Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 3

message: This archive is to make sure that items not related to the FA status proposal are not lost in transition. — BQZip01 — talk 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Congrats to the custodians of this article.  Your rapid response has been wonderful.  This article has the scope and breadth to possibly be a featured article some day.  Please consider taking it to peer review to seek comment and prepare it for FA status.  Good job!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WHOOOOOOOPPPPP!!!!! Oldag07 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ??? "This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. "Oldag07 02:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Just requested it on the texas site.  going to bed.  man, of all things, wikipedia is destracting me from my studies.Oldag07 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoop and a half. Who's up for featured article status? Anyone else think BluAg09 will be surprised? — BQZip01 — talk 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  give me until sunday.  i have taken a lot of random pictures around campus, the msc, a better rec center picture, kyle field, etc.  i am going on my own elephant walk around campus, and i guess, ill take even more pictures.  btw, is this a good time to archive our talk page?Oldag07 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: WHOOP!  Where is BluAg09?--he needs to celebrate too. So what do we need to do to make this a Featured Article?  I'd love to get there before texas ;) Karanacs 13:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: i am a real old ag now.  sad day. . . . . Oldag07 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats everyone! Glad to see the article has passed GA nomination. I've actually been checking the nomination page ever since to see if it has. I was thrilled when I saw this topic here. You guys are no doubt true Aggies!BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see you back.  How were exams? OldAg, congrats...but IMHO, you'll never be an "old" ag to me :-) — BQZip01 — talk 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: Well folks, who's up to working towards featured article status? I'm in. I think the first step is to review the article and figure out in which areas we're lacking and then work on them. If no one starts a list of things to check in the next few days, I'll start it. — BQZip01 — talk 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm up for it. I think we should follow the guidelines outlined here: User:AndyZ/Suggestions.BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I started a subpage so as to not clutter up the main talk page with the massive number of comments/edits that are sure to come. — BQZip01 — talk 06:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's amazing how far this article has come since this past December. It was only another article, but now we have several Aggies working constantly improving and expanding A&M related articles. Congratulations!! I believe as part of this last push for Featured Article status that we should also not forget that all other A&M related articles should be improved in conjunction with the main article. Also, for future consideration, a plan should be in place for the time when this article does become featured so that we can hopefully avoid vandalism; including constructing a list of all images, pages, and templates that are included that must be locked from editing. Also, establish a team to monitor all A&M related articles for continual vandalism. However, that is just my two cents. -- Hut101 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Locking items is not what Wikipedia is about. I monitor a lot A&M articles daily as do many other editors. We just need to maintain the vigilance. I say we start with making this a featured article first (to gain experience as to what to look for) and then branch out accordingly. Hut, please come and join us in the tweaking of the article. — BQZip01 — talk 05:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Status

message: Is there a reason why the citations for the first paragraph of the history section were changed from the Handbook of Texas?  The one citation of the handbook covered the information in the entire paragraph.  That makes for a little easier reading of the paragraph (no footnotes necessary at the end of each sentence), and it also provides a neutral source (not directly from Texas A&M).  I'd like to change the citations back, but I'll wait for comments before I do.  Thanks.  Karanacs 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: I purpose changing "Traditions" to "A&M Culture", or the like, with two sub-sections, "Traditions", and "Pop Culture". Therefore we can place emphasis on Aggie related traditions as we've done, and have a separate section relating to the effects of A&M culture outside of the student body. Though this is basically how the section is currently constructed, hopefully we would be able to expand once again the pop culture section. -- Hut101 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but a&m is known for its traditions.  Oldag07 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yyyyyyyyyeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh. I'm gonna have to...sorta...disagree with you on that one...yeah. In general, the pop culture segments invariably turn to simple trivia where the subject is included anywhere. While it is well-intentioned, it quickly becomes a running, rambling list. Unless A&M plays a major role (like the subject, 10% (or 3-5 minutes) of running time), it's pointless. It's going to become useless quickly. In addition, A&M is known for its traditions, not its culture (hmm...is that necessarily a good thing?) — BQZip01 — talk 05:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if we are going to mention culture, we have got to mention the fact that A&M is really conservative (at least for academia)  Moreover, on the traditions page, I am not exactly sure how to write about putting pennies on sully.  Oldag07 19:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess it's left to individual definition. -- Hut101 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A&M Culture

