Talk:University of East Anglia

message: Nexus was founded in the UEA Audio Visual Centre in 1968, not the "early 1970s" -- I know, 'cos we celebrated the 10th anniversary in 1978 when I was Nexus' Treasurer! -- Arwel 16:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but is it rightly "believed to be the oldest still-running student television station in the country"? YSTV  was founded in 1967, and GUST  claims to date back to 1964. GTV  is, like Nexus, a 1968 creation. (I was briefly in Nexus and later a GTV committee member, myself.) --rbrwrˆ 08:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course the statement is true while someone still believes it! :) I see YSTV also believe themselves to be the oldest, despite the evidence of GUST.... I remember GUST was active in NaSTA in the late 70s but I never saw anything of theirs myself. -- Arwel 19:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nexus?

message: The article has the following statement:
:With an annual research spend of £164 million, it has over thirty businesses and four independent research institutes (John Innes Centre, Quadram Institute, Earlham Institute, and The Sainsbury Laboratory) which provide new technologies and postdoctoral training.
Let us look see whether the sources support any of this stuff:
*Does the first citation support .  No.  What the first source actually says is: "In June 2023 £164m of investment was announced by the BBSRC for Norwich Research Park’s research institutes. This is part of its five- yearly strategic research programme and represents 40% of BBSRC’s total budget."
*What about   The first source says "Four world-leading institutes Earlham Institute, John Innes Centre, Quadram Institute and The Sainsbury Laboratory".  The first source also says that Norwich Research Park is an "established location for businesses – 100,000 sq ft built and let to 33 companies".  So the first source does mostly support what is said - it does not support "independent" - and it is unclear that the sentence is not talking about University of East Anglia, but is actually talking about Norwich Research Park.  The second source is about the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and mentions what the following do: Earlham Institute (decoding living systems), the John Innes Centre (exploring plant and microbial diversity), and the Quadram Institute do (promoting health through food and microbes), and says that eight institutes (which include these three): "Their research underpins key sectors of the UK economy and helps generate wealth and job creation across a broad range of industry sectors" and says that they "play a key role in supporting and shaping policy development both in the UK and internationally."
*What about   This is not explicitly supported.
It is worth noting that the first and third source are written by Norwich Research Park, and the second source is the "website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK."  So none of them are independent reliable sources.  And if the sentence was meant to be based on the sources, then it is garbled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  With an annual research spend of £164 million... statement 

message: There are two sources with the title "UEA's research confirmed as 'world-leading' by national assessment", but they are not identical - though parts of the text are common to both.
*
*
An IP editor has twice tried to remove the Norwich Research Park citation claiming .  The Norwich Research Park version contains information on how well the university did in "individual institutional tables for each of REF’s 34 subject-based Units of Assessment", which the www.uea.ac.uk version does not. The Norwich Research Park is also a live link, whereas the www.uea.ac.uk version can only be seen on web archive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor has revised the URL for the www.uea.ac.uk link to one that works.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources with the title "UEA's research confirmed as 'world-leading' by national assessment" 

message: The word "authors" is a plural noun.  It means more than one.  I do not see the logic in changing it to "multiple authors".  I think it should be changed back to "authors".
The article used to say  This was changed by GuardianH to 
*H0m0erect reverted it to 19:13, 14 March 2024,20:57, 14 March 2024 
*IP editor 139.222.169.149 changed it to .08:48, 15 March 2024, and when that got reverted to , H0m0erect reverted to restore "multiple" .10:42, 15 March 2024,16:09, 15 March 2024
Of ways of emphasising the plurality of authors, the choices are: "some", "several", "a number of", and "multiple".  I think that "multiple" is the worst of these.  But in any case, the sentence does not need it - having "authors" as plural is all that is needed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary word "multiple"