Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2

Georgia Tech Research Institute
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional input before nominating the article at FAC. The last peer review was certainly helpful, but I'd like a few more eyes. Thanks! Disavian (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review
 * Have you requested a review of it at WikiProject Universities? This can admittedly take some time to get a response... I'm waiting for one myself. You may also wish to inquire at the main Georgia Tech article's Talk page, unless you've already done so. Allens (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You should also check the report from Checklinks (external links checker, in the toolbox), and revise the couple of inaccessible-from-outside links that it found (check them out from a computer not at GT...) Allens (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, there is that one link about Gerald Rosselot. I need to just switch that to an archive.org link like I did for James E. Boyd (scientist), it's (presumably) down no matter where you're connecting from. Disavian (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the reminder. Disavian (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite welcome; that's what this process is for... Allens (talk)
 * Further comments:
 * There are currently some citations from the lead - IIRC, that is generally discouraged by the University style guide; everything in the lead should be a summary of what's already in the rest of the article, which is where the citations should be.
 * I've actually had this go both ways at FAC; in 2007, they wanted the refs entirely out of the lead, and in 2010, they wanted them in the lead. It's not particularly defined policy, to be sure. Disavian (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have there been any controversies about research that's done? On cyberwarfare and other sorts of warfare, or on "national security", for instance, particularly with regard to anything classified or otherwise limited in publication? I'm thinking of the missile R&D as a probable example of classified research. These should be discussed, if any criticism has happened. If there are any limited-publication materials, how is this handled for tenure purposes (are they counted as peer-reviewed publications or not), including for GT professors?
 * There is a story I've seen about how a GTRI group confirmed a study on cold fusion but retracted it the next day. See cold fusion. I'm fairly certain that was controversial and would be a good addition to the history section. That's the only controversy I've come across in the sources I've seen, though; GTRI wasn't subject to the same protest activity that its peers (such as SRI International) experienced. Disavian (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly, have there been any controversies over the patent income - is some of it supposed to go back to whatever professor/department/whatever generated the revenue, or is there/has there been a push to have this take place?
 * To my knowledge, patent income has not been a significant contributor to their finances. I haven't found any stories about controversies. Disavian (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are faculty at GTRI tenured? Could a graduate student do dissertation/thesis research at GTRI, ideally with a GTRI faculty member as advisor?
 * I had actually not considered that. I looked it up and found an answer here: "Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is in GTRI or a Center." That fact could probably go into the article somewhere. Disavian (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Allens (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had actually not considered that. I looked it up and found an answer here: "Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is in GTRI or a Center." That fact could probably go into the article somewhere. Disavian (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Allens (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)