Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Keep . Since the article improved considerably and a consensus has formed that it should remain in the GA list I am closing this discussion as Keep. Ruslik (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations - rather surprising to see that this is a GA. The article is very long, has quite a few cleanup banners, and has rather mediocre prose - as well as meeting the quick fail criteria it fails some of the real ones. giggy (O) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Overall, the article isn't horrible. It's stretching matters to call it very long. It needs wordsmithing and copyediting in places. The article's biggest problem is that two sections (Research accomplishments and Alumni) are woefully undersourced and may suffer from synthesis issues. Additionally, the History section is somewhat underdeveloped compared to most other university GA-class articles I've seen. With some work this article can be brought up to par. Majoreditor (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist, per nom. The prose is rather mediocre, several citation needed tags, cleanup banners, and there are several sentences with stats and/or demographics that need to be sourced. The article can be brought up to par, but delist for now unless someone is willing to work on it. Nikki  311  19:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked back through the article, and here are some more specific changes that need to be made, IMO: Nikki  311  22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In Challenges and controversies, every paragraph begins with "Article + date".
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost every paragraph in every other section begins with MIT.
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Small one or two sentence paragraphs need to be merged with surrounding paragraphs or expanded.
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "MIT's on-campus nuclear reactor is the second largest university-based nuclear reactor in the United States." - needs a citation
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The following stats need sources: "MIT enrolls more graduate students (approximately 6,000 in total) than undergraduates (approximately 4,000). In 2006, women constituted 44 percent of all undergraduates and 30 percent of graduate students. The same year, MIT students represented all 50 states, the District of Columbia, three U.S. Territories, and 113 foreign countries."
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite a few of the references need to be properly formatted.
 * ❌ Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Madcoverboy (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm one of the more active editors on the article and probably responsible for writing the Research and Alumni sections over a year ago. For such a major university, I've been continually underwhelmed by the community and activity surrounding the article and its daughter pages -- so nothing has improved since my initial attempts. I've already put a lot of work into it so I won't be leading the charge to have it un-GAed, but several of the aforementioned concerns are valid. I believe there is only one cleanup banner in the alumni section owing to an editor's liberal interpretation of affiliation when calculating Nobel laureates, but this is apparently par for the course at Nobel laureates by university affiliation even though it is synthesis and/or citing WP as a source. Per the concern about page length, there have been extensive discussions about this and the consensus is there is no more than a few sentences here or there that would be removed because the article largely follows WP:UNI outline. If anyone would mind throwing up some fact tags and pointing out specific instances stilted prose, I'll try to address low-hanging fruit. I noted that someone blanked many of the recent controversies, so I reverted even though this section certainly warrants better integration. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added quite a few fact tags to the sections in question. Hopefully some editors can pitch in and help. Majoreditor (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The remaining citations needed in the research accomplishments I don't believe need citations because I used easter-egg links showing the invention and linking to the scientist. I did this to keep it from becoming unwieldy, but each of these discoveries won the scientist a Nobel Prize. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks as if you and other editors have made some progress, Madcoverboy. I've removed the synthesized research tag from the Alumni section. The other issues I mentioned still need addressing but it's not hard to imagine that some dedicated editors can set matters right. Majoreditor (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and thoroughly referenced everything in the Research accomplishments section as well as updating some data as well. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I skimmed the article and found it much improved. While I should give it a more careful re-reading, I'm leaning toward Keeping its GA listing. Majoreditor (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the tags and banners are now gone. Majoreditor (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is looking better, but there are still issues. Referencing formatting, length, prose. I suggest a delist unless someone is actively working on it (doesn't really look like it). —Giggy 08:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it since it appears that no one else pays attention to this marginal school. Can you identify specific passages besides those already mentioned? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The length issue is repeatedly raised, but 33kB and 5,041 words of readable prose, it is coming in well under the 50kB and 6-10k word recommendation. As of this July 14, 2008 revision, the article length breaks down thusly: File size - 297 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code) - 70 kB, References (including all HTML code) - 105 kB, Wiki text - 94 KB (13434 words), Prose size (text only) - 33 kB (5041 words) "readable prose size", References (text only) - 26 kB. The same analysis of any other university FA reveals articles similar or greater length. Please stop attempting to penalize this article for being well-referened and consider article length a settled issue. Regarding reference formatting, citation templates are thoroughly used though some cleanup in almost 200 may be necessary, but again this in of itself is not grounds for delisting. Otherwise, I have addressed the specific issues raised by User:Nikki311. I recommend that thie review be closed and GA status kept. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe this article should be a GA. I've been watching this article for about a year now and I think it is a good article within the specified parameters mentioned.  Length of an article for a historic institution such as this one will undoubtedly run a little bit longer.  Please refer to similar articles of universities of similar length of history.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spent a while looking over it again. I believe it is now GA quality. Well done. —Giggy 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm. I wanted to close this far-too-long-open GAR. As usual, I checked the article first to make sure it was okay, only to discover that the lead completely fails to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. For a well established article like this, such a failure usually indicates deeper problems (why doesn't an introduction summarize the article well?) and sure enough, there are quite a few.