message: I removed some of the subsections in the ToC since a peer reviewer noted that it was too long. What does everyone else think? I removed the subsections under History and Campus.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this review? — BQZip01 — talk 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the kind of feedback we need to fix the article, but I disagree. Thanks, but it states, "consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages." It doesn't say to rewrite them with false headings or improper subheadings. While I appreciate the feedback, it was automated, not a human looking at the article and saying, "hmm...I don't see how they could do it any other way." I say we consolidate them all into paragraphs without headings; at the beginning of each we should put each building in italics. We could also go back to a list. Lists aren't prohibitted in wikipedia, just discouraged. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 23:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I made the TOC show only the first two levels.  This way we can keep in the headings of the individual buildings to best fit the MOS, but we don't have to worry about the TOC getting too much longer.Karanacs 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VERY NICE!!! GREAT CORRECTION!!! CAPS LOCK IS STUCK!!! DON'T READ TOO MUCH into capitalized...oh, I guess it is fixed...nice edits — BQZip01 — talk 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Contents

message: I had some ideas in my head, but i don't have much time to write up a full thing.  I have lived on campus all 4 years of my school career as a non reg.  honestly, dorm pride has taken a plunge in recent years.  in 2003, i felt some hostility between northside and southside.  not so much in 2007.   everyone seems more interested in their own business, instead of getting to know their neighbors.  anyways, I won't have internet access for about a week, but id figure id jot down very quickly some ideas for this section before i leave tomorrow.  and yes, i haven't found any references yet either.   
  Residents can be divided into two catagories, corps members and, and non regs, (non military members).  
(never was in the corps, please edit)  Corps members are required, with some exceptions, to stay on campus for the duriation of their membership in the corps.  They begin there days at six o clock in the morning with a morning formation.  Unlike traditional ROTC programs, corps members go to classes in uniforms every day.  The corps provides many activities to keep their members busy.  They have physical training sessions, mandatory study sessions, and corps games to accomplish every day.  While efforts by the administration have been successful at minimizing the hazing going on in the corps, it still remains a problem on campus.  
Non reg housing is more conventional.  Dorms, called halls, have a very active RHA association representing them.  The halls are build in a variety of styles, built at various times reflecting a wide variety in the styles of the dorms.  Walton Hall, a ramp style dorm was built before world war two.  External air conditioning was only added to that dorm as of 2002.   A modular hall, was built in 1990.    Halls tend to be smaller in population but larger in number compared to other schools in the area such as the University of Texas.  The largest dorm, Mosher can a little over 600 people, while the average hall holds only 200.  None of these dorms have elevators.  A&M halls do not have their own dining facitities, but are centered around eating areas such as Sbisa Dining Hall.
Before the bonfire collapse, individual dorms formed the basis of the work groups that worked together on the bonfire.  Dorm traditions such as the phrase "Walton Loads" are based on bonfire.  As of recently there has been a trend integrate single sex dorms into coed dorms.  Most coed dorms tend to have different gender floors, however Hobby Hall, as of spring 2006 has integrated these floors, and more coed dorms are expected to follow suit.  The university has been experimenting with Leadership Living Learning Community dorms to foster greater academic success among residents. 
There has been no construction of new dorms since 1990.  Many dorms, such as Cain hall, and Hotard have been converted into office buildings.  New halls have been planned, but nothing has been built yet.  
::Hate to be the killjoy here, but I think this article is starting to get a bit out of hand.  Long, high-quality sections such as "Notable Buildings" and "History" should be articles of their own with no more than one or two paragraphs in this main article designed to entice the reader to open the separate articles for detailed information.  Adding this section about reslife would make an already bulky article even more so.  I'm also not convinced that a detailed description of residential life is even notable.  It might be relevant on a Texas A&M wiki (hint, hint), but I just don't see it as being particularly notable to a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.  
::I think the reslife section should be limited to easily referenced facts such as number and types of dorms, number of students living on campus, etc. etc.  If there is more information regarding dorm culture, make a brief mention of it in the main Texas A&M artickle, then write a separate article for the dorm culture info.  Also, prepare convincing arguments to explain why it's notable in case challenged.  
::You guys are doing a great job, tho.  Keep it up! --Ntmg05 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the history does exist as an independent article (History of Texas A&M University) and it's a fair statement that the history section in the main TAMU article should be downsized. --Claygate 02:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ntmg05. Writing a separate article about the campus is a great idea. This will shrink the article a bit, since we are already at 82 KB, which is rather large. Michigan State, which is a featured article, has an article about its campus.BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, is List of facilities at Texas A&M University of any use? It's just a listing of the buildings at A&M. We should put it up for deletion. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Residential life update possiblities

