Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Georgia Tech/archive1

History of Georgia Tech
This article seems fairly far on the road to FA status, and has been a GA since Feb 2007. Are there any things you think need improvement before I nominate it at FAC? Thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Review by Karanacs
Karanacs 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the lead needs work. Instead of talking about "obvious divisions in the timeline," mention a few key events. ✅
 * remove red links ✅
 * make sure that all measurements have both standard and metric conversions (acres too)
 * don't wikilink single year dates (1888) ✅
 * last sentence of early years first paragraph - should "contact shop" be "contract shop?" ✅
 * If The Georgia Tech was the second publication, what was the first? ✅
 * the textile engineering school was "in the south" of what? The south portion of campus?  The south portion of the city? ✅
 * In early years section, work on removing excess verbiage -- no need to repeat name of A French building, and several sentences throughout could be reworded to be slightly more clear and shorter. ✅
 * big gap after Trade School section header; please restart
 * I think the "See Also: History of Georgia State University" should either be in a See Also section, or be removed. ✅
 * Remove See also: Toubon Law and The Georgia Tech Lorraine case. (can link to Georgia Tech Lorraine case from word "sued." Toubon Law is already wikilinked) ✅
 * You have several one or two sentence paragraphs. Please try to either merge these with other paragraphs or flesh them out. ✅
 * Why are the Olympics listed in two different sections? Please undo the second wikilink for them. ✅
 * Please remove external links from the body of the text (Hinman Building, Machine Services Department) ✅
 * Technological university section doesn't flow between paragraphs. I was confused as to why it was suddenly talking about the Southern Technical Insitute, and I thought women were allowed to enroll in the early 1900s ✅
 * Please remove red links ✅
 * John Patrick Crecine is linked twice. Please link only the first occurrence of his name ✅
 * Prose issues
 * "it started out with" ✅
 * "Interestingly, that game was not the first time Tech had played against a desegregated opponent" (remove Interestingly, and see if you can integrate this sentence into the other text) ✅
 * "from playing against" ✅
 * " to see firsthand how technology schools worked" - There's something about this sentence I don't like, but I'm not sure what
 * "was a firm believer " -> "believed" ✅
 * All citations need a publisher listed.
 * You're pretty good at this, thanks for taking your time :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't know what the first publication was. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "big gap after Trade School section header," are you speaking in terms of "you're missing some years" or is there physically a layout problem? And about the women- they were briefly allowed to enroll in the School of Commerce, but they weren't able to enroll in engineering programs until the 1950s and 1960s. I tried to clarify that a bit. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was talking about formatting with the big gap (sorry I wasn't more clear). I like the new lead -- it is a lot more informative.  Overall, you've done a great job with the wording changes and the additions.  You might consider moving some of your mid-sentence citations to the end of the sentence.  Some FA reviewers really hate mid-sentence citations (others don't care - depends on who you get). Good luck! Karanacs 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the lead could be a bit longer, but I'm glad you like it. Is the "big gap" still there? I don't see it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just from a brief read of the article. Looks like good work. - Running On  Brains  02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My very minor suggestions:
 * "Patrick Hues Mell, the president of the University of Georgia at that time, believed that it should be located at Athens with the University's main campus, like the Agricultural and Mechanical School. Despite Mell's arguments, the new school was to be located in Atlanta, Georgia." I feel like this could be worded better.
 * The top of the "Early years" section is a bit cluttered
 * Are the notes about which administrations each section covers necessary?
 * "The two buildings were equal in size to show the importance of teaching both the mind and the hands;[5] " I believe citations should be at the end of sentences. There are multiple other instances where this occurs.