Talk:RTI International/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Three images used: File:RTP planning.jpg & File:RTI scientists.jpg have OTRS-certified permission; File:Rti-logo.png claims fair use.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Questions and comments
 * 1a. Numerous instances of unclear prose. I'll provide details after further review to determine whether it is worth going on at this point.
 * I get dinged on prose a lot. Interested in your feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The writing seems to make assumptions, which I'm sure seem natural/obvious to the writer but the reader doesn't make the necessary connection. For example, several sentences in the "Projects" section list the findings of studies...so...what does that have to do with RTI? and some could use a better explanation on why they're "notable". Taxol/Camptothecin seems like a big deal, mind elaborating on how RTI came about to doing that one? I think that entire section could be better organized thematically, rather than chronological, but I'm not making that a condition of GA. maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Questions and comments
 * 1a. Numerous instances of unclear prose. I'll provide details after further review to determine whether it is worth going on at this point.
 * I get dinged on prose a lot. Interested in your feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The writing seems to make assumptions, which I'm sure seem natural/obvious to the writer but the reader doesn't make the necessary connection. For example, several sentences in the "Projects" section list the findings of studies...so...what does that have to do with RTI? and some could use a better explanation on why they're "notable". Taxol/Camptothecin seems like a big deal, mind elaborating on how RTI came about to doing that one? I think that entire section could be better organized thematically, rather than chronological, but I'm not making that a condition of GA. maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The writing seems to make assumptions, which I'm sure seem natural/obvious to the writer but the reader doesn't make the necessary connection. For example, several sentences in the "Projects" section list the findings of studies...so...what does that have to do with RTI? and some could use a better explanation on why they're "notable". Taxol/Camptothecin seems like a big deal, mind elaborating on how RTI came about to doing that one? I think that entire section could be better organized thematically, rather than chronological, but I'm not making that a condition of GA. maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How's this? I re-organized it to be by-topic and added (hopefully non-promotionally) information on why the projects were significant, as well as some more explanation in certain areas and other copyedits.

Notable projects
RTI International's research has spanned areas like cancer, pollution, drug abuse and education.

Two RTI scientists, Monroe Wall and Mansukh Wani, synthesized an anti-cancer treatment, camptothecin, from a Chinese tree in 1966, and Taxol, from a Pacific yew tree in 1971. $3 billion in the two drugs invented by RTI scientists are sold each year by pharmaceutical companies. In 1986, RTI was awarded a $4 million contract with the National Cancer Institute to conduct an eight-year clinical trial on the effects of a tobacco intervention drug. Two years later, RTI began a $4.4 million AIDS treatment program for the National Institutes of Health, which grew to $26 million by 1988.

RTI scientists helped identify toxic chemicals in the Love Canal in the 1970s. In 1978, RTI researched the possibility of improving solar cells for the US Department of Energy and coal gasification for the Environmental Protection Agency the following year. The Institute helped China implement emission controls before the 2007 Olympics in Beijing by training air modelers and providing computer models.

An RTI survey in 1973, commissioned by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, confirmed prior research that found no connection between drug use and violent crime, despite a long-held belief that heroin users were more prone to violence. In 1975, a study RTI conducted for the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that 28 percent of the 13,000 teenagers polled were "problem drinkers," though they were under-aged. A 1996 study done by RTI and funded by the Pentagon found that drug abuse in the military had been reduced by 90 percent since 1980.

In 1975, RTI provided recommendations to the Bureau of the Mint to halt production of expensive pennies and replace half-dollars with a new dollar coin. In 2001, RTI scientists created a new thinfilm superlattice material that uses the thermoelectric effect to cool microprocessors. In April 2003 the United States Agency for International Development awarded RTI with a $7.9 million contract to help local Iraqi governments establish administration and civic institutions. (now included in History) In 2009 RTI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study in Health Affairs estimating the cost of obesity in the US to be $147 billion annually due to the increased costs of medical care. RTI also developed a reading skill measurement program called the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) for the USAID and the World Bank. EGRA has been used in 70 languages and 50 countries.


 * That sounds good. Add it in, lose the "Notable" in the title, and let me do some copy-edits regarding the prose and this should be done soon. maclean (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1b. The lead section needs to be expanded, per WP:LEAD it should "summarize the body of the article"; per word choice lose the "notable" (see WP:PEA section).
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 3a. From the brief background readings I've been doing while checking sources, I'm not convinced the topic is being adequately covered. I will provide a more detailed response to this after doing some more research.
 * Sure thing. One thing you might bump into is their history is very intertwined with RTP and the research triangle (two larger topics where more detail is available in secondary sources). There may be a lot of detail missing, that is not necessarily relevant to RTI specifically. For example, I only covered their pre-history of coming out of the RTP project very briefly, but more detail on that probably belongs on the RTP page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't get much of a chance to look at it today. I was thinking more along the lines of expanding the "Organization" section. An organization of 3700 employees with $735 mill in revenue should probably elaborate beyond a one paragraph note that they have a board of governors, they're headquartered in RTP and their biggest client is USAID. Can you look into finding something along the lines of their organization beyond the board level, like how they are distributed across the country/world, how they bring in and distribute funds, publish their work, partnerships, use (selling) of patents, etc.? maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How about something like this? It does add a few primary sources, which I have done in other GANs for similar content, but I am a bit more timid adding primary sources where I have a COI, so wanted to swing it by you. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Organization
RTI International is a not-for-profit research organization established by three local universities, but managed independently by a separate board and management team. RTI's structure consists of members of the corporation, the board of governors and corporate officers. The members of the corporation elect governors, who in turn create the organization's policies. 15 governors meet bimonthly. Corporate officers are senior managers that report to the board for their specific area of responsibility.

RTI has eleven primary service areas, including health policy, survey research, education, international development, economics and energy among others. It has eight US offices and ten international locations, supporting operations in 75 countries. About 60 percent of RTI's staff are headquartered on a 180-acre campus inside the Research Triangle Park. Many of RTI's staff hold faculty positions at the three universities that form the Research Triangle and participate in cooperative research projects. It also has partnerships with the Research Triangle Energy Consortium, the Triangle Global Health Consortium and other universities and research organizations.

As of 2010, about 35 percent of RTI's revenue came from its largest client, the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Most of RTI International's funding comes from research contracts. In 2012 it authored 627 journal articles. At the time, RTI owned 400 patents.

References


 * That is better. However, I must push for more detail. Example locations of other offices, do they have a specific purpose (or for general office functions)?, does "research contracts" mean from private business contracting them to do research?, why not list all eleven primary service areas if that is how they organize themselves? I'm comparing the breadth of this WP article with this magazine article here maclean (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for all your help/feedback. Let me know if you think it needs more. I'll get started on the Notable projects next and will take you up on your suggestion to organize it by topic. CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * 6a. Was File:Rti-logo.png actually obtained from RTI International? or was it obtained from a website for which a link can be provided?
 * The file was provided directly by RTI, but there is a similar image in the upper-left-hand corner of the website. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold. There is indeed additional information in the sources for the "Organization" and "History" sections. I will put the review 'on hold' and re-assess later based on your response. maclean (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Conclusion
 * This meets the GA criteria as detailed above. Thank you for your participation. I encourage you to continue improving the article in terms of comprehensiveness. It has a long and detailed history which is outlined here but could be expanded upon. Good luck in your future article-writing. maclean (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!! CorporateM (Talk) 05:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)