Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coments from HAL333

[edit]

HAL333, everything in the section “Comments from HAL333” and the following “arbitrary break” appears resolved. This is a very long FAR, that also includes a number of templates, which cause the FAC page (where this page is transcluded) to stall. Would you mind if I move those sections to this page, and leave a link back to this page? That will help make it easier to see what work remains, and keep this page from causing a problem at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, I did not hear back from you, so am moving your comments to here. You make extensive use of tq templates, which causes the FAC page to stall, and similar has now caused a discussion at WT:FAC where FAR is being removed from the page … which is a detriment to FAR. Moved comments below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'm going to reset my comments. I wasn't trying to be antagonistic and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I don't think the issues with this article are so severe that it will be delisted, as they are fixable. Ignoring referencing issues for now, these are some of the things I noticed:

  • A sentence is needed on the Giant Magellan Telescope's completion.
    Well...it isn't done and there isn't a scheduled completion date at this point. Not sure what you're looking for. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Scratch that. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • George W. Bush is linked more than once in the body.
    done Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a year be included for the Tamu Massif sentence? Could it also be integrated into another paragraph?
    Done Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • each of six different species is awkward.
    Done Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2003, over 1,200 Aggie students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad. Could a more recent stat replace this?
    Done Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be some undue weight issues with the Qatar campus. Unless it is much more notable than the others, I would scale it back.
    Given the controversy surrounding that campus, it's indeed much more notable. Buffs (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late 2013 The late isn't really necessary.
    Done Buffs (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an image sandwiching issue in the cadet section.
    This was discussed and accepted during the FAC process, IIRC. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An April 2005 campus survey found that 74% of the students were involved with at least one organization and that 88% participated in a campus organization in the past needs to be updated.
    Removed. Without context, this is a pointless statistic. Aggies' involvement on campus exceeds most other Universities, but without that context and a source (which I couldn't find offhand), it doesn't make sense to note it. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph beginning "Since 1955" is unsourced.
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • most recently, China in 2013
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add a paranthetical phrase explaining what a Hillel organization is.
    Added a wikilink for those unfamiliar Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty-one Aggies play in the NFL This can become dated very quickly.
    Updated...now 40 Buffs (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rip Torn a legend of the silver screen sound a little too authorial.
    Rephrased Buffs (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the Corporation for National and Community Service listed A&M among the 500 academic institutions in the 2005–06 President's Higher Education Community Service Honor Roll is dated.
  • Could The Princeton Review ranked The Battalion, founded in 1893, as the 5th best college newspaper in America in 2010 be updated?
    It periodically wins awards, but none are particularly notable (such as "the best"); removed. Buffs (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 100 Things You Gotta Do Before You Graduate a one-time list?
    Yes. It isn't annual. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stats in the two opening paragraphs of the athletics section need to be updated.
    Para 1, done. What in the second paragraph needs to be updated?
  • In 2004, CBS SportsLine.com ranked Kyle Field the top football stadium while Sporting News ranked it fourth. Dated.
    Fixed.
  • Check to make sure the basketball section is up to date.
    It is.
  • During the 2006 fall semester, 20.5 percent of the student body lived on campus in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus. needs to be updated.
    Done, now 23%.
  • I would check the rest of the residential life section to see if it is still accurate.
    Updated dorms/apartments; reviewed Student Life

I'll add more later. Feel free to respond under each bullet if you want to keep it a little more organized. ~ HAL333 22:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the rest later Buffs (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like you to strike your initial remarks as they are not accurate. WP:AGF that this was a mistake. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more non-reference issues:

  • Why is "the Corps" italicized?
    Unable to find this error Buffs (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you seeing this? Buffs (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since 1876, 225 Aggies have served as generals or Flag Officers Has there not been a new Aggie general or Flag Officer since 2008? Also, should Flag Officer be capitalized?
    updated Buffs (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as of spring 2012, the co-ed Corps boasted an enrollment of more than 2000 cadets Needs an update.
    updated Buffs (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • drills must be drawn by hand as computer marching programs have returned errors Is this still the case 14 years later?
    As of 2019, yes. You can run/diagram the drills by removing safeties in the program, but that introduces other problems. To date, no computer marching programs can create those drills and they are hand drawn or drawn with the aid of a computer, but some portions are hand drawn. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wider world to Texas A&M by discussing issues of national and international importance with top-caliber speakers like then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, Texas A&M students, and those from across the nation sounds a little promotional.
  • Could a year be added for Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University?
    Typically, the year isn't used when referencing a case unless there are two instances of the same dispute. i.e. Brown v. Board of Education
  • Add "(GSC)" after Graduate Student Council
    rephrased to eliminate acronym
  • I assume the Student Recreation Center is not still being renovated 15 years later.
    You would assume wrong. It's still under renovation...government efficiency at its finest
    Ah gotcha. ~ HAL333
  • Is the The Big Event still the largest? Could a more recent ref be used?
    Yes, it is still the largest (easily). We can add more if your wish, but it is still accurate.
    I would add an "As of" alongside the most recent ref. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aggies are a member of the Southeastern Conference in all sports as of 2012 needs an update.
    Why? They haven't changed conferences
    The reader doesn't care what the situation was in 2012. They want to know what the situation is currently. ~ HAL333 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They joined the SEC in 2012. They haven't left. I'm perplexed as to how that is unclear.
    Then there's no need to say "as of". Just say they joined the SEC in 2012. That's not something that changes so often that it needs an "as of". Furthermore, I would move the sentence Texas A&M left the Big 12 Conference for the Southeastern Conference on July 1, 2012 from the history section to the athletics section. And just general reword for clarity. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The SEC is more than just athletics. It should stay in the history section, IMHO.
    Fine by me. ~ HAL333 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with As of 2007, Aggies had earned 173 conference titles and 19 national championships
    Should have been 2021...didn't get saved.
  • The following two sentences need to be updated as well.
    First sentence I could have sworn I updated (even noted above); must not have gotten saved. Second sentence was updated. What needs to be added/removed?
    After checking, nothing. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UT Austin is linked multiple times in the body.
    fixed
  • So is football.
    fixed
  • Could demographic stats on the student body be added?
    They could be, but they rapidly become dated
    But then again a lot of university info becomes outdated. I think one paragraph of 4-5 sentences would be doable and not too hard to update every few years. ~ HAL333
  • recently renewed rivalries is dated.
    fixed
  • Kyle Field is linked multiple times.
    It's linked twice, first as a prominent architectural structure and later when it is referred to as the home field of the football team. MOS:DL states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article..." and we took that to mean that it could be added more than once. Given the differing context of both, it made sense to link both. This is done sparingly.
  • Could a secondary source be used for the claim that TAMU alumni are some of the "most active"?
    We can add as many as you want. Take your pick: [1] [2] [3] [4]
    I don't really see those as high quality reliable sources. Could a better one be found? ~ HAL333 01:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why isn't the local paper not high quality or reliable? It's good enough for many other references. Buffs (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the local paper is fine if you can't find anything better, but I would avoid Insider.15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Added last reference as requested. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase Rick Perry served as the United States Secretary of Energy, former Governor of Texas, and 2012 US presidential candidate
    He was active for some time, how would you rephrase?
    Well you can't serve as a candidate. Maybe just say "politician Rick Perry". ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a verb. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mayor" should be capitalized.
    done
  • Should "Transgender Judge" be capitalized?
    no.
    Well it currently is in the article. ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed
  • Aggies made their mark on the gridiron and Aggies have also made a mark on pop culture are too authorial.
    These editorial choices were made during FAC by consensus to address comments there. They are not authorial as they are introductory in nature.
    I disagree. I am interested as to what other editors think. ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain why you disagree with the history of what happened. It's right there in the archives. Buffs (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I meant. I don't deny that other editors were fine with this in the FAC. I just personally disagree with it. ~ HAL333 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. ~ HAL333 00:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third wave of comments:

  • Following in Keen and Lovett’s footsteps was a young songwriter named Rich O’Toole who started his career playing on the back porch of the Dixie Chicken. also sounds authorial.
    Same as above
  • Neal Boortz is a nationally syndicated talk show host with the sixth largest listening audience in the United States needs an update and an "as of year".
    updated
  • The info on the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute uses a primary source.
    Primary sources are permitted. Added NY Times reference.
  • and Vice President of the Pappas Restaurants family, is known for his design of the many different Pappas Family restaurants. is unsourced.
    It isn't unsourced. The source was just in the middle of the sentence; fixed.
  • Rephrase many Aggies have become leaders in the armed forces, and were featured in the 1943 film We've Never Been Licked
    Done
  • Where is the source for note 1?
    Literally posted right before it
    Ah okay. But could you also include the ref in the note for clarity? ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unnecessarily redundant. The note is about that topic and is clearly referenced. Buffs (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notable alumni and faculty" is generally confusing. For many, it's not clear whether they are faculty or alumni. I would break it up into subections for alumni and faculty.
    They all appear to be alumni; altered
  • Ref 274 is dead.
    That a link is not currently available doesn't change where it was originally pulled from and it is still valid as that is where the information came from (though the link should be marked as dead); replaced it anyway.
  • "Nave" typo in ref 267
    fixed to "Navy". Good catch
  • Ref 85 is a bare url.
    Fixed
  • Works are sometimes wikilinked and sometimes not. Standardize.
    Can you cite some examples? References are explicitly NOT required to be linked.
    Ref 191, 193, 55, and several others. A quick skim would catch the rest. On a side note, it's my personal preference NOT to link them but it's your choice. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    updated about half the references to include links for all major publications (currently on ~130ish). Will update more tomorrow. Buffs (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all completed now. Please review. Buffs (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. ~ HAL333 01:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Arbitrary break
  • Update Combined, the total endowment for the TAMUS stands at $11.1 billion, as of 2015 to conform with figure in infobox.
    Done Buffs (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space grant, maroon and white, and 1876 don't need to be cited in the infobox.
    "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...should be supported by an inline citation". Every single one of these has been challenged and cited. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Best Value Schools,[80] Texas A&M ranked number one in the nation for the best college for veterans, as ranked by return on investment. Texas A&M is also ranked number two for veterans in USA Today[81] and number nine for "business schools for veterans" by the Military Times.[82] needs "as of"s.
    Done. Buffs (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 154 is a bare url.
    I will fix all bare urls at the end. It's tedious work best done en masse for the sake of consistent formatting. Buffs (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way works are cited are still not standardized. Sometimes the works are listed as urls (such as "Qatar.tamu.edu" or "bestforvets.militarytimes.com"). I would get rid of those to make them conform with the rest.
    Fixed. These are due to the parameter being "website"...it's confusing. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PETA paragraph is given undue weight compared with the others. I would scale it down.
    3 sentences isn't too much of an intrusion. To be blunt, I don't think they need to be mentioned at all, but consensus wasn't with me on that one. This was the best compromise we came up with. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • spring 2012, the co-ed Corps boasted an enrollment of more than 2000 cadets still dated
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to give weight to pizza executives, I think one or two paragraphs on notable faculty is appropriate. A&M has had some really great teachers and employees, like Norman Borlaug and they should be covered.
    I'll be happy to add Norman Borlaug, et al. Just name who you think is missing. As noted below, the section is too long in the opinions of some adding more could be problematic. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2004, Texas A&M System faculty and research submitted 121 new inventions and established 78 new royalty-bearing licensing agreements; the innovations resulted in income of $8 million. The Texas A&M Technology Licensing Office filed for 88 patents for protection of intellectual property in 2004. is dated
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas A&M ranks 13th among U.S. research universities in exchange agreements with institutions abroad and student participation in study abroad programs needs to be updated and have an "as of".
    Straight up removed it. Too much "We're Xth in this!" Buffs (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2003, over 5,800 Aggie students, primarily undergraduates, studied abroad in 110 countries dated.
    Stats were updated. forgot to fix date Buffs (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Money Magazine, in 2006, named College Station the most educated city in Texas, and the 11th most educated American city dated
    updated with non-defunct magazine Buffs (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approximately 23% of the student body lived on campus, primarily in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus needs an "as of"
    Added. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Texas A&M, about 10% of the undergraduate population is affiliated with a Greek fraternity or sorority. needs an as of (unless it doesnt really fluctuate.
    It doesn't really fluctuate Buffs (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The women's basketball team has 1 Southwest Conference Tournament championship, 1 regular season Big 12 Conference championship and 2 Big 12 Tournament championships, most recently in 2011 dated
    This was already fixed. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of rankings section needs to be updated.
  • The second and third paragraph of the Student body section needs to be updated.

