Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1895–1917)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Berchanhimez (talk · contribs) 04:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my first GA review, but I figured I would try and help with the backlog given I nominated an article. If you'd like me to ask for a second opinion or step back from the review at any point, or have any other comments or concerns, please feel free to let me know. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead:
Consider changing "It consisted of the rough equivalent of elementary and high school levels" in the lead to refer to the grade levels - this is more immediately clear and would eliminate the need for "rough" or "approximately". Done

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is quite lengthy - I had to re-read it to realize it was talking about the establishment, then the reason for closure, then followed by the closure. Consider splitting into two sentences or re-ordering so it's clear that's the reason for closure. Done

MOSNUM says nothing I can find about it being required, but to me it would be clearer to add the word "students" after 150 in the comparison in the second paragraph, as well as to split that sentence in two (one for the number, another for the ages). Done

The end of the second paragraph of the lead has two sentences starting the same ("In YEAR,") - consider a change to not repeat. Done

The third paragraph of the lead then starts with the name of a separate institution - recommend either adding "After the closure of Carlisle Military Academy," or rewording to start with "Later in 1913," - also for the fourth paragraph. Done

Second sentence of paragraph three starts with "It grew" - consider specifying it as "enrollment (size)" - the college itself didn't really grow in physical size or anything. Done

The final sentence of paragraph three is a bit awkward - consider something like: "The School suffered from financial troubles and lawsuits in the spring of 1916. Taylor left Arlington after the end of the 1915-16 academic year, after which the school shut down." - the end result of the lawsuits can be covered in the body imo. Done

"However, its enrollment figures were disappointing. There was little community support for the school..." > "However, its enrollment figures were disappointing, resulting in little community support for the school..." Done

Arlington College (1895–1902):
"a problem that was made more acute by the fact that" > "an important problem given" for brevity? Done

Switch the order of refs at the end of sentence three for OCD reasons? Done

Consider not starting each paragraph with the name of the school again (third, fourth). Done

"and it grew" > "which grew" to avoid the "it" problem mentioned above. Done

"at which only two students graduated from the equivalent of high school" > "which graduated only two students from the high school" - currently a tad awkward to me. Done

"near the current university's University Center" > "near the location of the University Center building on the UTA campus today". Done

"when the corporation deeded over its property" is a bit awkwardly worded - perhaps change "deeded over" to "transferred the deed" or whatever an accurate representation would be without saying "deeded"? This could be because I'm just unfamiliar with that term being commonly used, and if so please feel free to just tell me. Done I believe just "deeded" is the correct usage. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"to create a Texas A&M College branch junior college in Arlington" this has three links in a row and is kinda awkward, consider rewording to something like "to create a branch of the Texas A&M College in Arlington to serve as a junior college" or similar. Done

Carlisle Military Academy (1902–1913):
"and the founder of private schools in both Hillsboro and Whitesboro" - change to "was the founder". Done

This section says "his school" or "Carlisle's school" a few times - I'm unsure if this is standard but it seems odd to me to call it "his school" even if he owned it/was the principal/etc - I think "the school" would be just as fine. Done

"After incorporating" > "After being incorporated" - the school itself did not "incorporate". Done

"it secured a charter from the State of Texas that, while declaring it to be " > "it secured a charter from the State of Texas that declaring it to be" - then also change "also expressly allowed" to "However, the charter also expressly allowed". Done

"but often referred to as the South Barracks" - By who, students, locals, faculty, etc? Done Just generally, in common usage. I've changed this passage to "known officially as Arlington Hall but commonly as the South Barracks". Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dormitory sentence itself could possibly be made clearer by splitting into two or more - right now it's quite lengthy and with quite a number of clauses. Done

"In total, the school always maintained at least four full-time teachers, although most left after only a year or two on staff" > "The school maintained at least four full-time teachers on staff throughout its history, although most individual teachers left the school after only a year or two on staff". Done

