions on the image description page. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC w/ Disavian) I think the point is, even if someone were to physically reduce the dimensions of the svg and re-upload it with those smaller dimensions, it would do nothing to restrict its use at a larger size in the way reducing the dimensions of most other image formats does, making the entire exercise kind of moot. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png was in the infobox (there's a field for "logo") and next to the Athletics section, as it's the athletic logo. I removed it from the latter, but will happily put it back if you think a smaller infobox graphic doesn't overwhelm fair use of the image. And there are now only four paragraphs in the lead. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the image is necessary in the athletics section if you already have the image of the mascot there anyway. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Working on the dead links, that tool you linked me to is very useful. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I love that tool, I must have fixed hundreds of links with it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have taken care of all of the dead links and {{fact}} templates. Are there any outstanding issues? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job addressing the above issues. I found a few more, which I added above. They mostly concern updates within the article. I also went through the article and made some changes, please look them over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a template somewhere that does inflation calculations. I've seen it used before, thought "hey, that's cool!" but now I can't find it. Ahh, may have found it now. {{Inflation}}! Working on this one now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished that one. Looks good. The code: {{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|10000|1887|{{CURRENTYEAR}}|r=2}}}} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know where to look for updated stats on enrollment. That one should be easy. Not sure about faculty, but I have an idea. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the female percentages to the most recent Fall or Spring semester (Spring 2009). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed some other stats in another paragraph. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"In 2006, the Institute's revenue amounted to approximately $879 million, with 27% of that amount from the state, and 12% from tuition and fees." Any updates? No idea. Putting this one off for a bit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Found the numbers for this, updated them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The rankings should be easy to fix. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware about the alumni thing- I wrote those featured lists expressly to get that crap out of the main article, but every Tech grad or sports fan that comes along adds their personal favorite to that section. Should be pretty easy to trim a bit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed down some of the name creep on the alumni section, trying to leave in only the most notable. If you have any more suggestions as to who or what could be left out, let me know. I will warn you, though, I have become very attached to the fact that Herbert Saffir went to Georgia Tech. ;) LaMenta3 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the rankings section such that the following scheme is used: The rankings discussed in the prose are written as "No. 1" while rankings that are used in parentheses in a list of degree program rankings are written "Engineering (1st), Biomedical (3rd)..." The rankings in the infobox are also written in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd format, as that appears to be the standard for the infobox. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that covers all of the issues listed above. Can you think of anything else that might be brought up in a featured article nomination? That's probably the next step for this article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend further sourcing for the "Campuses" section. I still believe that the alumni section should be trimmed further (maybe three or four paragraphs tops, but that's just my opinion). Consider doing a peer review and getting a few editors to copyedit the prose. All of the citations will need to have the appropriate parameters. It may also be beneficial to compare the article with current university FAs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Campus Construction

The Central Campus section is probably something to change, as Yellow Jacket Park has, at least partially, been replaced by the Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons. Since the construction is in progress, I don't entirely know how to handle this.Cdbkey1 (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell at this point how much of Yellow Jacket park will be left when they're done. If there's a Technique article that talks about the Clough building, we can certainly mention it and cite that article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodrich, Kaitlin (2008-07-11). "Clough building plans finalized for construction". The Technique. Retrieved 2009-07-28. might be useful here. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reducing references

01-Aug-09: In moving to reach featured-article status, I think the references could be reduced, perhaps by, at least, 25%. Remember, the standard, per WP:Verify is "verifiable", rather than a "footnote on every sentence". Many references could be re-used, and others could be off-loaded into subarticles. I propose a re-usable ref-tag footnote (named "seeA") to simply state:

<ref name="seeA">See linked article(s) for sources.</ref>

That footnote could be used for a questionable claim, where presently, the editors might have felt the need to put an entire source footnote, just to avoid disputes about such claims. In terms of chasing sources, it won't stump the readers to re-read a linked article for verifying the related text. I've already noticed that alumni members typically have no footnotes, with the expectation that each person's article mentions the years attended at Tech. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just about everyone else in the review of the article has suggested the exact opposite. An extra twenty references isn't going to hurt anyone, and will help the chances that the article will pass. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikid77, your suggestion is at odds with the prevailing attitude of most GA/FA reviewers. While I'm inclined to agree that, in an effort to prove Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability, policy and consensus have moved more and more toward intractable reference/footnote disease, we have to work within what the community has framed as the standard for verifiability. That is to say, even if we think it's excessive, we need to give the reviewers the references they want, where they want them, in order for them to accept the article as meeting the standard for FA (or even GA). Then from there, perhaps we can work to push for a more reasonable (and readable) community standard for verifiability. It's just too much to take on a FAC and an attempt to shift standards, all at once. That said, if you want to take on the crusade against reference overload, I'm right behind you...right after this article gets promoted. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with following the community mindset. I recently had another AfD deletion, clearly explained as notable 6? times, but deleted anyway (violating policies) because the article was "unpopular" with many; at WP:DRV, I noted policyvios but was told "WP is not a court", and many agreed incorrect AfD was good. I was a math tutor for years, but still get stunned when people can't solve for "x", yet that helps me understand the mob mindset torching this Frankenwiki. I'll limit any such footnote improvement-ideas, for now, to appear in essays (as in WP:Advanced footnote formatting). -Wikid77 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings section vs. infobox

I believe that the infobox should replace the prose section, not supplement it. The biggest problem with the rankings section as it exists now (and with most ranking sections) is that it violates NPOV by mentioning only the best rankings are mentioned; indeed, half the rankings in that section were picked by Georgia Tech, in whose interest it is to pick the best rankings. For this reason, it should be removed and replaced with (not exist alongside) the infobox, which fixes the problem for the most part by picking a broader set of rankings that isn't unduly self-serving. DroEsperanto 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see things a bit differently. In my opinion, university articles should always "cherry-pick" the high ratings because those indicate the university's notable strengths. Articles could theoretically list hundreds of rankings in which the university places only average, but that would be a waste of space. On the other hand, if XYZ University has a highly ranked program or department, that's interesting, and that's something I want to see in the article. The one exception to this policy that I can think of is rankings of the university as a single entity. In that case, I'd want to see the most authoritative source listed — in this case, it's U.S. News & World Report. MaxVeers (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with MaxVeers here. The One True Ranking is truly U.S. News & World Report. The prose also gave a referenced claim as to the consistency of the ranking, which I thought was useful knowledge not provided by the infobox. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: new ref Cai, Sijia (2009-08-20). "Tech rankings maintain upward trend". The Technique. Retrieved 2009-08-23. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with relying solely on an infobox of this type is that it becomes relatively high-maintenance. Rankings are release yearly or twice yearly, often at different times of the year, depending on the source, resulting in at least some of the information in the box being regularly out-of-date. Prose that notes some of the most notable of the rankings and provides an overview of ranking patterns is lower-maintenance, and it's more acceptable for prose to have a more historical quality (that is, it can be slightly more out-of-date because it has context). And to another point, I do not feel that being selective about information is necessarily an issue of POV. I agree with MaxVeers in that sense in that presenting all rankings gives undue weight to some less-regarded, less notable rankings which are included in the template. In the spirit of brevity and the focus on good prose that I have always understood to be among the primary goals of encyclopedia writing, it is my view that infobox-creep diminishes rather than enhances the overall quality of articles. However, in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration, I am willing to meet halfway and include the infobox as a supplement to the prose, though I do so having made my objections to it noted. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You make good points. However, I find your usage of the rankings section to be against the spirit of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV; I think any mention of rankings should be used to give an equitable cross-section of all the rankings it's received, not to convince the reader of Georgia Tech's quality. It makes no sense to disregard the ranking that says Georgia Tech is 87th but to report the 2nd, 3rd, and 1st place rankings, and the use of Georgia Tech as a source is inappropriate because it is "unduly self-serving". There is also no practical reason to favor prose over a table when a table is more readable, which is true in this case. I see your concerns about datedness, but I believe those to be secondary compared to the POV/boosteristic concerns at hand, and could probably be fixed with some template magic. Note that this isn't just my opinion, but is clearly stated multiple times in WP:UNIGUIDE (emphasis added):

