Wikipedia:Peer review/The Technique/archive2

The Technique

I've been developing this article for a long time, and would like some advice on how I can further improve it. See also: first peer review on this article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse

• References other than the Technique itself would seem absolutely necessary, just to prove notability if nothing else. They will also give you a hint how much space to devote to each subtopic.
• The first ref, just to http://nique.net/ is dangerous - what if they change their "liveliest newspaper" line to something else? I'd link to a specific issue, ideally the first time that was used. Clearly the 1911 issue didn't have it.  Done
• Cite the "citation needed"s  Done
• The Section titles probably don't need wikilinks; for example the Opinion article doesn't really describe the newspaper's Opinions section  Done
• "Possibly the most well-known" - WP:WEASEL  Done
• "Common lore states" - darn, so close to getting a West Dakota Prize! :-)
• Hasn't it ever broken any stories? Been involved in any controversies? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ooh, good points. I'll have to think about some of these. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There aren't many mentions of the Technique outside of Georgia Tech and college newspaper-related pages. There was a recent bit of news when the 'Nique decided to not publish a fringe group's inflammatory advertisement, but it wouldn't be news if Frontpage Mag.com didn't have an agenda to push.
  • The online archives only go back to 1995, and there aren't any resources (other than offline archives) that have the answer to that; so, I just said that they did it since at least 1995 (for now). I might have a look in the archives to figure that one out.
  • I happened upon a better-quality copy of the first issue of the Technique today, something I'd been looking for since I started editing this article. So, I've nailed one of them. However, the sources I have that mention the merger incorrectly cite the newspapers that merge as the Yellow Jacket and the Technique; That's not possible, because (from what I've learned) the campus newspaper at the time was The Georgia Tech, and the Yellow Jacket was sort of a humor magazine. So, I'm not sure I'll be able to fill that ref until I do some deeper digging.
  • Removed the wikilinks on the section titles. That one was fun and easy :)
  • Removed "possibly," sounds 100x less WEASEL-ish.
  • As for "common lore states," Well, it's cited in a few places that ANAK founded the Technique, but it's not very verifiable at the moment. Before 1967, ANAK wasn't a secret society, so there might be some resources that confirm or deny this. Also, now that I have that first issue, I'll be able to cross-reference the editor list with the publicly available ANAK member list and give some credence to the claim.
  • See above with the bit about the ad that was denied. While it happened, I'm not sure the event was encyclopedic, given the consistent POV-pushing of those organizations. Unfortunately, not much else is known about the Technique's history than what's on the article right now. I wish it was otherwise.

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• After further research, I discovered a past controversy and wrote it up into the article. Given the paper's long history, I'm sure there are more. That's just the one that I've found. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)