"48 students attended Carlisle Military Academy" - change to enrolled in. Done "were enrolled in". Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"in origin" in the next sentence is unnecessary. Done

"Most of its students were drawn from Arlington, Central Texas, and North Texas." - recommend combining this with the sentence two prior - it goes from "origin" to "number" back to "origin" which doesn't flow well. Done

"Classes in military science were also offered, while military drill occurred on a daily basis." - unclear whether the military drill was mandatory for all students (I presume this is true) or whether it was connected to the classes - also, were these classes mandatory or elective? Done Military drill was mandatory for all male students. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"was $245 (later $300)" > "was initially $245, but later increased to $300" - and consider adding when the increase occurred if possible. Done I was not able to find the year of the increase. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"started fielding" - seems they fielded the teams, and didn't just "start" doing so - also recommend combining this and the following sentence. Done I've tried to rework this satisfactorily. I've modified it to "began fielding" because those four athletics teams were all founded between 1904 and 1908. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"just the second one of its kind in the" - recommend "only the second similar school in the" Done Modifying this to "made the school only the second military academy..." Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"to force it to sell its property. The lienholders had become convinced" > "to force it to sell its property after becoming convinced" - if this change is made, also split "and were concerned that the land would be sold and developed for purposes other than education" into a new sentence. Done

Arlington Training School (1913–1916):
"Taylor had been born" > "Taylor was born" - someone's birthplace does not change later on ("had been" suggests it used to be, but now isn't). Done

"At its opening, it enrolled 32 students, a number considered disappointing that was caused in part by a local drought." - this sentence flows awkwardly, but I'm not really sure the best way to fix it. Done "Due in part to a local drought, only 32 students were enrolled at its opening." Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Taylor even advertised" > "Taylor similarly advertised" or "Taylor also advertised" Done

"students under 14 was $225 (later $250)" - same as the last one Done I was able to determine the later number was from 1913-14, so the former number must be erroneous. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Buoyed by this support" is awkward - perhaps change to "encouraged" or something similar? Done

"Save for the construction of a grandstand" > "Aside from..." Done

The second to last paragraph in this section uses the word "even" a lot - most if not all of them likely can be removed from the sentence and have the same meaning. It also has a use of the word "buoyed" again. Done

Arlington Military Academy (1916–1917):
"and lasted for only one academic year" > "and was only open for one academic year" Done

"Defunct by 1917, Arlington Military Academy would be the last attempt by the citizens of Arlington to support a private intermediate and secondary school." - recommend something like: "After closing in 1917, there were no further attempts by the citizens of Arlington to support a private intermediate and secondary school" or similar - the current wording is a tad awkward. Also recommend moving this sentence to the last paragraph of the section. Done

"The school continued playing football as well." - a new school wouldn't have "continued" playing football, recommend "The Arlington Military Academy also fielded a football team, as its predecessors had" - and potentially include information about other sports if available. Done

"Little is known about Arlington Military Academy other than its disappointing enrollment, although the exact figure does not survive, and the lack of community support for the school." - this is clunky to me, recommend something like: "Arlington Military Academy had a disappointing enrollment, although the exact number of students enrolled is unknown. Little else is known about the school other than that it suffered from a lack of community support." Done

"as Saxon argues, the Arlington community was "unable–or unwilling" to provide the necessary support for operating a private school in the community." - not sure the quoted words are necessary here - eliminating the directly quoted words would also eliminate the awkward "as Saxon argues". Done Changed this to "neither willing nor able". Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Consider adding "the" before the name of the schools - to me at least it is awkward to just see "Name Of School..."

No, these schools are all referred to without "the" before their names. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that may be "articlitis" (excessive articles) from me again - definitely not going to fail it or hold it up further for this. :P -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is quite well written - very few of the things I mention above would result in a failure of the article from GA, they are simply what I observed as I passed through. Please feel free to make changes you see fit - after you review my suggestions let me know and I'll do another pass to see if any of the outstanding/undone ones are ones that I consider important or necessary.

