Talk:University of Texas at Dallas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Automated Peer Review

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), meter (A) (British: metre), sabre (B) (American: saber), organize (A) (British: organise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), program (A) (British: programme).
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]. <ref>,<ref>,
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Added automated peer review Oldag07 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Spin off pages.

While I am going to wait until the peer review is over, I am thinking they are going to tell is to spin off the academic programs section into a new page. List of Schools in the University of Texas at Dallas? I also think we can spin off a and List of notable UTD people. We will see though. Oldag07 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I really think the new work converting the text into prose is admirable, and is really some good stuff. And all the hard work can still be spin into a new article. Much like List of Texas A&M University people or List of University of Texas at Austin alumni. I think the term "notable people" is probably more in line with UTD. The school is way too young to have a huge alumni section. As for the article itself, I think that these sections are more in line with what we are shooting for: Texas A&M University#Notable people or University_Of_Texas#Alumni. Very short sentences about each person. Oldag07 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel the "Notable Faculty" article should stay as is and not be redone as notable people. UTD is not as as large as A&M and UT Austin, just not that many notable "people" yet. Stan9999 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
With the addition of more Alumni it is growing. Sounds good now that you will do a test version.Stan9999 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem I have with the List formats is that you can spend a lot of time clicking back and forth just to view the items. As long as the section isn't too long then it seems better to just be able to scroll down. Just my preference.:)Stan9999 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no perfect format. There is good prose, and poor prose. Good lists and bad lists. Be sure to read over WP:LIST for more examples.Oldag07 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The academics programs on the UTD page at the moment are a bit large, and eventually should me merged into the academics section. Working with Texas A&M University, I find that individual college pages tend to be very wimpy. I am less clear on how to do this. As for academics, I think we should follow the lead of Michigan State University academics. Again, I am sorry for not pointing this out earlier. I was trying not to change the page too much until the peer review was over. Again, this page has made a quantum leap in the last week, and thanks again for your hardwork. Oldag07 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I did a spin off of the academic programs, hope you like, if not undo. I like it. Stan9999 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Completed spin off. The section on this page eventually needs to be expanded 2-3 paragraphs. But over all, this page is starting to look really good. Oldag07 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SAT scores in the introduction

I have removed the SAT scores from the introduction because of the guidelines laid out in WP:LEAD. Remember that this is an lead section is a summary of the university as a whole. I am willing to compromise however, adding a sentence summary from the paragraph. Stating that the school has comparatively high SAT scores is something short enough for the intro. Stating what those scores actually are, belongs in the body of the page. Oldag07 (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We also need to be careful of WP:BOOSTER. Oldag07 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Review

I attempted a redo of the Introduction and History sections per the review, hope you like it. Wow, those folks are picky.:) As the landscaping progresses can someone get some pictures? I won't be back on the campus until my son returns in the Fall.Stan9999 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The construction is still going on with the landscaping. We should wait until it is done. Oldag07 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't think that we needed to wait until BAM--the construction and landscaping is all done to get some pictures.:) Just like the residence hall picture I put up was before the landscaping and now that is complete a better photo could be taken. Perhaps inside the dining hall and outside areas where there is no construction? Plus, it would seem that the summer session would be better as less folks are around. You don't want a photo with a recognizable face in the background unless you get their permission. Stan9999 (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! I noticed in your picture gallery you are really very good. I am just a rank amateur at photography with a low end camera.:)Stan9999 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Name

I noticed the usage of the "University of Texas at Dallas". However, it should be "The University of Texas at Dallas".

The Texas Constitution of 1876 mandated that the state establish a university "at an early day," calling for the creation of a "university of the first class", styled "The University of Texas." It revoked the endowment of the railroad lands of the Act of 1858 but appropriated 1,000,000 acres (4,000 km2) in West Texas. In 1883, another two million were granted, with income from the sale of land and grazing rights going to The University of Texas and Texas A&M.

