Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Texas at Dallas/archive2

University of Texas at Dallas

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of extensive revision to the article.

Thanks, Stan9999 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GrapedApe's review

• The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, so there shouldn't be any references there, since that fact would be referenced in the body. If there's anything in the lead that's not in the body, move it down to the body.
• I don't like the [Note 1] right that the beginning of the article. It's jarring, and the note doesn't really give any important information. See how Ohio State University deals with the "The."
• Don't bold the former names in the lead.
• The sentence that begins with "The rapidly growing university is now known for..." is pretty NPOV. Is there a reference for that statement, and if so, put it in the main body somewhere.
• Don't bold the main article templates.
• Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead.
• "While UTD is relatively young, the school boasts a Division III athletics program in the American Southwest Conference." What does being a young school have to do with having a DIII program? Liberty University is younger and has a DI program.
• Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead.
• Under "Rankings," the "University rankings (overall)" is very problematic. Use the {{Infobox US university ranking}}.
• I would cut the Student government section--there's nothing there that every other college doesn't also have.
• "Various publications show UT Dallas consistently improving in scholastic rankings" this in NPOV
• The rankings section is not an approporate place to needle other schools, like Cornell or Berkley
• The images File:UTD bronze bust of Cecil Green.JPG might be a copyright violation of the 3D bronze bust. Same thing with File:UTD Erik Jonsson Academic Center.JPG. File:221588main CNOFSmodel HI.jpg needs a source, and I have tagged it at commons.
• Note 2 is not really necessary.
• Refs 51, 52, 67, 80 are dead.
• I'm sure the debate and chess teams are great, but those probably shouldn't be in the lead.
• I haven't given this article a full line-by-line reading (except for the lead section), but someone should before sending it to WP:GAN.
• It's not really clear how UTD related to the rest of the UT system. For example, how is its governance? Is there a separate UTD board of trustees? Is the president appointed by the UTD system? Is the whole system governed by the government? How much independence does the school have?
• There are a lot of acronymns floating around. Make sure every acronym is necessary: see if it is used later in the article and consider if it is easier to use the full name.
• My overall thought is that the prose of the article could use some work and polishing. A lot of the paragraphs read like a collection of unrelated sentences. It might help to try to condense or combine some paragraphs. I've read User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and found it helpful. There are also quite a few sentences that approach WP:NPOV/[{WP:OR]], especially ones that praise the school's growth or strength. See WP:BOOSTER for guidance. Remember, only use facts, not opinions. If a prominent person or critic has praised the school in some way, you might be able to include it with something like "US News has called UT Dallas 'the best school in Dallas'." But you can't say "UT Dallas is the best school in Dallas."
  • There is a lot of room for growth. Consider splitting List of University of Texas at Dallas people into separate alumni/faculty/presidents pages. Be careful with adding non-notable people to these lists, a good rule is that someone shouldn't be on the list unless they are notable. Consider creating articles for people on the list that are notable. Consider making a page for the UT Dallas athletic program. Try creating a navbox, like those in Category:Texas universities and colleges navigational boxes. I went ahead and created one for you:{{University of Texas at Dallas}}.
  • University of Texas at Dallas academic programs is full of copyright violations. I just did a quick check, and there is text lifted straight out of [1][2]. You can't copy and paste language from the internet. You have to say it in your own words.
  • If Radio UTD is the internet radio station, is there an FM college radio station? If so, consider making that into an article.
  • I'm not sure that eXtended WordNet is notable. Consider adding more independent sources to establish notability.
  • --GrapedApe (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it! I'll work on the listed items.Stan9999 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Removed Note 1 and followed Ohio State University example.
• Removed the former names bold.
• "The rapidly growing university is now known for"... I changed to "The university is now known for"...
  • Good. You still have to find a reference that attests to the fact that the university is known for those programs.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed those programs.Stan9999 (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead." Not sure I see the problem with this?
  • Removed the SAT scores.Stan9999 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Don't bold the main article templates." Removed the bold.
• I removed "overall" in infobox. I found the Infobox US university ranking too limited. I wanted to include the rankings and the rankings by school in one infobox which seems to me to be more informative and readable.
  • Unfortunately, adding school rankings can be very controversial, and the template contains the rankings that have received a consensus to be included.
    • Replaced with the Infobox US.Stan9999 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted the Student government section.
• The images File:UTD bronze bust of Cecil Green.JPG and File:UTD Erik Jonsson Academic Center.JPG are pictures I took with my camera. I added the source for File:221588 CNOFSmodel HI.jpg.
  • Those are photographs of 3D sculptures, which makes them derivative works. See Commons:Derivative works for more information. Basically, it means that the pictures are copyright violations of the person who created the sculpture. If you want to keep them, you can upload them to Wikipedia (from Commons) and add a fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I'm going to tag them on commons as derivative works. It's nothing personal, but it's just how things are done here.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed the photos from the article. I try to take other pictures for those sections.Stan9999 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Refs 51, 52, 67, 80 are dead." Those Refs resolve fine for me?
• I'm sure the debate and chess teams are great, but those probably shouldn't be in the lead." Because the the University doesn't have a major sports program in football, basketball, etc. they put a lot of emphasis on their chess and debate programs.
• "I haven't given this article a full line-by-line reading (except for the lead section), but someone should before sending it to WP:GAN." I am just trying to get past the "Rated Start-Class" on the Talk:University of Texas at Dallas.:)
  • I think it's a solid C, so I changed the rating. With a little work, it could be a B.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "My overall thought is that the prose of the article could use some work and polishing." I'll continue to work on the prose, hopefully some other kind editors may drop in and help.
• Removed "Various publications show UT Dallas consistently improving in scholastic rankings"
• "The rankings section is not an approporate place to needle other schools, like Cornell or Berkley." Removed reference to other schools.
• "Note 2 is not really necessary." Removed "Note"
• Redoing the University of Texas at Dallas academic programs article.
• "If Radio UTD is the internet radio station, is there an FM college radio station?" No UTD FM radio station.
• "I'm not sure that eXtended WordNet is notable." Not found in University of Texas at Dallas article?
  • It's within the UTD Dallas category. Maybe it shouldn't be there?-_GrapedApe (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your time and help!

Stan9999 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the article is now "Rated C-Class". Thanks for the new rating, though I must admit I am a bit deflated and was hoping for a "B".:) I'll just keep hammering away at this to improve the article.Stan9999 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can get the problems in the lead worked out, it'd be a B. I gave you some thoughts on the lead, and there were some in the earlier peer review. Also, make sure you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). I won't be watching this peer review, so let me know when you think that you have the lead taken care of, and I'll re-assess. Feel free to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, as well. Don't get discouraged--there is a good start here.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the rankings infobox to the {{Infobox US university ranking}} per this review but their refs are out of date. It is using 2009 refs. I left a note on the talk page.Stan9999 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)