Talk:Georgia Tech/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.


 * 1) The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
 * 2) Address all of the citation needed tags.
 * File:Georgia-Tech-Insignia.svg needs to be reduced in size since it's non-free.
 * 1) Why is File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png used twice in the article?
 * 2) There are multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.
 * 3) "He then sold five adjoining acres of land to the state for US$10,000,[1] approximately equivalent to US$183,000 in 2006." This should be updated for 2008.
 * 4) "Women constituted 28.6% of the undergraduates and 25.8% of the graduate students enrolled in Fall 2006." Same thing, any more recent figures?
 * 5) "The student body consists of 18,500 graduate and undergraduate students, and more than 900 full-time instructional faculty." A date should be added to this to know if it's up-to-date or not. See if the other stats in the paragraph can be updated.
 * 6) "In 2006, the Institute's revenue amounted to approximately $879 million, with 27% of that amount from the state, and 12% from tuition and fees." Any updates?
 * 7) In the "Rankings" section, rankings go from 2nd, to No. 4, to #8, etc. Try and make all occurrences uniform.
 * 8) "The university further collaborated with the National University of Singapore to set up The Logistics Institute - Asia Pacific in Singapore." I removed the external link to the campus site. External links should only be included in their respective section.
 * 9) I'd recommend trimming the "Alumni" section a bit. There are already two well-developed lists that cover the topic which readers can look to.

This article covers the topic well. Due to the length of the article, I will wait to review the prose for any other issues until the above points have been addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw this, I'll have a look at some of these. Initial thoughts: I don't think the size of an svg file really matters; it's a vector graphic, it's going to be accurate no matter what size you display it at. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know that, but the fact that it's a non-free image, it would be beneficial if it was a smaller size. You don't necessarily have to do it, but it'll remain tagged for somebody else to take care of. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just afraid that somebody who sees that template will try converting it into a png. Tech is very particular that anyone that uses that seal use an extremely accurate version of it; read the conditions on the image description page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC w/ Disavian) I think the point is, even if someone were to physically reduce the dimensions of the svg and re-upload it with those smaller dimensions, it would do nothing to restrict its use at a larger size in the way reducing the dimensions of most other image formats does, making the entire exercise kind of moot. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:GeorgiaTechYellowJackets.png was in the infobox (there's a field for "logo") and next to the Athletics section, as it's the athletic logo. I removed it from the latter, but will happily put it back if you think a smaller infobox graphic doesn't overwhelm fair use of the image. And there are now only four paragraphs in the lead. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the image is necessary in the athletics section if you already have the image of the mascot there anyway. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on the dead links, that tool you linked me to is very useful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that tool, I must have fixed hundreds of links with it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that I have taken care of all of the dead links and templates. Are there any outstanding issues? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job addressing the above issues. I found a few more, which I added above. They mostly concern updates within the article. I also went through the article and made some changes, please look them over. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a template somewhere that does inflation calculations. I've seen it used before, thought "hey, that's cool!" but now I can't find it. Ahh, may have found it now. ! Working on this one now. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Finished that one. Looks good. The code: 0 —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know where to look for updated stats on enrollment. That one should be easy. Not sure about faculty, but I have an idea. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed the female percentages to the most recent Fall or Spring semester (Spring 2009). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed some other stats in another paragraph. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2006, the Institute's revenue amounted to approximately $879 million, with 27% of that amount from the state, and 12% from tuition and fees." Any updates? No idea. Putting this one off for a bit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Found the numbers for this, updated them. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The rankings should be easy to fix. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware about the alumni thing- I wrote those featured lists expressly to get that crap out of the main article, but every Tech grad or sports fan that comes along adds their personal favorite to that section. Should be pretty easy to trim a bit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I trimmed down some of the name creep on the alumni section, trying to leave in only the most notable. If you have any more suggestions as to who or what could be left out, let me know. I will warn you, though, I have become very attached to the fact that Herbert Saffir went to Georgia Tech. ;) LaMenta3 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the rankings section such that the following scheme is used: The rankings discussed in the prose are written as "No. 1" while rankings that are used in parentheses in a list of degree program rankings are written "Engineering (1st), Biomedical (3rd)..." The rankings in the infobox are also written in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd format, as that appears to be the standard for the infobox. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that covers all of the issues listed above. Can you think of anything else that might be brought up in a featured article nomination? That's probably the next step for this article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend further sourcing for the "Campuses" section. I still believe that the alumni section should be trimmed further (maybe three or four paragraphs tops, but that's just my opinion). Consider doing a peer review and getting a few editors to copyedit the prose. All of the citations will need to have the appropriate parameters. It may also be beneficial to compare the article with current university FAs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Good work addressing the issues. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)