 * The article contains a fair amount of OR (e.g. by synthesis), the last sentence of the lead being one example. Other examples include "Given the scale and reputation of MIT's research accomplishments, allegations of research misconduct or improprieties have received substantial press coverage." and "As MIT's school of architecture was the first in the United States,[90] it has a history of commissioning progressive, if stylistically inconsistent, buildings.[91]".
 * The History section does not summarize the main article per WP:SUMMARY, which is a WP:LAYOUT issue. Again, I'm not blandly quoting policies here: this failure has resulted in a mess. Whereas the (much better) History of MIT has a broadly chronological basis, the history section here has "Initial years and vision", "Expansion" and "Challenges and controversies". The last of these in particular has become a magnet for all criticism, with the rest of the article remaining largely laudatory. Should a History subsection serve this dubious role?
 * There are other weaknesses also. The Organization section relies on external links in a "See also". The Campus section mixes discussion of the architecture with the architecture school (this can be done, but it needs to be done well). The "Academics" and "Faculty and research" sections are not clearly delineated: why are collaborations with government, industry, Harvard, etc., discussed under "Academics", while "UROP" is discussed under "Faculty"? Finally, is the "Housing" section about architecture or student culture?
 * I am somewhat sympathetic with Madcoverboy here, in that an article which should have had greater attention has not received it, and reviews (including this one) have largely focused on superficial issues. Even though I agree with the point of view of the article, I'm not convinced it is neutral; this is largely the result of structural weaknesses. Apart from one subsection, the MIT publicity department might well be quite happy with this article. Wikipedia should not be so satisfied. Geometry guy 22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually relieved to get this kind of feedback since I haven't been able to look at this article with new eyes since forever, so thank you for addressing some more substantive issues (not to demean previous criticism). I will try to address these concerns in the coming days. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some substantial edits to MIT in response to this feedback, especially with regards to the lead and history. Can editors give it a once over to see if it's heading in the right direction? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like it to me: both the lead and history section are getting better. One general comment on this edit: the point is not that there is undue weight in the article as a whole, but that the criticism is marginalized and inappropriately placed in the history. Just cutting back the criticism in the history section is not enough; it should be integrated into the article, so that balance is maintained throughout. The gender imbalance should be covered under Student Demographics and Faculty, not history. Tenure issues should be discussed under Faculty, and research misconduct should be discussed under, well, Research, as should technology transfer overseas. Student deaths and health could be discussed with FSILGs and student activities.
 * Regarding the lead, here are some specific comments.
 * "MIT is one of two private land-grant universities and is also a sea grant and space grant university." Is this explained in the article?
 * "...the university adopted the German university model..." Is this explained in the article?
 * "MIT researchers lead the efforts to develop computers, radar, and inertial guidance in connection with defense research during World War II and the Cold War." The two parts of this sentence are developed separately in the article under research and history. This seems a bit detailed as a summary of the history, and a bit selective as a summary of the research.
 * "In the past 60 years, MIT's educational programs and reputation have expanded beyond the physical sciences and engineering into social sciences like economics, linguistics, political science, and management." Is this developed in the article? It seems to be largely implicit.
 * One suggestion (not a GA requirement): try to reduce the number of citations needed in the lead, by using those citations elsewhere in the article, so that the lead simply summarizes material elsewhere. Geometry guy 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (undent) I made some more substantive edits in an attempt to address the concerns regarding the imbalance/over-concentration of criticisms in the history as well as introducing more content to fill out themes from the lead. I'm hesitant to reduce or strip the references out of the lead only because they serve as anchor refs for subsequent refs as well as dealing with the inevitable verifiability fundamentalists demanding a footnote for every sentence should this article ever go up for FAC. Keep the much-appreciated criticism coming or lets wrap this thing up so I can get back to History of Northwestern University (end shameless self-promotion :). Madcoverboy (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've now cut the critical material from the history section: it doesn't need to be discussed twice. I've made quite a few other changes. Please check them to see if they make sense. One brief sentence about controversy/criticism in the lead would probably be a good idea for balance, but other than that, I'm ready to support keeping this article at long last. Geometry guy 19:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh one more thing: the MIT logo in the infobox needs a fair use rationale. Geometry guy 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. —Giggy 00:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not done: the problem image is Image:MIT_logo.svg, not the seal, which had a rationale already. Geometry guy 08:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay now done, thanks! :-) I think I've justified the use of an SVG, and maybe examples like this will help to refine policy on the use of SVG logos. Geometry guy 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, I just started reviewing some of the references and I noticed Reference 212, 216, and 217 are the same (possibly more). Might want to just give it a ref name and just refer to the same one three times instead.  I'll have other comments probably later on.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  04:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Madcoverboy (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as GA. I believe this discussion can be closed: as far as I can see all issues have been addressed and the article is well on its way to FA quality. Many thanks to Madcoverboy for appreciating that even a minor Boston tech college deserves a good Wikipedia article :-) Geometry guy 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as GA Just in case it wasn't obvious before :) Madcoverboy (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)