Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: keep As per comments by nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of MIT lists numerous inaccuracies in subjects about the university, including exaggerated research claims, many unsourced claims that are skeptical, and others. Just look at the Talk Page, how many conflicts are there! I just think that this article is not a good Social Science article. Does anybody agree with me?--DSbanker (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in decent shape, compared to other articles about universities, although there's always room for improvement. The article has been reasonably well policed for undocumented boosterism, compared to Caltech, for example. Some of the info is a bit outdated, and some is quite current; a top-to-bottom review for currency would be useful.

Please don't be misled by the past controversies on the Talk page. Check the dates, and you'll see that most of them have been resolved some time ago. Again, a comparison to the Talk pages for other university articles is instructive. Reify-tech (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a reassessment, please list specific concerns here. Vague assertions of inaccuracy are not sufficient for GAR. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that most of the issues on the article's talk page have been resolved, so I'll retract my request for a GAR. --DSbanker (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.