Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive1

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it from GA (promoted today) to FA, and I think it needs a bit of work before I nominate it at FAC. I'm especially looking for any content ideas and copyediting help.

Thanks, —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are over 20 FAs at Category:FA-Class Universities articles - Tuck School of Business may be useful as a model as it is an article on a subdivision of a university

Thanks for that suggestion. I'd add a caveat with that example; Tuck School of Business went through FAC in 2007, and I believe that FAC is more difficult to get through than it was back then. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one dead external link - see here

Fixed. Replaced it with another reference. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says about 1400 employees, but the infobox and article body both say 1520 as of 2010. FOr FAC little thing like this will have to be consistent.

Fixed to use the more recent number (1520). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
The current lead seems a bit sparse. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Scientific Atlanta (as one example) is not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
Biggest concern I would have if this were at FAC is the references. Wikipedia articles are supposed to use independent third-party sources as much as possible. This article relies very heavily on Georgia Tech sources, which are not independent not are they third-party. While some uses of GTRI mateirals are OK, this seems excessive and would be a real concern.

I know that I'm going to hear that concern again, but I distinguish the use of GTRI-based sources from the use of Georgia Tech-based sources; in particular, historical works such as Engineering The New South and Dress Her In White And Gold and news sources such as The Technique are independent. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like GTRI contributes positively to the Georgia Tech research environment for faculty and students by conducting externally sponsored, applications-oriented research programs that benefit the state, region, and nation. especially need thrid-party refs, but all three sources cited later in the paragraph with this are from Georgia Tech.

I removed the word positively from that sentence as it's rather subjective and that helps a bit until a decent ref can be found. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the table "Comparison of ranks at Georgia Tech" every university I know of ranks Associate Professors above Assistant Professors

That is correct, I must have swapped the ranks when I created the table. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not undertand this (or the pie chart) In 2010, the United States Department of Defense consisted of 72% of GTRI's awards by value; the remainder was composed of federal (12%); non-DOD (8%) state and local (6%); and university, business, or nonprofit (2%).[2] Since DOD is federal, how is the 12% federal different from the 72% DOD? And what exactly is non-DOD (assume it is federal non-DOD, but then how is this different from the 12% federal)?

I've attempted to clarify that a bit in the chart. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why use full sentences in the Laboratories table research area column, but fragments in the table below it?

Good catch. I've made the research centers table use full sentences as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections like Intellectual property - these break up the flow of the article and should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.

I'm open to suggestions on how you would logically organize that section. That's the best method I could come up with, and I agree that short sections are not desirable. What section header best combines employee numbers, financials, and intellectual property? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to lump it in with the previous subsection for now until I come up with a better idea. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example United States Department of Defense is linked twice in two sections.
Inflation conversions need fewer sigfigs - $5000 then is one or two sigfigs today

I removed the decimal places in inflation conversions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is OK but tends to have long complicated sentences - most difficult FA Criterion for most articles to meet is 1a, professional English prose.
Article seems to only have good things to say about GTRI and Georgia Tech - this may be seen as a WP:NPOV issue at FAC (and is likely a reflection of using so many GTRI refs).
Captions could use more detail - the Baker Building - where what takes place?

Added more detail to the captions in that section. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this article :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]