message: Beginning of the Campus section has "350 acres (0 km²)." Could someone in the know please fix? — BQZip01 — talk 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The rounding value was set to -1, so the number kept rounding to zero. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: formula "error"

message: :Assigned to: BlueAg09
:*Agree: I think they are done. Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Disagree: Packing the department names into a paragraph doesn't make sense. I think it would be better to list them. Also, there is the new General Studies major, which requires one major, and two minors to complete. -- Hut101 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment: I actually thought that would be a creative way to avoid the list. Personally, I prefer the list, but since Wikipedia discourages lists and  encourages prose, I went ahead and wrote the enrollment figures for each college. What does everyone else think? BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the other FA university articles include a list.  Each of them has integrated the list of colleges into a paragraph of prose, like ours.  Because of that, I recommend that we leave it as is. Karanacs 14:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree — BQZip01 — talk 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree: Good to go. BlueAg09 (Talk) 04:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Profile


message: :Assigned to: BlueAg09
:*Agree: I think they are done. -- Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree -- Hut101 03:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree: Made minor changes (added ordinals) — BQZip01 — talk 18:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Rankings


message: :Assigned to: Hut101
:*Agree: I did a complete re write to fix horrible errors. Though I think it should be expanded considerably, I am willing to call is final. -- Hut101 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree: I think this is fine.  It accurately includes the pertinent info.Karanacs 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Agree Section appropriately reworded. — BQZip01 — talk 04:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Endowment


message: :Assigned to: — BQZip01 — - Done
:*Agree — BQZip01 — talk 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree Karanacs 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree: Thumbs up. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just FYI -- I fixed a dead citation in this section and changed the sentence "In 2003, over 1,200 Texas A&M students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad at these facilities" to add " and through other programs," because the cite says that 1200 students studied abroad in 40 countries.... Still agree, and I am going to change this to concluded. Karanacs 00:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Worldwide


message: :Assigned to: BlueAg09 - Done
:*Agree: Now that BlueAg09 has created the new article, I think this is done. It also shortened the article by quite a bit. -- Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree -- Hut101 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment The old section had a few great picts that I'd hate to see orphaned. Let's be careful not to inadvertently get these images deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Disagree Agree: I'm not sure about removing the explanation of Main Campus and West Campus.  The other FA university articles mention the divisions within their campus, and I think the very brief overview is useful.  We might be able to prune that paragraph a little, but I'd like to see the two parts of campus mentioned. Karanacs 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Disagree Agree: Looks good now. I'm going to go ahead and close this one out. Put main & west campus descriptions back in. See Karanacs's comments above. — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Campus


message: :Assigned to: BQZip01 talk Done! 
:*Agree — BQZip01 — talk 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Disagree: 2nd paragraph includes a lot of history we don't need here (that's why there's a history section :)); instead maybe, "The Corps of Cadets is the oldest student organization on campus, and until 1965 all students were required to be members. As of fall 2006, the co-ed Corps boasts an enrollment of 2,318 cadets, representing all military branches.  It is now composed of two Air Force Wings, two Army Brigades, and two Navy and Marine Regiments, as well as The Fightin' Texas Aggie Band whose members may be affiliated with any military branch."  I'd also remove the picture of EJ Kyle.  Karanacs 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **Made requested changes, but kept part about 1974 being the year we admitted women into the Corps. How about now? — BQZip01 — talk 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree.  Looks good. Karanacs 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corps of Cadets

