Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2022 [1].

Texas A&M University[edit]

Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the school and has been a FA before. After going through FARC, those demoting it suggested bringing it here (which seems bizarre, but here I am)... Buffs (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Buffs (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

As a general response: most of the specific issues listed below are samples only of a category of problem, not a comprehensive list. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability. The following are samples of claims not supported by the given citations: "Approximately half of the residence halls located on Southside are reserved for members of the Corps of Cadets", "Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges. As of 2019, the school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is the largest uniformed student body outside the service academies", "require band members to step between each other's feet to complete the maneuvers", "six-tiered structure"
    • "Approximately half of the residence halls located on Southside are reserved for members of the Corps of Cadets"
      Updated sourcing. There are currently 24 residence halls, 12 are for the Corps of Cadets (you can select from the drop-down). I think a previous reference was deleted. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges."
      Specific source updated. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As of 2019, the school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is the largest uniformed student body outside the service academies"
      Sources added. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "require band members to step between each other's feet to complete the maneuvers"
      Additional source appears to have been deleted as a video link where this is clearly self-evident. Re-added + the official marching handbook that spells this out. Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "six-tiered structure"
      This is self evident from a previous source and image which clearly shows a six tiered structure. That image has since been replaced and, while visible in the image presented to illustrate Bonfire, you have to look very carefully. Added additional reference to support "six tiers" Buffs (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraordinary claims should be cited to reliable independent sources rather than the university or its affiliates. Examples include "world's largest precision military marching band", "oldest student-run organization in the state", and "largest one-day student-run service project in America". Generally the article relies heavily on non-independent sources.
    This is a governmental organization. By definition, it creates its own sourcing and is appropriate in general context. Extraordinary claims are properly sourced, but we can certainly add more if you'd like. Addressing specific examples you cite:
    I'm not objecting to all citations. Sourcing for example student body size to the university itself is absolutely fine. But the article at present goes well beyond that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "world's largest precision military marching band"
      updated to "nation's largest precision military marching band" with additional sourcing. Buffs (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "oldest student-run organization in the state"
      Rephrased to "one of the oldest student-run organizations in the state" + source Buffs (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "largest one-day student-run service project in America"
      Added source Buffs (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A&M has one of the largest and most active alumni groups in America" is a claim that ought to have in-text attribution, but it's attributed at the source to an unnamed website.
    I don't agree with the statement that it should have in-text attribution. A reliable, independent local paper published it. Either they are reliable or they are not. Buffs (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) It would need in-text attribution regardless of source, but (2) the local paper has made it clear that it's not their claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrasing. The following are examples of phrases that are very closely paraphrased and should either be presented as direct quotes or reworked: "the sun will never rise on that Aggie again" and "largest one-day student-run service project in America"
    Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing states "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing". I can rephrase or quote them, but there is certainly a limited number of ways to phrase both of those. No one is claiming they are original words.
    "Sun rise" is common phrasing when describing Silver Taps [2] Buffs (talk)[3] [4]
    describing Big Event, it's similar phrasing in most descriptions as well, even at other schools: [5] [6] [7] Buffs (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. Sample problems include "92% percent", "the football team's is led", "Current Congressmen Louie Gohmert", "include nine Nobel Prize laureates including", etc
    Fixed the specifically noted prose. Is there anything else that jumps out at you? Buffs (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style. There are many repeated wikilinks, eg Texas Legislature twice in the first section. Adjectival phrases should be hyphenated, eg "a $200 million campus" -> "$a 200-million campus". Emdashes should not be spaced. Some captions are unclear - for example, what is "gig 'em"? etc
    The only em dashes I see are from direct quotes/headlines. What am I missing? Are you suggesting making corrections to them? Buffs (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the case that these exist only in direct quotes/headlines, but see MOS:CONFORM. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to be cryptic. 140,000+ characters = hard to pick out when looking at source code. Replaced with more common punctuation. unable to find any more. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed repeated wikilinks. I don't see any others specifically. Buffs (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added wikilink for "gig 'em" Buffs (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citation formatting. There is a mix of handwritten citations, citations using {{citation}}, and CS1 templates like {{cite web}}. There are inconsistencies in what information is provided in citations - for example some books include publication locations while others don't. Some citations are incomplete, eg FN287. etc
    Citations are not required to use 100% of the same formatting. Buffs (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consistent citation formatting is a requirement of WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fixed" the one reference that had {{citation}} vs {{cite web}}...seems like they are all part of the same family of citation templates given that they all use the same criteria. In fact, "the various citation templates below may be freely mixed, since they all produce a similar format." That is consistent, which clearly seems to be the intent given the contentious nature of citation templates. If you want to be ultra pedantic in the same manner, you could go around demanding that all capitalization of the templates and the order of information included needs to be the same, but I think that too is unreasonable. You could say that all citations have to have names or citations cannot have caps because the first one didn't or any of a thousand other minutia that are irrelevant... What is reasonable is ensuring that the citations appear in the same basic format to the reader. Fixed anyway. Buffs (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the handwritten citations, they've been fixed. Buffs (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find FN287 nor do I know what it refers Buffs (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnote 287 - given the changes, now 291. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed. Buffs (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you prefer the location or not? Buffs (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't matter, it's an optional field. Just need to make a choice and stick with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All locations removed, but I don't personally think that is an improvement. Buffs (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source reliability. What makes the following high-quality reliable sources? Largest.org, Tomahawk Nation, GenomeWeb, mcubed.net, biography.com