Motions

[edit]

Moved from main review. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motions to close FARC as premature

I hereby motion that this FARC be closed as it was very premature. If necessary, I do not object to reopening it if we cannot reach detente... Buffs (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom Buffs (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above as specified by HAL333 (placed on HAL333's behalf by Buffs). If I'm reading this incorrectly, please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 22:49, November 16, 2021 (UTC)
    Re No one posted comments in other editors' names. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC) see above (you did just that at least twice). Please stop arguing on the FAR page; this is the most unreadable FAR I have ever encountered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, as not necessary. Buffs, I may not have made myself clear in my message above, or you may have misunderstood why I directed you to the James Joyce FAR. There is NO difference whatsoever between being in the FAR and FARC phases, as long as work is proceeding; that is what I intended for you to notice at James Joyce. If you still intend to address the items raised during FAR, you only need to say so, and time will be allowed. No one declares "delist" when work is ongoing. The only reason the article moved to FARC is that you went silent for 10 days; nothing else changes. Just let us know if you intend to keep working. (And please stop adding section headings.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Motions to close FAR

I hereby motion that this FAR be closed. Extensive updates have been made. Buffs (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this; it is only chunking up the FAR unnecessarily. Just let us know if you are still planning to address the issues raised in FAR. If you are, time is given. If you aren't, only then will others proceed to enter Keep or Delist declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all listed issues in FAR, unless I've missed them. I added headings for clarity. You think they aren't necessary = fine with me and I won't object, but there are loads of issues I've addressed and I believe that's all of them. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Buffs (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are the only edits I see since OldAg's review and the (second) review by Sdkb on 2 November; have you addressed all of the issues they raised (subject to my later comments on OldAg's review)? If Sdkb and OlAg are both satisfied, then I will do a full read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article" is what OldAg07 said. Accordingly, I'm not going to address those. I've addressed all of Sdkb's issues on 15 Nov and he has not responded as well as Z1720's issues (which were completed prior to you hopping in). If I'm missing anything, please let me know. As for your issues, you said you'd write yours when those were done and mentioned some of OldAg's would be some of yours. Instead of waiting for me to address all of those (knowing they aren't a hangup for OldAg or anyone else I saw) and thereby unnecessarily lengthening the process, please do your review now and I will address each point in kind. If there are any points that have not been addressed by anyone, please let me know. Buffs (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you addressed my concerns (see above at 18:01, 1 November 2021) about the Research aspects raised by OldAg? Have you addressed Sdkb’s post of November 2?? There is no response above to any of these concerns, and a few others. With a page as chunky as this one already is, it wouldn’t be in anyone’s best interests to continue to add to the length until everything on the page already is addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only now do I see that you started a separate section where you answered Sdkb on November 15 only after the nomination had moved to FAR on Nov 14 <sigh> … rather than responding along with their comments … too many sections in here, leading to confusion. My sincere apologies. That leaves my concern about the Research section, as mentioned by OldAg and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC) (Update; my confusion was due to Buffs adding belated, unsigned responses on Nov 15 to Sdkb’s Nov 2 post only after the article moved to FARC on Nov 14). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing a lot of things in the FAR portion that don’t appear to have been addressed the reviewers’ concerns, and some of them are reasonable (I did agree that some of OldAg’s weren’t essential, and said so). The FAC was 14 years ago and standards have changed, so if someone is asking a question now, what was done in the 2007 FAC isn’t an optimal answer. I also asked if reliability of sources have been addressed; for example, I do not find an answer to why largest.org is still in the article or what makes it reliable. I’m not yet convinced that everything already raised has been addressed, or that me starting again at the top until that has been done will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I haven't officially endorsed a keep yet because others started their own reviews, and I wanted those to be settled before assessing the article again. I know this is a long process, and I also think the article was hastily moved to FARC (I would have waited another week after comments to see if Buffs returned) but if someone working on the article I will oppose the delisting and I will keep reviewing this article. I hope co-ords will note that I oppose closing this FAR as either a delist or a keep unless/until I make a formal declaration. Please ping me when Sandy's review is complete (and Sdkb's review, if they return to this) and I will take another look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, unless I am missing something in the extreme length of this FAR, there are no independent declarations yet (Keep or Delist, amid Buffs’ declarations and misunderstandings of the process), so we are not at risk of the Coords closing it yet, either way. I’m kind of where you are— reluctant to begin reviewing with a lack of clarity as to whether previous concerns have been addressed. That includes now you, OldAg, and Sdkb, who is an excellent education editor. Let’s see if I can get my immediate questions answered, to figure out who’s on first and what’s next. I, too, sympathize with Buffs’ frustration, but notifications were not done for three months, so I hope we’ll all keep an eye on that going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

[edit]

The comments below are from my initial review of the article, as the main review is getting too large. I have tried to remove all pings from my review, but I apologize if I missed any. I will conduct another review when pinged on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffs, let's get this FAR closed as a keep! I am going to review this article and make copy-edits along the way. Please review my edits and, if you choose to revert them, please note them below and explain why. I also have some concerns/questions that I've listed below, which I hope you can resolve.

  • I removed the 50,000 alumni from a sentence in the lede as awkward. Perhaps it can be mentioned later in the lede, with a sentence talking about notable alumni?
  • I am surprised by the number of citations in the lede. MOS:LEDECITE says there should be a balance in number of citations in the lede verses repeating citations that are stated later in the body. Perhaps most of these can be removed?
  • "Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder in the 1960s, A.M.C. desegregated" This is the first time A.M.C. is used to refer to the university, and there is no explanation that says this acronym is for the university. I suggest that this be stated earlier in the article.

