Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC).

Georgia Tech Research Institute

 * Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I resolved the comments on the first FAC before it closed, so I've returned for more feedback; I'm pretty proud of this article and hope that one day, it gets the star. I currently have another FAC (G. Wayne Clough) open, but User:ResearcherQ has volunteered to co-nom per the rules of one FAC/person, but is busy until at least Monday. Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed and its a worthy article, so I'd like to provide my support for promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article seems fine for the most part. I only have a few issues:

There were quite a few redundant uses of 'also', which I took the liberty of trimming. Hopefully that doesn't cause a concern. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the name "Montgomery Knight", but says nothing about who he is. From what I've read he's actually pretty notable, so I think he deserves a red link.
 * I'll do you one better: a nice 9.3k article about Montgomery Knight, hot off the press. Disavian (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...named the Thomas Hinman Research Building": after Atlanta dentist and University donor Thomas Hinman.
 * Added that bit. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...and used as a component in the...": please fix the grammar or meaning here.
 * I think this did the trick. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "...its role as a technological incubator and the beginning of an international development initiative in 1964...": This doesn't read well. Please could you clarify the meaning?
 * I tried a stab at that, not sure if it's enough. I definitely had a "who wrote this? oh, right, me." moment. diff. Disavian (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Engineering the New South: Georgia Tech 1885–1985" is missing a publication date and an ISBN code.
 * Fixed. diff. Disavian (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'll try to get to these asap. Disavian (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my issues. Good luck with your FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article; I don't have much time this morning so it might be a day or two till I get through it.
 * "The federal effort ultimately failed": What federal effort? That paragraph seems to be just talking about state initiatives.
 * I see how that's not clear. Let me give you the relevant source material (emphasis mine):
 * In that year, in a move related to the ongoing federal debate on establishing engineering experiment stations with legislation similar to the Hatch Act, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act, "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology," included as Appendix B. The act set up the station for, among other purposes, the "encouragement of industries and commerce." Because the federal legislative initiative failed to create engineering experiment stations and because the state did not appropriate funds for start-up or operations, the station at Georgia Tech remained only a paper organization until 1934.
 * Disavian (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences of "Establishment" seem a bit repetitive. How about: "The Georgia Board of Regents provided the new Engineering Experiment Station with $5,000 ($449,000 in 2013), and Georgia Tech provided infrastructure and personnel.  The station started operation in April 1934."  This omits "directly", which I don't understand; what does it mean to say that the board of regents "directly" allocated the money?
 * If I had to guess, I'd say it is typical to funnel money through the various schools that comprise Georgia's university system. For the board of regents to directly allocate funds would probably be unusual but not unheard of. Your version is much clearer, though. implemented it, diff Disavian (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break)  In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station. Rosselot was the organization's director from 1941 to 1952."  This is a little out of chronological sequence, and slightly confusing for the reader; I can see why you did it this way but it would be nice to clean it up a little.  How about: "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941.  (section break)  Bunger's successor was Gerald Rosselot, who had been appointed assistant director by Georgia Tech president Blake Van Leer in 1940" and leave the date of the end of Rosselot's tenure to later in the narrative?
 * Well, his departure is already covered later in the article, so that works really well. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer": according to the article on Van Leer, he wasn't president until 1944.
 * That's a really good catch... I put the correct GT president on the GTRI article and on Rosselot's article. diff Disavian (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "...increased support from industry and government eventually counteracted low state support." This repeats "support", and I also don't think "counteracted" is quite the right verb.  How about: "...increased support from industry and government eventually compensated for low state support", or maybe "more than compensated for", if that's the case, as it appears.
 * How's "compensated for lower state funding"? diff Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "$240,000 ($7,055,000 in 2013)": I suggest going with -5 on the roundup parameter, to give $7.1M; -3 gives a spurious impression of precision (assuming that the $240K is itself a rounded number). The inflation template is used multiple times; I'd suggest doing the same throughout -- I think the value of the last non-zero unit in each number should be the same, relatively; that is, a 1 in the $10K column represents about 4% of $240K, but a 1 in the $1K column represents only 0.014% of $7.1M.
 * I took a stab at this and went with -4 through most of the article. If any need to be tweaked, feel free. Disavian (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "the 1946 establishment of the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1948 and to its present name, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, in 1984": this gave me flashbacks to the James E. Boyd FAC, where this came up. That's a super-confusing name change, and I don't think you can let it pass without explanation.  I'd suggest re-using note 4 from that article, or some slight modification of it, but I also think you need to clarify things a little inline -- the reader is going to be stopped in their tracks as it stands.
 * Yeah, that was a fun FAC. I kind of miss it. Anyway, I took a stab at using the text from that note from the Boyd article in the GTRI article itself, it seemed relevant enough. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did Rosselot resign his post because of the conflict with Emerson? At the moment it's implied but not stated.  If the sources are specific I think the article should be too.  Further down you say he "left to work for Bendix Corporation", so perhaps it wasn't because of the conflict.
 * "his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta and facilitated subsequent technology transfer by Georgia Tech's VentureLab and the Advanced Technology Development Center": Two things here. First, is this referring to Rosselot's participation in Scientific Atlanta?  If so, how about "his participation in Scientific Atlanta ensured its eventual success"?  Second, it's not clear what you mean by saying that his participation "facilitated subsequent technology transfer"; can you clarify?
 * "Cudd reversed this trend such that EES's 1952–53 Annual Report stated that 66 faculty in 15 schools performed research at the station that year": I don't like "such that". How about "Cudd reversed this trend&mdash;so much so that"? Or "to the extent that"?
 * Implemented: diff. Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "made a last-minute request to the contract organization in May 1954 to cover the $20,000 deficit": will the sources support "the resulting $20,000 deficit"? And if you're inflating other dollar numbers, shouldn't you also inflate this?
