Talk:Texas A&M University/Archive 4

message: Posted by — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best work

message: An article should not be list-weighty.
:The only thing I can see that might have a problem is the list of notable facilities, but I think that this list serves a use to accentuate the article rather than detract from it. Given its prominence, I think we should add Kyle Field. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: remove easterwood airport.  switch with kyle. Oldag07 13:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Kyle Field is the most prominent building when a visitor goes to Aggieland. It should be definitely added.BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct anything you see. We'll do a big scrubbing right before we send it up for FA review. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems here, but the order of events can be editted a little. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Scan and fix as necessary. Let's try not to have paragraphs with less than 4 sentences. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think our popular culture section has been pruned down quite a bit and is appropriate. — BQZip01 — talk 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I checked the article for these things today, and I think we have it covered.  There are a few short sections in the Traditions section, but they cannot be expanded more without being expanded too much.  I think the article does well here. Karanacs 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Well written


message: It covers Texas A&M pretty well. Anyone disagree? — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree;  I can't think of anything we left out that non-Aggies would be interested in.Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Comprehensiveness


message: Articles need references. 
:I think that is pretty well documented. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just found 2 sentences in the history section (2nd paragraph) without a reference. — BQZip01 — talk 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything that needs a reference at this point other than those stated below — BQZip01 — talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Recheck, but I think our sources are pretty reliable and don't come from conspiracy sites. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Checked. All references are from reliable sources. -- Hut101 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd say complete. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Karanacs 13:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked each reference before it passed GA to verify that they were using a citation template (and using it properly).  I've also tried to make sure the sources are reliable (I replaced a few) and that everything is documented.  I'd feel better if one more person could verify this just in case I missed something. Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified — BQZip01 — talk 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: :Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stability

message: Month and day names should not be linked unless they are likely to help the reader to understand the article.
:Checked. Need someone to verify — BQZip01 —talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. Karanacs 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Before GA passed I checked through the dates and made sure we were following the above 2 formatting rules.  If someone else can verify we'll cross this off. Karanacs 11:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Need to look at anything with a number that can change, such as enrollment, faculty, size (in area), etc. How can we denote this and make sure it remains accurate?— BQZip01 — talk 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting "figures are as of 2006" and cite our source at the bottom of the info box? — BQZip01 — talk 17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a good idea -- do you have the source? Karanacs 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do now and it's been fixed. There is also a later reference to the number of cadets I added as well. Notes have been placed with each reference stating the time. I had no idea that the Corps had expanded to 2,300+ cadets!!! That said, I have checked the article for any of those problems and it seems all right. I just need someone to verify it. — BQZip01 — talk 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've verified this too, as much as possible. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. Karanacs 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates and numbers

message: The lead should not introduce information that is not discussed in the rest of the article.
However, it should establish the notability and importance of the subject.''
:I think we might be able to better emphasize our subject. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already have one, but we should make sure we aren't missing anything from the infobox. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Should have a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
:Checked. Need verification. — BQZip01 — talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of contents

message: Double-check that all images have an image copyright tag that is not obsolete-the  tag is no longer acceptable and should be replaced by either another tag or a fair-use tag.
:Better double check all images. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair-use rationale should claim that an image can be used because there is no free-use image replacement and that it meets the four criteria on WP:FU#General. See the entire list of fair use templates at WP:FU#Tagging fair use image files. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If anything, we don't have enough images, especially in the Research section. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are a perfect number of pictures, with some sections given more pictures based on their length. -- Hut101 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A few of ours need some pruning. — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken over 200 pictures on campus the last couple of days.  of course i need to trim down them.  maybe 50-60 good ones.  i got a bike and i live on campus.  I am ideal for this position.  I'll be around this summer living on northgate.  didn't really take a good one of the airport.  just didn't want to pay for parking.  and after 9/11, well, it isn't smart to run around taking pictures of places like airports.  I'll post them like i said by Sunday.  my parents are bring me up a graduation gift, a new laptop.  so i guess ill upload after that.  ill put them up on the wikicommons.  Ill need help captioning them all.   good luck.  gig em Oldag07 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The view from the east side of campus is great. I think we should replace the current campus picture with a picture like this. Kyle Field is to be included in the picture too. BlueAg09 (Talk) 09:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABSOLUTELY!!! That pict would be perfect! — BQZip01 — talk 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done with my picture uploads. As for that picture, any suggestions on where to take it. Maybe i should go to the petroleum engineering building.  i don't know.  good luck everyone.  Oldag07 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, with all the construction being done on main campus, i don't think we can get a good overview picture like that.  Looking at Duke University's page, a FA, they have made their pictures larger.  what do you think? Oldag07 02:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAW with Wikipedia policy, their images should not be manually sized. Those panoramics crossing the entire screen would be ok, but we need to be careful with images. — BQZip01 — talk 04:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: An article should be of appropriate length.
:(My 7th grade teacher said it best) It should be like a girl's skirt, long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to keep it interesting. I think we meet that definition, but we could trim it back to 50K or less. Any suggestions on things to delete (I expect a lot of controversy here). — BQZip01 — talk 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestions: we don't need info on Student Gov't or Easterwood Airport.  We could probably shrink the rankings section by half;  right now it is just a list of rankings in paragraph form.  We may be able to further consolidate the history section.Karanacs 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  History section could be the mandatory corps Era, and the after Rudder era.  Oldag07 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Beginning/Pre Ross, Ross, Rudder & after are pretty good (as it is). Any other thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 02:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with reducing the history section to the beginning of A&M during the early Corps era, Sul Ross, and during Rudder's administration when Texas A&M began its largest transformation. -- Hut101 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Those dates are just too arbitrary.  we could divide our history in a more logical fashion.  looking at featured articles, such as Duke, we can afford to be a little longer. well good luck  Oldag07 02:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly are they arbitrary? — BQZip01 — talk 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OldAg brings a good point. Perhaps we can use titles instead of the years as section headings?BlueAg09 (Talk) 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the section headers in the actual history article are pretty good. ex: "1890s: Sul Ross era", they include the time period so individuals can relate an event to a specific time period in general history, while also understanding that a particular event was very influential in shaping A&M in particular. -- Hut101 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length