Thank you! As you can see from my remarks above, I believe that the vast majority of your suggestions are clearly improvements and have taken almost all of them, a few with modifications. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Carlisle Military Academy (1902–1913) section, spell out Col. as it's the first use, alternatively link it to whichever list from here would be appropriate as per his branch of service. Done

In the next sentence, use commas instead of semicolons.

Am I not supposed to use semicolons to separate items in a list when some of them have commas in them, such as "city/county, state" pairs in this list? I'm worried making this change will cause confusion. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:SEMICOLON: A semicolon (;) is sometimes an alternative to a full stop (period), enabling related material to be kept in the same sentence; it marks a more decisive division in a sentence than a comma. If the semicolon separates clauses, normally each clause must be independent (meaning that it could stand on its own as a sentence). In many cases, only a comma or only a semicolon will be correct in a given sentence. I personally have never heard of semicolons being used in place of commas where commas would normally be, but that doesn't mean it's not a standard somewhere. I personally think In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. (from MOS:COMMA) likely applies, but I'll leave it up to you. It's not enough of a prose issue to fail imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I feel the sections are okay, but consider whether especially the Carlisle school section would benefit from having a few subsections.

I think it is fine without subsections. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
All references are listed and citations are formatted with a common format. No concerns here.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Sentence 2 of paragraph 2 of the lead needs an inline citation for the two quoted words.
Resolved by replacing the quoted words with an equivalent phrase ("a handful"). Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the two book sources which are heavily relied upon appear okay to me - while one is written by a professor who is affiliated with the modern day university, I see no reason this would lead to a reduction in reliability of historical reporting.
C. It contains no original research:
"Perhaps because of the unsatisfactory nature of this agreement, Trimble sold his interest in Arlington College in 1898 and Hammond did likewise in 1900." - is this actually what is said in the source (the word perhaps)?
"The source says "must have proven unsatisfactory"...I have softened it a bit, but it is indeed in the source and is not original research. If you would prefer, I could simply truncate this sentence to "Trimble sold his interest in Arlington College in 1898 and Hammond did likewise in 1900." Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the "perhaps" part be removed, if not because even if accurate and verifiable, it has the "stench" of being our own research. It's more optics than actuality, based on this explanation from you, but I'd still prefer it worded out if possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
While I cannot check the offline sources and thus will assume they are not closely copied from or plagiarized, Earwig shows no copyright violation.
I don't want to cause more work for you, but the primary source (the Saxon book) is available in full online as a PDF, so it can be checked. I have tried to avoid close paraphrasing. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - no issues found in my skim-through of the book. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
"Carlisle-Smith School for Girls" - was this school mentioned briefly affiliated with the Carlisle Military Academy in any way? Alternatively, does this school have any history that persists in the later schools and/or today? If so, recommend more information, and if not, recommend clarifying it was unaffiliated in any way.
While the source does not explicitly say so, I believe it was unaffiliated. I have updated the text to "a separate Carlisle-Smith School for Girls". Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me - it doesn't explicitly specify unaffiliated, but it makes it clearer that it's separate to me at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, appears to cover the history during the years in scope, and does so quite well. My only other suggestion would potentially to be add a section at the end which summarizes the "legacy" - in other words, how does the history during these years affect the school today or later developments? This could include things like buildings which persist (if any), locations on campus which persist, namesakes, etc.
There is not much in the legacy left from these schools, and most of it is mentioned in the body of the article. The last paragraph of the Arlington Military Academy section addresses some of this, too, so I don't think a separate final section is necessary. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. While I think that may be a discussion during a FA review (if you choose to go for such), I am okay passing it without one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The final paragraph of the Arlington College section seems slightly unnecessary - it's wholly discussing a plan for another school without discussing its relevance to the topic at hand.
It is important to the broader arc of the history of UTA. It is placed chronologically in this article, but perhaps it makes sense to move it to a "Legacy" section at the end, like you suggested? Perhaps with some of the content from the last paragraph of the AMA section? I personally don't think that is necessary, but if you feel strongly about it I can make the change. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly about it for a GA review - but for FA I would likely expect a "legacy" section which this content could be moved to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sections get progressively shorter for each of the three military schools - while this does make sense given that their lifetimes were shorter as time went on, consider whether the first section in particular may go into unnecessary detail. I will try to provide more thoughts on this after finishing this first pass through.
I think this is fully because of the time each school was open and thus is not an issue. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A-OK with me - just wanted to make sure we double checked that makes sense - and upon re-reading I think I was just being overly cautious in pointing this out. It makes complete sense given the first school lasted many years more than the last one. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
"save the school" > "prevent the closure of the school" Done