...Claims that an institution "ranks highly" or is "highly exclusive" are just as vague as claims that it is "prestigious" and "excellent." Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers, represent a comprehensive cross-section of rankings by national and international publications, be limited to a single section in the article, and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources...

...the rankings should be presented neutrally and without undue weight — do not exclude or re-factor rankings because they are inconveniently low, attempt to include every ranking or all historical rankings, or emphasize rankings of sub-disciplines over rankings of the college or university as a whole...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DroEsperanto (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 August 2009

Athletics omits Heisman

A significant fact about Tech athletics absent from the atrticle is that John Heisman coached there. The record for most lopsided victory in college football (222-0) was set by Tech during his tenure. 138.13.212.8 (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Lawrence Vinson (lvinson911@yahoo.com)

Picture Request

We need pictures of the older part of campus along Cherry Street. We also need a picture of the library entrance. Cherry Street is picturesque and shows the world that Tech has a soft side/traditional collegiate appearance as opposed to the brutalist 60s buildings scattered on the north side of campus. A picture of Britain Hall (from inside or from the front) would also be nice, me thinks. I can happily and easily take these pictures, but if they are in a library accessible to the editor of this Wiki page, then that makes it easy. If not, email me at jsimmons8@gatech.edu and I will gladly snap some good pictures with people and buildings in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.12.61 (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I made this comment last night and then made a user profile, I'll sign below. Jsimms3 (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are these images:

• 
• 

Let's say you wanted to include those. Where in the article would they go? It's already got plenty of pictures; which ones would you replace? Also, you would have to write alt text for the image describing it to someone that is blind. See WP:ALT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I made the original request. I added a small picture gallery containing 10 Tech buildings. I do love that picture you provided of Brittain, and I might change the one I uploaded for that. I'll wait and see on the library when the CULC is complete, as that area will look drastically different. Perhaps there should be a separate page for the Buildings of Georgia Tech. There is a page with 3 pictures of the Historic District, and it contains very limited information. I'll wait for replies before I create a new page for that, (and when I have time).Jsimms3 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to just be blunt here: The gallery doesn't really add anything to the article and it looks out of place with the rest of the content. Many of the notable buildings are discussed in the prose about the parts of campus where, I will admit, the pictures could use a little revisiting. The portion about East Campus may be better illustrated by a picture of Brittain than by a picture of Skiles Walkway (which is part of Central Campus), and the picture currently illustrating Central Campus might be better replaced by a picture of a building in the Historical District. This would satisfy the "need" to show the more "traditional" parts of campus without having to add a superfluous gallery (which again, I will be very honest in saying I think looks kind of ugly) that is also redundant with the link to all of the Georgia Tech media on Commons. All that said, I'm just going to go ahead and make those changes. I just wanted everyone to know why. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is getting it through FAC, and the reviewers had issues with images last time - this time won't be any different. Good changes so far, LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Seal

Currently in Black and White. I noticed that it is linked in B&W to all of the individual school pages, too. Other schools use their full color, low resolution for the purpose of generic representation, seals. I don't want to mess with the seal due to its Copyright nature, but if anyone knows the best way to proceed to change our seal from the B&W to the true color and attractive Blue and Gold version, please either do this or let me know what I need to do to get the seal changed. Thanks! Jsimms3 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, same thing with the logo at the bottom of the top box.Jsimms3 (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's an SVG version, so the resolution doesn't matter. If you find an SVG version in color, feel free to upload it. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)