Wikipedia: Names of institutions (George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitals. The word the at the start of a title is usually uncapitalized, but follow the institution's own usage (a degree from the University of Sydney; but researchers at The Ohio State University).[1]

UTD usage. The following wordmarks are acceptable for use on the UT Dallas website:

  • UTD
  • The University of Texas at Dallas
  • UT Dallas

The following wordmarks are unacceptable for use on the UT Dallas website:

  • U.T.D.
  • UT D
  • University of Texas at Dallas
  • UT-Dallas
  • U. T. Dallas

[2] Stan9999 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I would strongly disagree with the page move from "University of Texas at Dallas" to "The University of Texas at Dallas". It was a bold move, and I appreciate the initiative. However, this does go against precedence seen in many other pages. the best place reading arguments for and against such a move would be the discussion on "The Ohio State University" seen here. Again, I like the progress that the page has made in the last few days. And overall, moving it back wasn't that difficult, so no harm done. Oldag07 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Second discussion on the issue on the Ohio State page is located here Oldag07 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Reading through those discussions I still think the article should be titled with the true, legal, legislated name of the institution. Here is my main concern---- when my son was first considering UTD I took a look at the Wikipedia page and the first thing that hit me was the incorrect name of the institution. I then assumed, if that was flawed then the rest of the article was probably also flawed. I am not unique so it would seem others would have the same impression. It seems to me that to negate that type of reaction the article should, at the minimum, be titled with the correct name and not something else. Just my take on it all.:)Stan9999 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The University of Texas at Austin, had a similar arguments here:

And a discussion on the grand issue is here:

I certainly don't mind if you would like to discuss the issue, but this is a debate that is bigger than this particular article. This is bigger than this page. If you would like to debate the issue, you got to debate it at a higher level: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Because if UTD changes its name, all schools in the UT system will have to change for consistency reasons. I have debated and lost my fair share of battles on wikipedia. Sometimes, you just have to let it be. Oldag07 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One more post then I will forever let it go. In my mind, one can authoritatively state the "true" name of an institution is always correct while it is a never ending struggle to authoritatively state that something less is always correct. I asked my son what he and his geek cohorts thought of Wikipedia. He said they looked at it with a jaundice eye. I think some other folks feel the same and that this is just one example. OK, I am now moving on to real world things like pulling up weeds in my back yard.;)Stan9999 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, if you want to move this page, even if it wasn't as big of an issue as it is throughout the university pages in wikipedia, than you would have to follow the procedure on this page WP:MOVE. This is controversial. It should be debated before changed.

Second, this is a controversial issue. You may or may not agree with abortion, but, you don't argue if abortion is correct or incorrect in front of a small city court when a decision on the issue was already made in the supreme court. This is something that should be debated in the supreme court or congress. In terms of this page, the debate should occur on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), WP:UNI, or even WP:UT. Because as stated earlier, if UTD should be changed, than all of the UT schools should change too. I assume they have naming similar policies.

Several sources do not use "the" in front of UTD,

  • Handbook of Texas [1]
  • Google Maps [2]
  • Business Week [3]
  • US News and World Report [4]
  • Washington Monthly [5]

Admittedly, I was surprised at the number of sources that I found that support using using "The" as part of the official name of the University. However, it does show that this naming convention is common place outside of wikipedia and as such I personally don't believe that it undermines the authority of the encyclopedia. Of course the reliability, validity and quality of this encyclopedia is actually well discussed in its own article Wikipedia and that would be off topic.

No alumni base is more obsessed with having "The" in front of their name than buckeyes. Since it would seem that the non "The" people won on that page, they seem to have come up with an interesting compromise. Ohio State University (officially The Ohio State University, commonly referred to as Ohio State or OSU). Maybe something similar to that would be a good compromise for this page. (assuming you don't want to debate this issue at a higher level) Oldag07 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the compromise is as good as it can be but still it is sad the actual names cannot be used for the article name in all the institutions that fall in this category. I do appreciate all your input and pointers. Oh well, I'm back to those pesky weeds before it gets too hot. Stan9999 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes it is good to be bold and take a walk on the wild side.:)Stan9999 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
After thinking about it for a while, one argument for keeping the title in its current form is this. Pretend UTD was in a dictionary. Would you look it up in the "T" section or the "U" section? I personally would look it up in the "U" section. Admittedly this is a website and not a paper dictionary, but putting the article at the beginning is confusing. Oldag07 (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would think, in a dictionary you would look in the "H" section for "The Hague" however that article is titled "The Hague".Stan9999 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is an A&M conspiracy to keep the UT folks from getting their correct name on their articles.Stan9999 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Other then a lack of pictures and a bit more work on the references any suggestions for improvement?Stan9999 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Worked on the references, really need some pictures.Stan9999 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review followup

This looks much better - here are some more suggestions for improvement based on quick read through.