message: :Assigned to: BQZip01 talk 
:::Done! — BQZip01 — talk 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree I double-checked it and agree it is done. — BQZip01 — talk 05:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree Looks good to me. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree Karanacs 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Media


message: Non Varsity Sports
The first time I put proper references on something I have wrote.  Still, please check to see if i am correct.  I think this paragraph could be condenced to 3-4 sentences.  But this could fit well in the Texas Aggies page.
The Department of Recreational Sports at A&M runs many club and intramural sports.  The Texas A&M Sports Club Association runs 30 student club teams ranging from sports ranging from Archery to Wrestling.   The woman's archery team has won a notable 11 national championships.  .  The Texas A&M Woman's Gymnastics team, won the 2007 NAIGC National Championship.    The A&m handball team has won many championships.  
The Texas A&M Judo team placed 3rd place in the 2007 National Collegiate championships.   The men's lacrosse team won the 2007 LSA division a Championship.  
  The Texas A&M polo club won the 2007 USPA Intercollegiate National Championship.  
  The Texas A&M woman's Rugby Team were the Texas Rugby Union Champions from 2001-2006.  
The 2001 and 2005 men's soccer teams were NIRSA National Champions. 
Texas A&M hosted the collegiate Taekwondo national's and the Texas A&M club team won 2nd place in 2007 
Intramurals are popular on campus, played on the Penberthy fields.  The sports played include, basketball, outdoor soccer, slow-pitch softball, racquetball, tennis, badminton, table tennis, sand volleyball, 4- on -4 flag football, intertube water polo, and swim meets.  
Oldag07 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this is not needed here, but go ahead and add it to the Texas Aggies page. The refs basically look good, but you may want to watch the citation templates and make sure you include all known info. You missed one ref in the 1st paragraph. — BQZip01 — talk 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Compromise?  How about in the activity section: "Intramurals and thirty non varsity club teams are popular forms of recreation for students" 
 {{cite web|title=Texas A&M Department of Recreational Sports Intramurals|publisher=Texas A&M Department of Recreational Sports|url=http://recsports.tamu.edu/programs/Intramurals/Schedule.html Wordbuilder 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non Varsity Sports

message: Assigned to: BQZip01 talk
:*Agree: I think this does a good job at mentioning the most important traditions.  The only things I have thought of adding are "From the outside looking in..." or the fact that if we do something twice it is a tradition.  Karanacs 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Disagree: Someone change the above sentence and I'll agree. It was better than "silly". -- Hut101 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Disagree: I'll tackle this tomorrow (but not until tomorrow...man am I tired) if someone will fess up and admit that they put the word "zany" in there. I mean...zany!?...sheesh. We're missing a bunch including replant, aggie ring, yells, 12th man, etc. Kinda big ones to gloss over. — BQZip01 — talk 03:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment: Do we really need to mention each of the big traditions on the main article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 23:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Done Please Agree, Disagree, or Comment below. — BQZip01 — talk 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **Agree — BQZip01 — talk 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **Comment: What was the rationale to put some of the traditions on the main page? BlueAg09 (Talk) 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ***We wanted to add more info about the traditions at A&M. It is one of the things that is most unique about the University. Wouldn't you agree? I also think it deserves some prominence. — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Sounds good to me. I'm worried about the size though. We're at 91 KB now. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ****You have a point and I've been watching that quietly creep up. Once we get everything signed off, we can then discuss what to delete/rephrase, but IMHO, let's just leave it as-is and let the FA review do it's thing. The main reason it is so large is the quantity and quality of the citations (The notable people section contains so many citations that it bumped up the entire article by about 10K by itself, but the citations are needed). I just did a quick check of the size of the article without the citations and it came in at 49.7KB, almost half of the size of the article. IMHO, that definitely adheres to the spirit of the rules. — BQZip01 — talk 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Comment:That's good to hear. Good thing we have a lot of citations. BlueAg09 (Talk) 05:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think it might be a little long, but it reads very well and is concise within each tradition.  I'll Agree.  I'm also taking BlueAg09's statement as an agree, so I'm calling this Concluded.  Karanacs 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Traditions