Brings me to "Beginning years". I will continue more comments later. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • First one is fine by me! :-)
  • Not my preference either. All of these points are well referenced in the body of the article, but there are some that feel having the references in both places is a better placement. That's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I can see both points, but even in this, there are claims that portions are "unreferenced" when indeed they are and in the manner WP:MOS dictates. I'd rather have extra references than too few (too few = "well, it's unreferenced! I'll just delete it!").
  • If the references are removed, and someone tries to remove the information from the lede for "uncited claims" I will support their reinstatement. Just ensure that the information is referenced in the body. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your citation also says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...should be supported by an inline citation...including within the lead." I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but this phraseology basically means everything can be challenged and everything needs a citation. I agree that isn't the intent, but everything in the lead with a citation is there because someone challenged it. Given the dichotomy of this situation, there is no solution that will appeal to all readers. I'm going to err on the side of those who want citations. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • I undid part of your changes. I re-added the quote about the Morrill Act purpose. This was a major point of contention in the early days of the school. Profs started teaching a "classical education" and cadets got bored. This led to a decline in the population and it was only saved by Lawrence Sullivan Ross, a former governor of Texas, who saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum (the folks at our rival school say that they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations). Including that quote gives context for why there is such a focus on Ag and Engineering. I also re-added the part about the school starting on 2 Oct...and then 4 Oct...There is reasonable debate about the "first day". Including both dates with what happened bridged a divide between multiple contributors. I'm fine with the rest of the changes, in fact, I thank you! Great updates!Buffs (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can add more Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buffs, I responded under your bullet points above so it is easier to track conversations. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that there are still comments ongoing above. I don't want to make this review too hectic, so please ping me when the above reviewers are complete with their assessment and I will continue with mine. You can also ping me if you need an outside opinion on something. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 Please simply add them here and I will address as-able. This is nothing close to being overwhelming. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried about me getting overwhelmed. I also don't want to overlap on work, so I'll pause here. It looks like other editors are giving great comments, which will make my work easier once they are finished. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 8 left to address + clean up bare urls. Now's as good a time as any. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Down to 2 + bare urls Buffs (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not get to this sooner. I made changes as I read along, which I hope you will review. Here are some comments below:

  • "Ross made many improvements to the school" Like what?
    Running water and physical dorms. Many cadets at the time literally lived in tents. the entire year. Clarified this. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his tenure, many Aggie traditions were born" Since the word "Aggie" has not been introduced in the article yet, I think this name will need to be explained.
    The word Aggie is explained in the lead paragraph. But I added a sentence anyway to quickly explain the history of the nickname. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, the status of this statue" So I understand that this section is here because we just spoke about the statue of Ross. However, I think chronologically it should be in the 2017 section so that it is easier for readers to find this information if they are looking for it. Thoughts?
    Moved + added more + bare url refs Buffs (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing in the history from 1948-1960. Anything of note during this period?
    Not really historical, no. Student enrollment stagnated. It wasn't until Rudder became Prez that things really started to change from a historical perspective. Buffs (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On March 26, 1960, Major General James Earl Rudder, class of 1932, became the 16th president of the college.[36] Rudder's tenure (1959–1970)" Did he become the president in 1960, or 1959?
    1959...not sure where the other date came from other than a possible typo. Fixed. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rudder's tenure (1959–1970) marked a critical turning point in the school's history." Delete, this is not in Wikivoice and we can describe the turning point in the follow-up sentences instead of saying it.
    This is an introductory statement for the following sentences and is indeed in Wikivoice. This indeed was a critical point and the decisions he made still have ramifications today. From becoming coed, no longer military-mandatory, and admitting black people (this was more of a change in US and Texas policy than anything else, but still happened under his tenure), his decisions changed the school into the powerhouse it is today. If you'd like to rephrase to make it better, you're welcome to do so. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 58th Legislature of Texas approved of Rudder's changes," What changes?
    see next item Buffs (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By his death in 1970, Rudder had overseen the growth of the school from 7,500 to 14,000 students from all 50 states and 75 nations." Does the article really need this? It's a little promo and the timeline is jumping around a little bit, and the next paragraph is going back to 1963.
    Fixed the timeline jumps. I think it's appropriate given that students for the first time came from all 50 states and it's notable that enrollment nearly doubled. I'm not against rephrasing if you have a better idea. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of the legislative work allowing the expansion of Texas A&M and the admission of women was pushed by State Senator William T. "Bill" Moore," So I think this is really important to include. Unfortunately, the subsequent sentences talk about Moore's nicknames and life instead of the process of how Moore convinced others to allow women to attend the university. Can more information be included on that, and less on Moore's bio?
    Better incorporated into prose. Buffs (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former President George Bush remained actively involved with the university, frequently visiting the campus and participating in special events." Is this sentence necessary for the article?
    It's somewhat unusual for a President to spend as much time as he did at such a library/institution. I've reincorporated it into the prose a little better to include that he was buried there on the grounds. Buffs (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the history section reads like it was written by the university, and not by an uninterested, dispassionate writer as outlined in WP:WIKIVOICE. Part of this might be the overreliance of primary sources for the history section, and I suggest that other sources about the university are sought and used to replace the university's sources. I also suggest that this section is read over by more editors with no personal connection to the university who can identify parts that can be reworded or might not be completely necessary.
    Others are welcome to read/re-read these sections and make updates to better phrasing (as they've done over the years), but I cannot address that on my own. Of the 39 sources listed in the History section, only seven come from the University itself (and a few of them are just the University archives). The rest are third party sources. I dispute that this should be categorized as an "overreliance of primary sources". Buffs (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think there is an overreliance of primary sources because many of the sentences are cited to the Texas A&M website or to Texas A&M University Press. This, coupled a history section that I felt had too much of a pro-Texas A&M bias contributed to this conclusion. When I do a second readthrough I will look at this section again, but in the meantime I would advocate that the citations be switched with a non-Texas A&M source wherever possible. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This brings me to Academics. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. Sorry for the delay.