    First two I have clearly stated my position on and I believe you are well aware of it. The rest addressed below:
    I'm aware you believe all of these are accurate. That's not the standard we're looking for - a Wikipedia article may be accurate but that doesn't make it an appropriate source. The requirement for FA is "high-quality reliable source". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: The standard is "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". All of these meet those criteria. Why don't you state why the claims are not verifiable, what specifically makes these not high-quality reliable sources, and/or what your recommended solution is based on the options I've clearly provided. This seems to be the only sticking point remaining. Buffs (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largest.org is not listed as an unreliable website anywhere in Wikipedia. Merely claiming the source has "an issue with reliability" doesn't make it unreliable. I contend the information is accurate and open it up to proving it wrong. This information appears to be accurate. Multiple other sources corroborate the top schools [8] [9] [10] [11]. That it isn't from some mainstream publication like CNN doesn't mean it's wrong. It is not even a piece of contentious information in the slightest (if it is, please explain how). If this explanation isn't to your satisfaction, just remove it if that's a major sticking point for you. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tomahawk Nation is a subsidiary of Vox Media and has has appropriate editorial standards. The only thing it cites is when Jimbo Fisher moved to Texas A&M. To be blunt, this is a completely uncontroversial fact. It shouldn't really even need a source. NO ONE disputes it, but one was provided for an inane, noncontroversial fact from a site about the school that had him as a coach (the last entity you'd expect to support such a statement if it was false). If you don't like that source and want another one, feel free to take your pick: [12] and just tell me what you want instead. I'll be happy to replace it. Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • GenomeWeb appears to be a viable independent news agency with no specific reason to distrust it (though I may indeed be wrong). What's wrong with this source? How is it used inappropriately in this article? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • mcubed.net is nothing more than a database of basic season data. It's no different from the data you'd find on [13]. Again, it's uncontentious, simple facts that are available from scores of sites. You want me to replace it with the NCAA website? No problem (but realize that's going to be 40+ citations to get what you want because the NCAA doesn't split them out on their website). Is this really necessary? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • biography.com is listed as a source of frequent debate, but there is nothing concrete that states it is not a reliable source. What facts does it cite in this article that even the least bit contentious or inaccurate? Buffs (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if you point out what makes a source a "high-quality reliable source" in your eyes. I see no such definition. Buffs (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. Some of the details in image captions don't appear to be cited, eg "Chemistry Plaza, constructed in 1930 with multiple renovations through from 1965 to 2005". Several images have source links which are dead, eg File:Texas_A%26M_University_wordmark.svg. File:TexasA%26MCampus_1902.jpg: when and where was this first published? etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed/replaced Chemistry Plaza image. This info was asked for in the FARC...I see no reason to include such photos, no matter how aesthetic, if they are going to be be a problem like this...more is the pity... Buffs (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're free to remove it if you like, but this problem doesn't require doing so - just citing the information. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Already did. Not worth the effort. Buffs (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1902 photo came directly from the Cushing library and was listed as author unknown with no known date of first publication listed > 120 years after creation. Accordingly it is the public domain. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Publication date not listed doesn't automatically equate to PD. What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never stated that a lack of a publication date automatically equates to PD. 1902 is the key figure here for the date taken + no indication of a published date = PD in this case, not all cases where a photo doesn't have publication indications. I included a wikilink for a reason.
    As for the wordmark, obviously they updated the link (I have too), but even on the error page it was rather prominently displayed at the bottom. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation format needs to be standardized. There is an over reliance on T A&M published sources. Some of the web sources (i.g. largest) are not high quality RSes. I am going to oppose based on the size of the sourcing concerns --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) The citation format needs to be standardized. There is an over reliance on T A&M published sources. Some of the web sources (i.g. largest) are not high quality RSes. I am going to oppose based on the size of the sourcing concerns --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) (EC)[reply]

  • @Guerillero: Where is the citation format not standardized? Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatives for sourced material are listed above. Please indicate your preference and I'll be happy to replace (likewise, what is your definition of a high quality RS?). Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are any contentious claims that are sourced to the University, but this is a common problem when writing about any governmental entity: they are the source for their own data (such as the number of students they have). If that's a show-stopper for you, I can look at alternative sources to bolster those claims. Buffs (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

It is clear that this article is not yet ready for FAC, so I am going to archive it. The usual two week pause will apply before further nominations. While acknowledging the large amount of good work already done, can I draw the nominator's attention to the statement at the head of the FAC page: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Clear" to whom? I see 5 sources that are under dispute and I've asked for clarification...that's it.
  2. The comment "The citation format needs to be standardized." seems to be without merit. I have gone through and literally checked each and every source. I've also asked for clarification of the other remarks and a willingness to alter each/every one
  3. can I draw the nominator's attention to the statement at the head of the FAC page: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". This is my fourth nomination and my first unsuccessful one.
@Gog the Mild: I do not see the consensus you seem to allege exists. Likewise, this was requested to be sent here after FARC to get community input. Shutting such discussion down after <2 days seems absurd/premature. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Texas_A%26M_University/archive1&oldid=1065324628"