Wikipedia:Peer review/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/archive3

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…there will be a FAC prepared for this article in the near future, and the peer review process can be used for collaboration. Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review

I have prepared these thoughts as I have read through the article.
 * GrapedApe's review
 * File:George Eastman plaque.jpg - when was that plaque created? Might be derivative works problems with it.
 * Update: it looks like there is a (c)1932 in the bottom right corner, so PD-no notice doesn't work here. Who was the sculptor, so we can check to see whether PD-not renewed might apply?
 * File:SonsOfMIT.ogg might be problematic. I have raised a question at Media_copyright_questions.
 * There are some serious problems with that file's copyright status. I have (reluctantly_ listed it at Possibly unfree files/2010 October 4.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now, the lead is problematic. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Are there any major points in the article that aren't covered in the lead?  Are there any items in the lead that aren't in the nmain body. Finally, there really shouldn't be a need for references in the lead, since any fact there would be sourced in the main article.  I would suggest that the lead is something that ought to be done last, to avoid missing any changes in the article.
 * The quote box around "Act to Incorporate the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Acts of 1861" is covering up lots of text in the "Because open conflict..." paragraph in my browser (firefox).
 * I'm concerned that File:MIT McDermott Court.jpg might be an impermissible derivative work of that statue. Consider getting an FUR for it. I can help with that.  Same for File:MIT Barker Libary.JPG.
 * The brass rat image File:Brass Rat 2007 Finger.jpg has the opposite problem: it has an FUR, but the copyright of the photograph itself is questionable.
 * Consider grouping the navboxes at the bottom in a "Links to related articles" dropdown. (see W&J for an example that I did)
 * Move the University portal tag to the "See also" section
 * In the infobox, there is the "Nobel Laureates" section. I'm not sure whether that's alumni, faculty, or both.
 * In the infobox, under "(except for Rowing)"-- reading that I'm curious what division rowing is in.
 * In Foundation and early years, link Massachusetts State Legislature
 * The quote "to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes." should be referenced, even though I presume that its a quote from the Morrill Act.
 * "handsome new neoclassical campus" might be a bit POV. A source for an architect calling it handsome?
 * When was the name changed from Boston Tech to MIT? Not clear to me.
 * Clarify that Office of Scientific Research and Development is a federal agency, not an intra-university department.
 * Was the Radiation Laboratory part of the OSRD funding? Same for the Instrumentation Laboratory and other projects in that paragraph.
 * I'd like to see a ref on the "While the school mainly served the needs..." sentence.
 * In "Recent history" the word President is capitalized, but it isn't in earlier paragraphs
 * The phrase "the past quarter century" should be amended to make it clear that it is referring to 1975-2000. In a few years, that phrase might not be so intuitive.
 * Under "Organization and administration," do you think its worth noting that the chairman, John S. Reed, is an alumnus? (Also an alumnus of W&J, FWIW).
 * Are the "three elected officers" chosen from among the members, or are they elected separately?
 * I'm uncomfortable with the quote "a university polarized...". First, what does polarized mean here? Are those departments antagonistic towards each other? Are they very independnet of each other? Second, I'm not sure its a good idea to start a paragraph with a quote,even if its a quote from an administrator.  Here's an idea: start the paragraph with the list of schools, then expand on the "polarization" between the departments.
 * There are a few initals that aren't used elsewhere in the article: MISTI, MITIMCo, GIRs, Z-Center
 * Just as an overall style point, a lot of paragraphs begin with "MIT...". It would be nice to vary that a bit.
 * In the Campus section, there is a reference to "Maclaurin buildings" but that term isn't explained until later in the section.
 * Any more up to date crime stats?
 * Under "Architecture," I'm not sure what "progressive" means. Is that like futuristic? Or just interesting buildings?
 * Under Architecture, there is a reference to MIT as the "Institute," but I don't think such a nickname was used earlier in the article. Perhaps change that to "MIT"
 * Under Housing, I wouldn't start a sentence with a number, s in "50% of." Spell it out?
 * How did Scott Krueger die? Was it a result of the frat's actions?
 * Under Housing, what kind of countercultural activities? The aforementioned protests over defense work?
 * Shouldn't "Class of 2006" be lowercase?
 * Under Students, "97% of the ..." "61% of students ..." consider writing out these number
 * Any more info on the tuition riots? How is that tongue in cheek?
 * I see now how Scott Kreuger died. Consider adding a short note or clause at the first reference to him. Also, might his death be notable enough for a separate article?
 * I'm not really sure what the "These and later cases were significant...loco parentis" sentence means. Did MIT deny that responsibility before these reforms?  Did the families of the deceased use these reforms to show that MIT was at fault in the deaths?