  • Bare url citations need to be expanded upon.
    The line right above this states clearly I'm aware of these and I've previously explained I will do so when we are done. It's easier to do en masse.
  • "who has executive responsibility." What does that mean?
    Executive vs legislative or judicial authority. Direct verbiage from the source. Others in the school have judicial authority and others have some legislative authority. This would be similar to authority/responsibility of CEOs. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the branch campuses in Galveston and Qatar and other locations across Texas." Is this saying that students are at other branch locations across Texas, or that students are living across Texas and are enrolled in the school?
    Students are at other branch locations across Texas. Rephrased for clarity Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The student body includes students from all 50 US states and 124 foreign countries." I don't think this is necessary and sounds a little WP:PROMO
    The fact that a school is representative of all the states is of note. Many state schools cannot say the same. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The university consistently ranks among the top ten public universities" Can the article state when this top ten placement began, instead of having the general statement of "consistently ranks"?
    This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the College Board, the fall 2008 entering freshman class consisted of 54% students in the top 10% of their high school graduating class," This should be updated to more current numbers.
    This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole "Rankings" section should be checked and the most recent available year for rankings should be given.
    This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In surprised that the Research section starts with, "The Texas A&M University System, in 2006, was the first to explicitly state in its policy that technology commercialization was a criterion that could be used for tenure. Passage of this policy was intended to give faculty more academic freedom and strengthen the university's industry partnerships." This feels very specific for the opening information about the university. I think this section has more generalised statements about the university's research that should be placed before specific examples.
    Fixed/rephrased Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the dimensions of Texas A&M's research facilities important to this article? Is it perhaps too much detail that should be deleted?
    Fixed/rephrased/con solidated Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in the Research section about PETA has a pro-university POV, with language like "targetted by PETA" and much more space given to the university's response than to explaining what PETA's concern is. This should be rewritten.
    First, this was PETAs language, not A&M's. THEY stated they were targeting Texas A&M. Second, this entire paragraph was agreed upon by multiple points of view. I disagreed with even including it, but I acquiesced to this choice of verbiage via majority opinion (this is mentioned above). PETA's point of view was that these dogs were being bred for research just to have these disabilities to research on. The fact is, their owners brought them to A&M to help them and gave them up for research to hopefully find a cure. I've personally taken a dog to A&M to have them help him; he was there for ~6 weeks and they ended up writing a paper on how to treat border collies with skin conditions because of it. Their vet school is second to none. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed/rephrased Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Research section in general is disorganised and has too much detail. The general information about the university's research, such as the paragraph starting with, "In 2017 Texas A&M ranked 19th nationally in R&D spending with total expenditure of $905.5 million." Should stay, but more specific information about their research should be summarised or removed.
    Fixed/rephrased/consolidated Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Worldwide" section seems to be a combination of Texas A&M's international research and the Qatar campus. I think this section can be deleted and its information moved to other sections.
    The Worldwide section is about more than just research abroad, but the school's international reach of education. It opens with research and study abroad opportunities + TAMUQ. Then it describes international cooperation, a longer TAMUQ paragraph (there is some controversy there, so a little more is warranted), and ends with future campus options/what's been done in the meantime. I think that is a sufficient section that keeps it as concise as possible. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some thoughts. I'm at "Campus". Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Z1720, then we are caught up together except for the bare urls, the rankings section, and the Student body section. I'm holding off on these for a couple of reasons. These two content areas are going to take the most work + I'm waiting until the end to see if there's anything else we can/should incorporate. The bare urls are simply MUCH easier to adjust en masse. Buffs (talk)
    • Buffs I am sorry that I have not responded sooner: real life has had to take precedence for the past while. Since there are some sections that would require a little bit of work, would you (or anyone) be willing to ping me once those are complete? That will allow me to assess those sections and complete the rest of the review when I have more time. Again, sorry that this response was delayed. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Z1720 We're now into the third month of this with 2 people agreeing it's good and then there's yourself. I think it's pretty clear I'll address anything you throw at me. Let's close this FARC and I'll happily work with you to make any improvements when you have time. Keeping this open indefinitely is a no-go, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Buffs Thanks for addressing all of my concerns and helping to get this article out of FAR as a keep. I agree that this shouldn't be open indefinitely, but I don't want to review a section that is going through massive restructuring or a large number of changes, as the comments I would give might be moot with the new prose. If the changes are complete, I am happy to continue my review. Are the changes in the sections mentioned above complete? There's also no time limit at FAR as long as changes are being made, so I am going to take my time through this to ensure the article is the best it can be. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Give me your inputs and I'll address them all. I think it's more than a little unreasonable to have a virtual Sword of Damocles hangin over the article. Likewise, I don't have time to constantly address this points whenever you feel like getting around to it with the threat of a de-listing hanging over the discussion. You could fail to reply for a month, then I don't check the page when you do update it, and suddenly it's delisted. If you're in no hurry, let's close this and move it to the talk page where we can make updates a little more leisurely (for both of us) without the threat of delisting hanging over the discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Buffs, the @FAR can give more information about what happens if there are a lack of comments in this discussion. Since we have been making great progress, if this FARC looks like it will be closed as delist, I will work to make improvements to prevent this. I don't think we are close to that declaration yet. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • I removed information about the town that the main campus is located in, such as their population or that they are a largely educated people. I think this is off-topic to this article and struggled to find the connection to the campus, so I think it belongs in the wikiarticle about the town, not here.
    I think explaining the surrounding area helps explain something about the campus itself. The Air Force Academy, for example, is in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, but isn't in them proper. However, they do influence the school's image pretty dramatically. That said, I left it. Buffs (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Campus section is largely supported by primary sources. Are there any secondary sources that the article can draw upon, such as local newspapers?
    I'll see about adding add some more. Just because they are primary references doesn't mean they aren't appropriate. You would expect, for example, the schools to mention how degrees are conferred. They are not contentious facts in question. Buffs (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greek life section is mostly a list of the fraternities and sororities on campus. I think this should be moved to "Activities", and reduced to "At Texas A&M, about 10% of the undergraduate population is affiliated with a Greek fraternity or sorority. Texas A&M is home to 58 nationally or internationally recognized Greek letter organizations." The list is not really notable, as it is too large to give effective information to the reader, and the information of events put on by Greek life is not notable, as indicated by the lack of wikiarticle for these events. Therefore, I think both can be removed. Thoughts?
    I generally concur. I don't think mentioning every single one is necessary any more than mentioning every unit of the Corps of Cadets. Buffs (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images in Corps of Cadets is creating MOS:SANDWICH on my computer, and this was before I removed commentary on the marching band. Is this the case with others? I suggest removing the Robert Gates image.
    Sandwiching is when they are aligned together. MOS:SANDWICH states "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left" as these are. If you have ANY two images staggered right and left, you can adjust a window width that will put text between them. I don't read that as the same intent.
  • "Until 1965, Corps membership was mandatory." Mandatory for what? This has been mentioned throughout the article right from the very beginning.
    Going to A&M. "Compulsory" perhaps? Buffs (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The current head basketball coach is Buzz Williams." Needs a citation
    Added Buffs (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "acknowledge athletes whose accomplishments on the field have brought credit to Texas A&M." This quotation needs a citation.
    Citation is already provided just 2 sentences later. We can duplicate it if you want to. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Hall of Fame section should not have its own heading, and instead become the third paragraph at the top of the Athletic section, per MOS:OVERSECTION. Thoughts?
    I'm ok with that.
  • The Alumni and staff section was too large, so I was going to split it and put headings for alumni and staff. However, I think there were only two staff mentioned in the section, so I removed them. They can be readded a separate staff section is established, although I do not think it is necessary.
    This is where we're having preference issues. If you'll note above, those staff members were specifically asked to be included. It's a no-win scenario. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed alumni that I thought were not notable from the alumni section. This section is still too large, in my opinion, and I think others can be removed like most of the business leaders and some of the military personal mentioned.

