Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas State University–San Marcos/archive2

Texas State University–San Marcos
This peer review discussion has been closed. Late last year this article was nominated for GA by an uninvolved editor. GA was declined but resulted in good feedback making me wonder if GA is a real possibility for the article. I finished going through the article performing a major rewrite of pretty much the entire article a couple months back. I'd like to get a pair of experienced eyes (or more) to look at it and see what improvements need to be done in hope of moving towards another shot at a GA nomination in the future. (Note: this was put up for peer review a month or so ago, but was kicked off the list due to the backlog.)
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, --TreyGeek (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do this. --16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Noleander
 * Clarify: "is an emerging research university ..." - What does "emerging" mean in this context? Recommend omit the word "emerging" from the lead and instead mention "emerging" and elaborate on it down in the article body.
 * Fixed "is a state university ..." - I wasn't wild when emerging was added to the into. It is already explained in the research section, but I've modified the lead to be more in line with other university articles.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Trim: "state to have a former President of the United States ... " - No need for word "former" here.
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead balance: The lead has an entire paragraph on LBJ: "Texas State University is the only university in the state to have a former President of the United States as an alumnus. President Lyndon B. Johnson graduated from what was then Southwest Texas State Teachers College in 1930 with a teaching certificate and a Bachelor of Science in history. In 1965, he returned to Southwest Texas State College, as the school was known then, to sign the Higher Education Act of 1965."  - That seems excessive.  The lead is supposed to represent the entire article, proportionately.  Consider cutting LBJ material in lead in half, and adding more info from body (summarize) into lead, so the lead reflects the entire article's contents.
 * Done: (for now) I put one sentence about LBJ at the end of the first paragraph and removed the third paragraphed focused on him. I'll see if I can find things from the article to summarize as a third paragraph and move the sentence back.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bold? - In History section: "The Southwest Texas State Normal School was proposed in a March 3, 1899" - Check the MOS on this. I think bold is only supposed to be used in the Lead section for alternate names.
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bold? - Ditto for " the school officially became known at Texas State University–San Marcos."
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wording: " The Quad is considered to be the heart of campus as it is surrounded by the majority of the academic buildings .." - Remove "is considered".  Also, "as it is .." is not appropriate.  Try "... campus because it is centrally located amidst several important academic buildings" or similar.
 * Done Reworded. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes? - " a 17-foot high aluminum sculpture of two horses, called the "Fighting Stallions." - Check MOS:QUOTES .. I think quotes should not be used here around a proper name.
 * Fixed Should have been italics since it is the name of artwork. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes? - Ditto for "Built in 1903 and originally called the "Main Building", Old Main .."
 * Fixed Unbolded. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Capitals? - "ed its first official mascot, the Bobcat, at ..." - Should Bobcat be lower case?
 * Fixed I as always unsure about that, I suppose since the mascots name isn't "Bobcat" it should be lower. Use of "Boko the Bobcat" would be capitalized.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge footnotes: "ge have consistently been given Fulbright Scholar grants[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] " - Too many footnotes. Collapse into one following guidance at WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * Fixed It never occurred to me to use one pair of tags and use multiple templates inside them.  Thanks for the suggestion.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wording: "The previous rivalry was with Nicholls State and began in 1998. " - Doesnt seem right.  The rivalry is still in progress, correct?  Rewrite entire sentence, maybe "A rivalry with Nicholls State began ...".  Also, consider moving NS text up above the more recent rivalry, so things are in chronological order.
 * Done The Nicholls State rivalry is over now that TxState is moving to a new conference. Besides moving Nicholls up to the first paragraph, I've started it so that the current situation is clearer.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bold: In the Colleges section there is a box listing a dozen colleges, using boldface.  I'm pretty sure the MOS discourages bold in that situation.
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes: No quote marks needed: "  Trauth created the "Athletic Strategic Planning Committee" with ..."
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No quotes: "The University called its efforts "The Drive to FBS.""
 * Fixed --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a smattering of quotation marks throughout the Athletics section ("Name the Bobcat" contest, "I-35 Rivalry", "Battle for the Battle"). They should probably be removed as well, eh?  (I'll blame my middle-school English teachers for not knowing the difference. ;)  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, those other quotes should also be removed. I, like you, tend to use quote marks a lot in my own personal writing; but I have to suppress that tendency in WP articles.  In WP articles about the only things that go inside quote marks are direct quotations of individuals. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done Thanks again for your help. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the requestor is only concerned about GA status (vs FA), I'll stop here. The article is in decent shape, and if the above items are fixed, I'm sure it will pass GAC next time with no problems.
 * Thanks for the comments. It fixed a few things I was unsure about and others I glossed over in my various readings.  I'd like to try and get one or two articles to GA before I think about FA.  One step at a time.  --TreyGeek (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)