Template:Did you know nominations/Center for Biofilm Engineering


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 13:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Center for Biofilm Engineering

 * ... that the Center for Biofilm Engineering at MSU uses interdisciplinary research and education to tackle biofilm issues including chronic wounds, bioremediation, and microbial corrosion?
 * ALT1: ... that the Center for Biofilm Engineering at Montana State University tackles biofilm issues including chronic wounds, bioremediation, and microbial corrosion?
 * ALT2: ... that 62% of undergraduate and 53% of graduate student researchers at the Center for Biofilm Engineering at Montana State University are female?
 * Reviewed: Abrahams Creek
 * Comment: Verbatim text of source 1 (not available publically) for the hook is commented out at the bottom of the article page for reference. Images are pending OTRS at Wikipedia Commons

Created by Mike Cline (talk). Self nominated at 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Hi, Mike, I'll be reviewing this hook. Can you get rid of the ampersand per MOS:AMP, please?  You're still under the character limit.  I think most engineering centers like this are focused on interdisciplinary research and education, and it's implicit in their work, so IMO, it's unnecessary to say this. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ampersand removed from ALT0. ALT1 suggested removes "interdisciplinary research and education".  ALT2 suggested is directly attributable to text in 2014 report MSU Center for Biofilm Engineering 25 years and growing - cite#59, page 11 although it appears as article content in two sub-sections--undergraduate studies and graduate studies. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Thanks, those new hooks look great. Here's a very partial review: article is new (moved from draft to mainspace); long enough (14945 characters); all four images are professional and have OTRS pending tags, but no source information (website, donation, etc.); main photo shows a massive wind machine sculpture in front of the building, but no identifying info in the caption; coordinates go to the Student Health Sciences building next door, not CBE/EPS; the lead is slightly confusing as we are first presented with the current name, then the founding name, and then finally, the original name; article contains a mission statement and section which are discouraged and usually deleted if the article makes its way to GA/FA.  I'll have more to say in a bit.  I think these minor things can be easily fixed, but I'm not finished reviewing the article and I may find other issues. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, this part of the lead is driving me nuts: "The center, which originated as the The Institute for Chemical and Biological Process Analysis (IPA) in 1983 under the direction of Dr. Bill Characklis, tackles biofilm issues including chronic wounds, bioremediation, and microbial corrosion through cross-disciplinary research and education among engineers, microbiologists and industry." Although you don't have the source available, it really doesn't look like the CBE originated as the IPA in 1983; after all, biofilm research in its current form didn't get going until the late 1980s and courses weren't offered until the 1990s when CBE was first founded as the Center for Interfacial Microbial Process Engineering.  Excuse the pun, but wouldn't it be more accurate to leave this out of the lead, since IPA was more of a precursor to the CBE?  Furthermore, juxtaposing the predecessor of the CBE with current research seems like an anachronism.  I have no objection to keeping it in the history section where it is now, but when you mention it in the lead like this it doesn't really work for me as a reader.  After all, you start the lead by mentioning the CBE and its original founding in 1990, but then you end the lead by saying it actually originated in 1983 and BTW, here is what it is doing now...  I think this would work just fine by either mentioning it as a predecessor before the founding or just removing the IPA from the lead altogether. Viriditas (talk) 05:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I've fixed the coordinates. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  Comment IPA removed from lead. Mission statement removed. --Mike Cline (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll finish reviewing the rest of the article tomorrow (it's 12:42 AM here, and I'm half asleep). Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The subheading "Center for Interfacial Microbial Process Engineering (1979–1990)" is about the Institute for Chemical and Biological Process Analysis (IPA) before it received ERC status in 1990.  As the reader, I find it confusing that the section is named after the Center for Interfacial Microbial Process Engineering .  Shouldn't the first subsection of the history section be called "Institute for Chemical and Biological Process Analysis" and the seccond subsection named "Center for Interfacial Microbial Process Engineering", with the last sentence of the first subsection ("In 1989, the IPA applied to the National Science Foundation for Engineering Research Center status which was granted in April 1990.") moved to the second subsection, in the same way that you have the pre-1983 material about Characklis in the first section? Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adjustments made as suggested. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm still not clear why you don't have headings for the "Center for Interfacial Microbial Process Engineering" instead of "Establishment as Engineering Research Center", and a third heading for "Center for Biofilm Engineering", either before or after the fifth paragraph in the history section. I completely understand that you are trying to emphasize its establishment as an engineering research center in contrast to its self-sufficiency, but this focus violates my expectations as a reader.  Also the lack of commas is somewhat unusual.  Is this your preferred style or something else? You may also want to consider WP:LEADLENGTH if you take this to GA/FA, as the lead is unusually short given the length of the article, but this will have no bearing on this DYK. Terms like "Engineering Research Center" should initially appear "Engineering Research Center  (ERC)", and then "ERC" should be used instead of the full term. The end of the first paragraph of "Industry programs" (Methods include the design...) is lacking a citation. WP:OVERLINKING is within acceptable parameters. The wording contained within the "Undergraduate studies" borders on a self-reference ("such as those listed above").  I think best practice is to include a piped internal link to that section ("as members of research teams on projects.") No close paraphrasing detected with random spot checks. At the bare minimum, if you add the missing citation to the "Industry programs" paragraph, I'll pass this right now. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Adjustments made per suggestions. Am working on finding suitable source for needed citation.  The methods listed are inherent in the Standardized Biofilms Methods regime but I need to find a source that concisely confirms that.  Re lead length. We'll be adding a new section on Facilities once this gets through DYK that will make for some good lead material.  Thanks for all the help. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How about temporarily removing it so I can pass the DYK, and placing it on the talk page for future expansion? Viriditas (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Done: Thanks for the accomodation. Actually I am going to rewrite this section somewhat  as the whole bit on "Standard Biofilm Methods" is quite interesting and well supported with independent sources. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to go for ALT1. Per the above, original hook is too long and contains implicit redundancies, while ALT2 is not unique, as it's been known for the last 15 years in the United States that college women outnumber men by about 60%. I understand that ALT2 may be preferred since March is Women's History Month; I don't have any objection if the closer chooses ALT2 instead, but it's not an original idea as the same could be said about the majority of American universities. Per the above discussion:


 * ✅ Article is new and eligible as it was moved from draft to mainspace within the last seven days of its nomination.
 * ✅ Article is long enough (14945 characters at time of initial review)
 * ✅ Article is within policy (per the above discussion)
 * ✅ Hook format, content, neutrality and interest confirmed. (see the above discussion)
 * ✅ QPQ OK.

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)