This brings me to the end of the article. I haven't looked at the formatting for the references yet, but I hope to assess that in the coming days. In general, I am still concerned that some sections continue to rely on primary sources from the university, but I have faith that this will be sorted soon as new sources are found. I removed a lot of prose that I thought was WP:PROMO, off-topic or too much detail for this article. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All righty...lots of changes. To be blunt, I like most of them, but some are no-go for me; I'll rephrase/re-add but make sure they aren't WP:PROMO. Some of these additions add a little "color" to the article. As for primary sources, we can always augment some of them with outside sources, but much like the military or government institutions, they are going to track their own history better than most. While there is certainly the temptation to fudge numbers, their credibility is worth far more and they aren't going to fudge things like enrollment numbers. The cited facts are generally non-contentious. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added the Aggie Band info. 4 sentences isn't too much for an entity that plays a such prominent role in school activities. Buffs (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added a little bit, but I think most of the sentences are a net benefit; they can be tweaked more later. Readded the congressmen in particular as they are WAY more notable than the first transgender judge, IMHO. Last items: rephrase those two paragraphs and fix the citations. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been somewhat-following the changes and reverts Buffs has done, with some arguments that are worth exploring (I tend to want shorter articles, so I am not surprised that some of my deletions have been restored). Buffs please ping me when you are done reviewing my edits and I will take another look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rankings section is complete. We can always add more/take away some. Buffs (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Student Life section is complete. Not much is out of date, but some minor rephrasing was all we needed. We're down to just citations at that point, soread for your review now on the remaining items, Z1720. Buffs (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments below:

  • For ref 11, "Texas Higher Education Enrollments" leads to an excel spreadsheet. Is there a better document that has this information, like a report with an author? If not, can this ref have more information in the citation?
  • "Fall 2012 Executive Summary" was used to support the statement, "As of 2020, Texas A&M's student body is the second largest in the United States" which the report doesn't verify, so I removed it as outdated.
  • I went through the infobox and removed some references as the information is cited in the article, per WP:INFOBOXREF. I think other references in this infobox can be removed after the information placed in the article.
  • In the "University era" section of the history, the Chemistry Plaza image is causing MOS:SANDWICH with the Presidential Library image. Since the article text doesn't mention the plaza, can we remove the plaza image, or move it to a different section?
  • "and confirmed that removal of the statue would require Texas Congressional approval." Who confirmed this?
  • "The admission rate for students who applied as undergraduates in 2012 was 67%." This number should be updated, if possible.
  • Texas A&M University System is referred to as several different descriptors (TAMUS, Texas A&M System). One short-form should be picked and used consistently in the article.

The reduction in comments shows that there is little work to be done! We are very close. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For ref 11...
    I'll add another source when I clear up the citations as well as add additional info for this citation. Holding off changes on that until I'm done with the rest (otherwise "ref 11" loses meaning when it becomes #10 or #34...)
  • "Fall 2012 Executive Summary" was used
    Good call
  • I went through the infobox...
    Good call
  • In the "University era" section of the history, the Chemistry Plaza image is causing MOS:SANDWICH with the Presidential Library image. Since the article text doesn't mention the plaza, can we remove the plaza image, or move it to a different section?
    See justification above for left images. Also, fun little tidbit, the water fountain in front of the chemistry building is in the shape of a water molecule...
  • "and confirmed that removal of the statue would require Texas Congressional approval." Who confirmed this?
    clarified...the school did
  • "The admission rate for students who applied as undergraduates in 2012 was 67%." This number should be updated, if possible.
    63% updated. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/texas-am-university-college-station-10366/applying
  • Texas A&M University System...
    Fixed along with capitalization IAW MOS

If there is nothing else by 28 Sept, I'll clean up the source annotations last. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you clean up the sources so I know to check them. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hopefully have time this weekend and will ping when done. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments below:

  • "As of 2020, Texas A&M's student body is the second largest in the United States." Neither reference at the end of this sentence verify this claim. ""Texas A&M Reports Fall 2021 Enrollment". Might be used instead to verify these claims.
  • "are retained as a link to the university's tradition." -> Are retained as a tribute to the university's former designation?
  • "Under pressure from the legislature," I assume this is the Texas legislature. Can this be specified in the article?
  • "and became nationally recognized for its programs in agriculture, engineering, and military science." The reference for this statement is from the university itself, meaning that the university itself is verifying that it became nationally recognized at this time and a potential COI with the source. I suggest either this statement is removed or a new source is given.
  • How is the Chemistry Plaza image relevant to this section? If it is not, it should be removed. I know I recommended its removal above, but regardless of if SANDWICH applies, it still needs a reason to be here, and the plaza is not mentioned in the article.