  • WP:LEAD says the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs - this is 6. Two of the lead paragraphs are very short and could be combined with others.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example United States is generally not linked as most readers have a pretty good idea what that is ;-) Or the University of Texas System is linked multiple times.
  • I used a {{convert}} template to fix one of the unit conversions in the lead - these are nice as they automatically do the calculation correctly, get the units and superscripts right, add a non-breaking space, and are tweakable for adjective forms, etc.
  • Watch WP:PEACOCK words like "visionaries" in Having identified the need, the visionaries took action to serve both their enterprise and the region... It is OK in a direct quote, but might be seen as POV otherwise. Another one is "excellence" in The transition from an upper-division school to a four-year university with an emphasis on engineering, mathematics, the sciences and management has been facilitated by the excellence of the UT Dallas faculty. If it reads like an advertisement or promotional brochure, it needs to be written in a more neutral tone.
  • Watch abbreviations like "UT System" - spell out in full on first use. Also be consistent - is it UT System or U.T. System (both are used)?
  • There are places that should probably have a year for clarity / to provide context to the reader - the stats in the third paragraph of the lead or are all of the Student body section statistics for 2009 (not clear)?
  • It seems to me like the rankings need to be tweaked, so UTD's undergraduate business programs ranks 39 among public university business schools in the U.S. according to BusinessWeek 2010 rankings and ranks 30 in overall student satisfaction.[48] could either be UTD's undergraduate business programs ranks number 39 among public university business schools in the U.S. according to BusinessWeek 2010 rankings, and ranks number 30 in overall student satisfaction.[48] or UTD's undergraduate business programs ranks 39th among public university business schools in the U.S. according to BusinessWeek 2010 rankings, and ranks 30th in overall student satisfaction.[48] I prefer the latter.
  • Notes like "Main article: University of Texas at Dallas academic programs" are not made bigger than the surrounding text
  • Having complained about overlinkingearlier, make sure to link other universities in things like UT Dallas is the fourth university in the nation to received an accreditation for a Geospatial Intelligence certificate along with George Mason University, University of Missouri and Penn State.
  • For a university that spent about $66 million on research in FY 2009 and presumably spends a comparable amount every year, singling out individual research projetcs is tricky - why is Molecules that attempt to trick cancer cells into killing themselves off are the latest weapons being tested to win the war on cancer. The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas has awarded $886,000 to Jung-Mo Ahn to study a new class of molecules designed to wring the life out of prostate cancer cells.[80] this more notable than all the other research projects at UTD? See WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Note that I think the bit on "one of the world's oldest continuous political research projects" is fine, but am not sure why some of the others were singled out.
  • Direct quote needs a ref As a "recognized forum of student opinion", Student Government makes recommendations to the Board of Regents and the University, takes positions on non-University issues pertinent to students, obtains feedback from students, and performs other services as needed. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Make sure refs are consistent - for example current ref 69 lists as the publisher "University of Texas System" but ref 111 lists "UT System Edu."

Hope this helps, If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions! I will work on those items.Stan9999 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe I have rectified the issues listed and continue to work on the prose. The main thing lacking at this point, in my view, are pictures of the campus.Stan9999 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Started adding photos to page. My UTD Commons Gallery[[6]]Stan9999 (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rankings

I noticed the U.S. News & World Report's 2011 edition of Best Colleges national universities ranked The University of Texas Dallas at 143, Tier 1. http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/richardson-tx/university-of-texas-dallas-9741 Stan9999 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the refs on the {{Infobox US university ranking}} are out of date. It is using 2009 refs. I left a note on the talk page. Hopefully they will update them to 2010.Stan9999 (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Good to see our university rise to that level. It is good to be back. Oldag07 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

This page has made enormous progress since I was gone. I think it is ready for a featured article run. I was planning on doing a photo shot around campus before nominating it. But other than that, the page does seem at the quality level of the Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University pages. Oldag07 (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would take pictures today both the weather is horrible today. I am thinking Saturday. Oldag07 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Oldag07, It is just great that you are back! Looking forward to the pictures when the conditions are right.Stan9999 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully some better pictures on Saturday? I would like one of the Erik Jonsson Academic Center (JO on the map) without that red modernist sculpture in the picture. The one I took was deleted because of that sculpture. My kid has most of his classes there.:)Stan9999 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Page has been nominated. A bit early. Thanks for all the hard work! Oldag07 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the 3 external link errors noted on FA comments.Stan9999 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
You are allowed to comment on the featured article candidacy page. But good job so far. Oldag07 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Institutions
  2. ^ http://www.utdallas.edu/websvcs/logo.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Dallas/Archive_2&oldid=1078758550"