"he had made a name for himself as one of the leading educators in Texas;" - even if it's in the source, this seems like it's puffery. Done Toned down to "had a reputation as a prominent educator". Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Carlisle Military Academy was molded by Carlisle's educational philosophy" - This seems excessively flowery to me with the word "molded". Done Used "guided" instead. Michael Barera (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"In the judgment of historian Gerald Saxon" - recommend "According to historian Gerald Saxon" Done
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No stability or edit war concerns I can identify. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Carlisle Military Academy, 1911.jpg - this is tagged as PD, which is true if any of the following are: 1) known author, unpublished, author dead for at least 70 years; 2) It was published before 1925. Unfortunately, the listed source does not give enough information to verify whether one of these things is true, and the information page does not have any information either. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The first building on the campus of Arlington College.jpg - same. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other images are all fine. Given that the others all come from a collaboration with the UTA library, I'm wondering if these are available from there as well, or if they could be replaced with similar images? While I'm not at this time sure if it would cause the article to fail, keep in mind that the copyright tags as they stand on commons may be challenged at any time as unverifiable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done OK, I have replaced both of the images with suspect sourcing with two similar images contributed by the UTA Libraries that have full, proper sourcing. Michael Barera (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great - that eliminates any chance of a concern. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are all relevant to the article. Only suggestion is to specify in either the captions or with specific alt text parameter which images are paintings, drawings, photographs, etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have added alt text for all images. Michael Barera (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There are a few moderate issues that I feel need addressed, and I've also left a lot of minor comments - many of which are simply things I noticed and will not cause the article to fail. Specifically, many of the comments in the first criteria are just comments - feel free to do/not do as you see fit and ask me to re-look at the article - or to ping me with any questions you have or to re-evaluate specific criteria. I enjoyed reading this article and look forward to working with you to pass it as a GA. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns and implemented most of the changes that you suggested. Please let me know what else I need to do going forward with this GA nomination. I really appreciate your time and your effort on this review, Berchanhimez. Thank you so much! Michael Barera (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Barera: thank you for bearing with my admittedly at times nit-picky suggestions for the article - as I hope I got across in my original review, almost all of the comments were simply minor things to be improved in my opinion, and there were only a few big issues that imo needed fixed to make it a GA. You've solved all the glaring issues, and while I still think there's a couple things that could improve the article (namely: the one point in the original research section as well as a summary section such as "legacy" or similar), I see no reason to hold up the GA review for either of those reasons. I greatly enjoyed reading this article (as someone with ties to Texas, learning about the history of a college in the state was quite interesting, as it gives a great glimpse into the lives of earlier Texans as they were forming cities as we know them today) and would like to specifically thank you for applying your personal, real-life knowledge/resources to improving the article here - this is an article that likely wouldn't exist if not for someone with the access/knowledge/drive you have, and it is certainly a "good article" (in both senses of the term) now. I will complete the necessary steps to pass the review shortly - congratulations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: Thank you so much! That really means a lot to me. Happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]