Those are my comments. I think this might be my last set. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My notes...
  • Updated student population with 2020 info/source. 2021 info appears to have them ahead of USF with no one else close, but that isn't conclusive nor published in other sources. Will update as needed in the future.
  • Updated A&M description as requested, good upgrade.
  • Updated/wikilinked "The lege".
  • The reference for "became nationally recognized for its programs in agriculture, engineering, and military science." is the Texas State Historical Society (an independent, nonprofit organization for >100 years), not Texas A&M. I'm a little perplexed as to how you got that. Updated ref anyway.
  • The plaza itself is not mentioned by name, but was part of the facilities upgrades over the past 70 years.

Z1720 That should be everything. Cleared to close? Buffs (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 just a technical note ... FAR doesn't have the template limits problem that FAC has, and also, when you move comments to talk, they are no longer on the main page, so don't add to template limits anyway. You can save yourself the step here of not having to remove pings :) And on talk, you can use all the templates you want-- that is one of the advantages of putting comments on talk to begin with ! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I removed the pings to prevent Buffs, FAR coords and I from getting 10+ notifications about the talk page move, which I find annoying. :P Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yes, I know of what you speak (I get pinged every time a "FAR not needed" move happens at URFA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]
Lead/infobox (0)
  • "As of 2021, Texas A&M's student body is the largest in the United States" - specify that this is for the Fall 2021 semester, as college attendance really works on an academic year, not a calendar year. Especially since the source clarifies that the record is as of Fall 2021 semester, and UCF had them beat by a few hundred the prior academic year
    Academic institution's annual population is determined by their attendance in the Fall semester. While UCF might have had more 2020-2021, their official record is that for 2020, they were larger. In 2021, A&M was larger. the "As of" template does not allow a fall designator either. Updated anyway Buffs (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main campus is one of the ten largest in the United States, spanning 5,200 acres (21 km2),[2][17][18]" - the third ref here (the university's about page) doesn't seem to support either of these facts, so why is it here?
    If you'd look at the archived reference, you'd see that it was there. The page has since been updated (and it must have been recently). Updated anyway. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study" - not finding this in the body?
    Fixed. Buffs (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and houses eighteen research institutes" - not finding this in the body?
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History (0)
  • "In 1871, the Texas Legislature used these funds to establish the state's first public institution of higher education" - source doesn't identify the funds for this as being from the Morrill Act?
    This was literally in the previous sentence and its sources. "these funds" literally refers to the previous sentence and was intended as a transition. Added ref anyway.
  • "After his death in 1898, a statue was erected in front of what is now Academic Plaza to honor Ross and his achievements in the history of the school" - not in source?
    Added ref/timeline. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1948, the state legislature formally recognized Texas A&M as a separate university system from the University of Texas System, codifying the de facto arrangement between the schools" - not in source?
    Not sure when this was added, but updated with better verbiage. Buffs (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the following 35 years, Texas A&M more than tripled its enrollment from 14,000 students to more than 45,000" - not in source, this seems to be because TAMU has rejigged its website
    New source added. Buffs (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M became one of the first four universities given the designation sea-grant for its achievements in oceanography and marine resources development in 1971." - source doesn't specify that this was one of the first four
    It did at one point. Replaced with NOAA source. Buffs (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Academics (0)
  • "pursuing degrees in 10 academic colleges. The student body includes students from all 50 US states and 124 foreign countries. As of the fall of 2018, Texas residents account for 85.00% of the student population, while 8.74% are of international origin." - source is about gender/ethnicity, and if there's a way to bring up this data from there, I'm not finding it
    Demographics of ethnicity for Universities exclude those who are international students (as they can drastically sway domestic totals). You can click the purple dot to show the international students.
    As for the 85% figure, I think a source got dropped somewhere. I've updated with the most recent data from 2021 and the whole paragraph is 2021 stats. Buffs (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, this section says As of 2021, the demographics of the student body are 52.9% male and 47.1% female but then goes on to say a couple sentences later The student body consists of 46.8% women and 53.2% men. Why are two different figures given here?
    One was 2020 stats and the other was 2021...fixed.
  • "As of 2021, about 79% of the student body receives about $810 million in financial aid annually" - source says 72%
    Source has apparently been updated...article updated to reflect more recent information.
  • "The school is rated as "selective" by US News & World Report" - the source's rating is actually "more selective"
    Depends where you look in the article. Updated anyway...I like the "more selective" moniker anyway. Buffs (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M is rated the second-best university for veterans in USA Today" - source is from 2015, so this needs (ideally) a more recent source, or at least an as of date
    "As of" added. Buffs (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Texas A&M University System has an endowment valued at more than $12.6 billion, second among U.S. public universities and seventh overall" - of the two sources for this, one is for a webpage that no longer mentions this fact, and the other gives an updated number of slightly over 12.72 billion
    As you can tell, sources change. That happens. Updates made with both number and references. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The smaller endowment, totaling $1.17 billion in assets, is run by the private Texas A&M Foundation" - the source for this is almost 10 years old. We need a newer source to verify figures like this that will change
    Updated both figure and source. Buffs (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endowment assets dedicated solely to the College Station campus (as of 2015) are $259.9 million" - cited to 2015 financial statements, needs a newer source; the newer financial statements should be available if you want that. TAMU is surely a single audit, so I imagine if all else fails the audit report is probably on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse somewhere.
    A brief search couldn't find it in the FAC or as a single audit. It isn't that easy to isolate one school in a system as most funds are allocated System-wide. Removed for clarity/updating. It can always be re-added later. Buffs (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close paraphrasing detected: "On average, Texas A&M files a patent every week and closes a license agreement every other week" (article) "On average, the OTC files a patent every week and closes a license agreement every other week." (source)
    That's why the sources were placed there. Rephrased anyway. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M has participated in more than 500 research projects in more than 80 countries" - source is from 2007, surely these numbers have changed
    I'm sure they have. But since I can't find clear, recent data, I've removed those specifics and added another source. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas A&M's Center for International Business Studies is one of 28 supported by the U.S. Department of Education" - Source says "There were 28 Centers for International Business Education (CIBEs) funded in Fiscal Year 1999. Each center was funded for a four-year cycle", so this definitely needs something more recent to confirm
    Removed. This isn't clearly delineated anywhere I could find beyond the given article. While notable, it isn't current and I can see why you'd want it removed. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only through the campus section, this needs a lot of work. Hog Farm Talk 21:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that this is a "lot" of work. Buffs (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding another point HF brought up: "Looking at the source for basic reliability, we still have issues with: Largest.org, which was challenged all the way back in July, and there doesn't seem to have been given a justification for why this is reliable and Tomahawk Nation falls in the unreliable range of sports blogs."
    Literally 2 sources out of ~300...hardly "issues with basic reliability", but fine, let's look at the reliability of these TWO sources.
    • largest.org wasn't challenged for reliability in July. It was only for a typo of a comma instead of a period. It wasn't challenged for reliability until November...however, no one said it wasn't reliable or specified what was wrong, merely there were vague "reliability issues". If the information was incorrect or someone showed that their conclusions were incorrect, that would be a different matter. Largest.org is not listed as an unreliable website anywhere in Wikipedia. Merely claiming the source has "an issue with reliability" doesn't make it unreliable. I contend the information is accurate and open it up to proving it wrong. If it is incorrect in some manner, I will be happy to fix the statement, but it is completely unreasonable to force editors to jump through hoops to satisfy any editor's whim. This information appears to be accurate. That it isn't from some mainstream publication like CNN doesn't mean it's wrong. If it is wrong, fine, we can just remove it. If this explanation isn't to your satisfaction, we can just remove the sentence if that's a major sticking point. Buffs (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tomahawk Nation is a subsidiary of Vox Media, not a blog and has editorial standards...it is not a blog. The only thing it cites is when Jimbo Fisher moved to Texas A&M. To be blunt, this is a completely uncontroversial fact. It shouldn't really even need a source. NO ONE disputes it, but one was provided for an inane, noncontroversial fact from a site about the school that had him as a coach (the last entity you'd expect to support such a statement if it was false). If you don't like that source and want another one, feel free to take your pick: [5] and just tell me what you want instead.

