Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tech Tower

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 promoted 02:07, 1 June 2007.

Tech Tower

[edit]

Self-nom This is an article about Georgia Tech's oldest building and administrative center. It has the appropriate references, pictures, and a fair use rationale for the one non-free image, and I belive it meets all of the requirements for a FA. The article passed GAC in February and was peer reviewed on May 7. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was a substantial contributor to this article so I may be biased. MaxVeers 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Interesting article, well-cited, but the prose could be further copyedited:
    1. "Tech Tower was completed in 1888 for a cost of $43,250..." - per WP:$, the link would be more easily readable if written as US$43,250;
    2. "In addition, the deans of the College of Engineering and College of Sciences maintain office space in Tech Tower.[11][12]" - replace "maintain office space" with "have offices".
    3. "A number of times, students have orchestrated complex plans to steal the huge, symbolic letter 'T' on the Tech Tower's TECH signs, sometimes called climbing." - replace "have orchestrated complex plans to steal" with "have stolen" - just the fact they've stolen the letter is significant enough. Also, who calls it "climbing"? I do think that that tidbit can safely be omitted.
    4. "creating a source of confusion for visitors and new students.[20]" - "a source of" is redundant, just simplify to "creating confusion for...."
    5. "this has not actually happened in practice" - "actually" is redundant with "in practice", remove either one.
    6. The sole entry in See also is already linked within the main text, so the section should be removed.
    That's all I have to say. After these slight changes the article should be worth the star. Resurgent insurgent 10:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all of those changes, except that I'm not sure exactly who calls it "climbing"; however, I did find it called "climbing" in an issue of the school's student-run newspaper, The Technique. Perhaps MaxVeers will be able to resolve that one. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if we keep the "climbing" mention the sentence will have to be reworded - right now it's quite awkward and a way to fix it eludes me. I added an extra "the" for consistency. Resurgent insurgent 14:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the "climbing" mention wouldn't bother me; I agree that as it is, the wording in that sentence is a little awkward. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's gone. Resurgent insurgent 15:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed all of that, but as I never quite understood the dates policy, I'm not quite sure. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thay all look to be fixed now (by the way, for the future, you should know not to strike someone else's comments, rather wait for them to come back and strike. I usually get very hot and bothered when someone strikes my comments :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Will do :-) Perhaps {{done}} or {{tick}} would have been better? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article flow, appropriate use of pictures, cites, and links. Mbisanz 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment I was a peer reviewer for this article; it's very close, but the one remaining issue I have is the lack of citations for some paragraphs (it should be obvious which; essentially any that do not sport a trailing footnote). Once addressed I will be happy to support. - Merzbow 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, to the best of my ability. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support. - Merzbow 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Looks ok, but I still think the first image is way too big. I know that most articles let the first image be larger than the others, but this one is huge compared to others. I recommend shrinking it a bit (say to 200 pixels or smaller). — BQZip01 — talk 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several REALLY short paragraphs (some one sentence long). Combine/consolidate.  Done
  • Images must have first been published before 1923 to avoid copyright laws in their usage, not just taken. Please specify when & where such photos were first published.  Done
  • "the famous TECH signs" Until reading this article, I'd never heard of the signs. How famous are they exactly? How about rephrasing?
  • Too many commas (inappropriate overuse example: In "Tech Tower underwent extensive renovations in 1965, with a focus on remodeling the building's interior layout." the comma is not necessary).  Done
  • Very well documented, but make sure that all dates within them are wikilinked (the templates don't take care of everything).  Done
  • Remove dead/nonexistent wikilink to "Edwin D. Harrison"  Done
  • Claim that the east T should be stolen first doesn't seem to be backed up in the given references.  Done

I'll admit this review is not complete, but should give you a start on things to fix. — BQZip01 — talk 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that when linking dates in refs, only complete dates (yyyy-mm-dd) are to be linked, as opposed to (unlinked dates) "Winter 2003" or "1888"? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This will allow wikipedia to display such dates as defined by the user. See WP:DATE for more info. — BQZip01 — talk 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In order to compensate for the short length of the sentence about Teddy visiting Tech Tower, I tossed in a quote. Does it help the article, or should it be taken out? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it helps the article much since it doesn't reflect on the tower at all, only the students. — BQZip01 — talk 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think we can handle having one moderate-sized paragraph... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found a publication date in the archives for the picture. As for your last suggestion about the 'T' on the east side, tbook and the ramblin' wreck club are the school's "keepers of tradition," and note that the Downtown Connector aka I-75/I-85 is east of Tech Tower, as implied in the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tech_Tower&oldid=1138472658"