 * I suppose we can inflate that one too, diff. That number is explicitly mentioned in Dress Her In White and Gold (Wallace pp. 240-241):
 * This is apparently a quote from Van Leer's 1953-54 annual report: "All of these activities resulted in creating a serious financial drain on the budget of the Station. The net result was that the surplus carried over from the previous year's operation was exhausted, and in May 1954 it became apparent that unless expenditures were reduced a serious budgetary deficit would result. Dr. Calaway took immediate and vigorous steps to meet this unexpected situation, and at the close of the fiscal year the Georgia Tech Research Institute agreed to pay slightly over $20,000, which would otherwise have been a deficit."
 * Disavian (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Cold War" doesn't seem the right title for that section; it covers the period of the Cold War, but is not entirely about military research. How about "Cold War era"?
 * Mistercontributer got that one. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting "In 1954, a faculty committee" doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph it's currently attached to; how about moving it up to the end of the previous paragraph, which mentions budgets?
 * Mistercontributer got that one. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "and then appointed as Director of the station from July 1, 1957 until 1961": you don't usually capitalize "Director" in this context; should it be capitalized? And how about mentioning that Calaway was the director he took over from: "and succeeded Calaway as director on July 1, 1957" -- I think you could skip the end date, since it will be covered later.
 * Hmm, I just went ahead and gave him a sentence. I might want to look to see if he did anything noteworthy that I haven't mentioned. Let's see... ENS 246 says he became the GT Chemistry Director in 1948, and ENS257 mentions him winning that Sigma Xi research prize. DHWG 240-241 mentions him taking the position after Cudd left, and that he was Director of the School of Chemistry at the time, and that he was the one that took care of that $20,000 advance from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization) to prevent the deficit. In 1955, the Rich Electronic Computer Center, a new wing on the Hinman / Research Building was dedicated, which was paid for by $85,000 from the Rich Foundation and a matching grant from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization). Hmm. I moved a bit of stuff around for this one. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what do you think of adding a table of all the directors towards the end of the article, perhaps in the Organization section, in "Structure"?
 * Do you have an example of one that looks good? I'm not opposed to it. Disavian (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "While at Georgia Tech, Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology, which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research." This needs copyediting: the subject of "argued" is the article, but the subject of "involved" ought to be Boyd, not the article.
 * Looks like we added Boyd as the subject. diff Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to quote the year the Applied Systems Lab was founded, instead of just saying it resulted from 1970s research -- that could place it as late as the mid-1980s.
 * "facilitated technology transfer in over 40 developing nations": I don't think this is what the source says; as far as I can see it only talks about technology transfer in Latin America and Egypt.
 * "this era began EES' role" -- a bit awkward; can you rephrase?
 * Mistercontributer came up with this phrasing: diff. Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'The period of student unrest in the late 1960s that resulted in protests at many university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense was not particularly seen at EES or at Georgia Tech. Long credited the school's "conservative student body" for the absence of any protests against the station's defense-related research.': how about 'The late 1960s saw a period of student unrest, and university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense were often the site of student protests. Neither Georgia Tech nor EES became the focus of protests, and Long attributed this to the school's "conservative student body"'.
 * Implemented: diff. Disavian (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Institute president Arthur G. Hansen's" -- Hansen wasn't a president of the GTRI, according to the navbox at the bottom, so which institute is this? Was he present of what was then called the GTRI and is now the GTRC?  I assume that's what you are referring to, but I think it needs some inline clarification.
 * He was the president of Georgia Tech, thus I changed "Institute" to "Georgia Tech". diff Disavian (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't fully understand what's meant by "completely integrate the station into Georgia Tech's academic units". Was the plan to eliminate the separate existence of the EES?  Or something else?
 * Yes, basically. Absorb it and all of the delicious money inside. Disavian (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Technique needs to be identifed as the student paper when mentioned; the Atlanta Constitution is well enough known that I don't think it's necessary there.
 * In March 2010, Cross was named to the new position of Executive Vice President for Research for the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he oversees all research at Georgia Tech: seems odd to spell out Georgia Tech's full name again at this point, and link it again too. How about: "In March 2010, Cross was named Executive Vice President for Research, a newly created position within Georgia Tech with oversight over all research at the university"?
 * "Out of the approximately 1,050 research scientists and engineers working for GTRI in June 2011, 19% had attained a doctorate, 53% had up to a master's degree, and 28% had up to a bachelor's degree": the source has been updated to 2012 and I would suggest updating the numbers. I think "up to a" doesn't work; I think you mean "had at least a", but to me "up to a master's degree" means "had a master's degree or something less".
 * "At a given time, laboratories may work with 200 or more agencies simultaneously" is unsourced and I think might be rephrased, once you source it -- do you mean all laboraties together, or any given laboratory?
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. This is a pretty busy week for me, but I'll do my best to get to these. :) Disavian (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try to complete the review by Friday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Mike, if you're going to make further comments shortly, I could leave this open a bit longer but without consensus to promote after 6 weeks I'm afraid it's really due to be archived... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian; I'm going to try to finish the review this weekend and expect to be able to. I believe I will be able to support once everything has been addressed; of course that would only bring this to two supports.  If you would promote with two supports, then it would be good if you could leave this open for a few more days.  My support would not include comprehensiveness as I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to be sure of that, though it seems comprehensive as far as I can tell.  If you don't think you would promote with two supports, then I would suggest allowing Disavian to bring this back immediately under the "lack of reviews" clause; I'd be happy to continue reviewing the next iteration. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tks Mike. Of course we try not to make promotion a matter of number of supports but instead comprehensiveness of reviews, but the fact is we need more eyes on this no matter what.  I think therefore we call a day on this one and give Disavian a chance to finalise everything before having another shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.