This addresses all points brought by HF. Buffs (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other actionable delist points, unattributed

[edit]
  • "Many editors, on both the nominator and reviewer side, have put in a Herculean effort over the past five months to try to save this, but when there are still major issues (per HF, multiple instances of text in lead but not body, severely outdated figures, etc.) this far in, it's time to call it."
    There were only a few "outdated" figures and were EASILY corrected. Considering everything brought up was corrected in <12 hours, I find no justification for such a conclusion.
  • "At FAC, nominations are archived if consensus to promote does not begin to form within two weeks or so"
    False There was 100% consensus to keep until Christmas Day (the FAC process began 5+ weeks prior) when 4 people weighed in within 24 hours. Without even so much as a ping for a reply, it was summarily closed (something SG was given as a courtesy). This is completely inappropriate. It very much appears that the opinions of certain people are given vastly more weight than others.
  • "Even though ongoing work has been done in response to individual issues, and I hope will be in response to this latest round too, it's unfair to continue placing the burden on reviewers to point out every issue rather than on those who would like to see this be an FA to first bring it up to standard and only then have others review."
    What the heck are you talking about. This was already an FA. This is a complete reversal of roles. Rather than cite reasons for justifying its removal, you're asking me to justify why it should be something it already is...now, I suppose that's "was". This standard is absurd. The burden of proof should be on you to show the article doesn't meet the standards not for me/others to prove it meets the standards. Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My first stop was the "Student life" section. The first sentence... As of 2021, approximately 23% of the student body lived on campus, primarily in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus". is "as of 2021", but the first citation given is to the enrollment profile of 2015 (with a plural pp to a single page, pp. i.) There is no p. i; what is this citing? The next citation, [6] says that 20% live on campus in 2020, not 23% and not 2021. So we have confusing citations, or inaccurate citations, or dated citations, and citation formatting issues. Considering the amount of effort that has gone in to this FAR, and that this is the very first thing I checked, I think it time to call this and move on.
    I would swear on a stack of bibles that I found the specific source, but, in hindsight, it's possible in my rush, I misread something. There indeed was a page "i" in the document you mentioned and it did have a reference to 22.6% for a student enrollment number, but it wasn't for the stat I was looking up. It clearly doesn't say what I think I thought it said. Therefore, I'm going to revert back to the original source and stick with 20%; that's the clearest/best/most recent reference I can find. Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You checked one thing, found an error, and that's it? No review. I waited 4 weeks for you to review content and you call my effort into question? You told me you had guests and I'd have to wait even longer, so I did. You didn't even try to ping me, you just moved straight to delist. Part of the problem is that you never do the review you've been promising for months. To call this a sincere effort is laughable. Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sample sourcing problem: "Texas A&M has participated in more than 500 research projects in more than 80 countries and leads the Southwestern United States in annual research expenditures. The university conducts research on every continent and has formal research and exchange agreements with 100 institutions in 40 countries.[7]
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This has been typical of this article for months now, and issues like this have not been corrected. Reviewers cannot be expected to keep going back, again and again, to check the same problems."
    These aren't the "same problems" they are different problems than what you brought up before Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the way, some numbers have commas, others don’t, eg 1000 compared to 1,000."
    This is completely misleading/an exaggeration/intentionally misrepresenting the truth. As near as I can tell, there was only one error in 140,000+ letters, not "some numbers have commas, others don’t". It turns out I missed a comma...one freaking comma. If you find something easy, just freaking fix it or tell me where it is rather than make me play guessing games. Buffs (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And it was not “TAMU researchers” on the volcano; check the source; that’s a misrepresentation (Sager was once a prof there, no longer.)"
    Which is why I fixed it. You're correct that I was mistaken, but it wasn't entirely unreasonable based on the source.
  • "With two first sentences in two sections I checked failing verification, it seems unproductive to dig deeper."
    It very much feels like you chose the path of least resistance/least effort. Buffs (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Texas_A%26M_University/archive1&oldid=1063840396"