message: I proposed this article for deletion, since I didn't think it would be of good use. We can create the "campus" article mentioned earlier to replace it. You can see the deletion discussion here and vote whether you want it to be deleted or not. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of facilities at Texas A&M University

message: I noticed that some of the picture captions conclude with a period and some do not. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it at the moment. Thought I'd bring it up and let y'all decide which way you want to go. --Wordbuilder 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of them unless there is more than one sentence. just my 2 cents. — BQZip01 — talk 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of periods in captions that weren't 2 sentences long — BQZip01 — talk 19:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Periods in captions?

message: Here's what I mean by trimming down this article.  [Click me http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_A%26M_University&oldid=131188338]  
As you'll see, I think this article can be significantly trimmed down while still capturing the basic knowledge and essence of Texas A&M simply by cutting the flab, or more precisely, by moving non-essential information to other fully developed articles where it belongs.  
And sorry in advance for the edit; I realize that's a technical violation of policy by editing to prove a point, but I reverted it almost immediately to avoid any problems. --Ntmg05 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little too severe IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, keep in mind that none of the information would be lost.  It simply would be moved to a more appropriate place.  Not only would the main article be stronger for it, individual tidbits that are currently being lost in the current mass of text would find increased prominence in articles written specifically about their topic, i.e. Campus Life, etc.  --Ntmg05 01:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job, but I agree with BQZip01 that this is probably too severe.  I know I am more likely to read the main article and skip the detailed sections unless I am really curious by what I read in the main article, and I think this version might be taking out the tidbits that make you curious enough to read further.  I reserve the right to change my mind if the FA Review finds the current article too long. Karanacs 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article flab

message: Both Texas A&M at Qatar and Texas A&M at Galveston are branch campuses. Students at these campuses get identical degrees and also have a chance to earn an Aggie ring. Shouldn't there be a mention of this somewhere on the article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Texas A&M at Qatar is mentioned in the Worldwide section.  If you'd rather we mention both together then we could remove Qatar from Worldwide and add a short paragraph in Profile, I guess.  I think your first two sentences would probably do for the paragraphy.  Karanacs 14:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Karanacs on this one. It is already mentioned and I don't think this information is anything much other than trivia. — BQZip01 — talk 14:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that Galveston is not mentioned in the whole article.  i feel they deserve a spot too.  if you don't have any objections, ill try to write a blurb.  btw, i have not had internet access for about a week.  Great job with the changes.Oldag07 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Texas A&M performs marine research at its branch campus in Galveston, Texas" ????Oldag07 20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lets just say i made some friends from TAMUG this last week.  I am strongly for adding a blurb on them Oldag07 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've known folks from TAMUG for years. Don't know how we missed them. They have been incorporated with the Qatar campus. — BQZip01 — talk 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Branch campuses

message: Keep in mind of the featured article criteria while editing, especially #4. (Not accusing anyone here.) BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA criteria

message: POV - I didn't change these since POV/NPOV is often an area of debate.
Reading the article with FA status in mind, I saw a few things that might be areas of concern:
*Under the "Residential life" subsection in the "Student life" section, the second paragraph refers to "the famous bar The Dixie Chicken."
*In the third paragraph of the "Notable people" section, Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett are referred to as "world-renowned."
*In the same section, fifth paragraph, it states, "... Aggies have become legends in their respective branches..."
Other - The first paragraph in "Student traditions," "Aggie Ring," reads, "For decades, though unsanctioned and often discouraged by the University, it has become an unofficial tradition among willing students to 'dunk' their newly-acquired Aggie Rings." Is the tradition unofficial or merely unsanctioned by the school? If only unsanctioned, I would remove the word "unofficial."
Aside form these four things, the copyedits I've already taken care of, and the length, I didn't see any problems. Every statement that I would have questioned, and many that I would not have questioned, included adequate citations to support the claim. I would definitely support this article for FA status. --Wordbuilder 22:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible areas of concern