Wikipedia:Peer review/Louisiana Tech University/archive1

Louisiana Tech University
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been extensively revised and reworked over the past few weeks and months. The number of references has increased from 18 to about 90 since the revisions started, and each major heading has been heavily revised to include information on numerous topics related to Louisiana Tech University.

I need the article reviewed to identify and correct any deficiencies with the content, spelling, and grammar. The article is rated as Start-Class, and I am working with a few other people to turn the article on Louisiana Tech into a featured article. This is the first step of our process to review and improve upon our work on this article so far.

Thanks for your work and any comments on the article, Arkansas3544 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work to improve this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs on univeristies at Category:FA-Class Universities articles, which seem like they would be useful model articles.
 * The toolbox on this PR page finds one dab link which needs to be fixed.
 * I am not sure that the lead follows WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - however the space grant is only in the lead and infobox (did not check everything in the lead)
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything about Traditions or University presidents or notable alumni in the lead (to name a few).
 * Biggest problem I see with this article is a lack of references. For examp;le the last three paragraphs of the "Establishment of the Industrial Institute and College of Louisiana" section have no refs and all need at least one.
 * ANy time there is a reference in a paragraph with one or more unreferenced sentences after, those sentences need at least one ref too - one exampole (from the same section) The act established "The Industrial Institute and College of Louisiana", a first class industrial institute created to provide education in the arts and sciences. Control of the school was entrusted to a board of trustees, which elected Colonel Arthur T. Prescott of Baton Rouge as the first president of the college.
 * My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs at least one ref.
 * Many of the existing refs are incomplete. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Make sure that refs follow WP:RS - what makes campusgrotto.com a reliable source (why not link to Kiplinger's directly)?
 * Articles are also supposed to use independent third-party sources wherever possible - this article depends pretty heavily on LA Tech sources (some are OK, but try to use as little as possible)
 * The current state of references would be enough to result in a quick fail for the article if it were at WP:GAN (and FAC is even more stringent)
 * Avoid vague time terms like "currently" as these can become out of date quickly Currently Louisiana Tech sponsors men's intercollegiate baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, indoor track and outdoor track along with women's intercollegiate basketball, bowling, indoor track, outdoor track, volleyball, soccer, softball and tennis. Use things like "As of 2011..." instead
 * Article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that break up the narrative flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded wherever possible.
 * Make sure section headers follow WP:HEAD - usually section headers on Wikipedia are more concise (telegraphic)
 * I would spread the images through the article and not just put them in galleries. See some model FAs for ideas.
 * SOme of the images are problematic. File:Techxx.JPG is almost certainly a copyvio.
 * SInce the Lady of the Mist was created after 1923, it is probably still under copyright, so photos of it have to be WP:FAIR USE. So File:Revised Lady of the Mist at LA Tech IMG 3767.JPG needs its license changed and has to have a fair use rationale.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! :) AllisonFoley (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)