Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Texas A&M University/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Texas A&M University
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

Texas A&M University edit

Nominator(s): Buffs (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Texas A&M University and has sought extensive feedback through previous FACs/FARC. Feedback and mentorship has been requested from literally every FA mentor listed (in most cases to no avail). While I still contend that previous discussions were prematurely closed, I still jumped through all the hoops as requested and have requested clarification (again, to no avail) from both objectors and the closing clerk. Lastly, I feel that there are some demands that have inappropriately been requested in previous FAs with no clarification given despite numerous requests; clarification/outside opinions on those matters would be appreciated.

I respectfully contend that Nick-D's opinion below be discounted as he apparently feels that the subject is not worthy of FA: "it's focused on the experiences of only white able bodied men who live on campus at this university". To the contrary, the student body was largely male, white, and on-campus for over two thirds of its current history. By definition, 2/3 of the history will contain that. If such an objection is allowed to stand, it is a slap in the face of history as a whole. We are literally more concerned with repressing facts over boosting information about minorities and women (which smacks of a political agenda). Furthermore, I've responded to a litany of his requested changes; the vast majority resulted in minor changes to the article and some resulted in questions that were almost universally unanswered. It is impossible to address such vague objections without further clarification.

Other discussions not mentioned above

Oppose edit

My comments in the most recent FAC do not seem to have been addressed. For instance, the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!) and the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration. As a spot check, the statement that "The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor" is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the article still doesn't discuss the integration of women and minority students (though room could be found for a a full para on the women's basketball team!)"
    Based on this feedback, I've added two more sentences in the history section explaining the integration of women/minorities in the 70s (the whole 140 year history is summarized into ~60 sentences). Given the overall impact, I think that, in addition to the other half dozen sentences in the history section, 10% of the history section is appropriately balanced good and bad.
    Yes, the women's basketball team (which, perplexingly, is part of the "discuss the integration of women..." you asked for above...I mean, I'm really confused here.) has enjoyed a long string of major success. As such, 4 sentences outlining 30+ years in the athletics section is appropriate. I'm not sure what you want. Less on the Basketball team? More?
  • "the para on the statue continues to use evasive language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    I've repeatedly asked you what "evasive language" you are alleging and you have yet to clarify in 9+ months. The paragraph summarizes this situation in 3 sentences:
    1. the climate under which there was controversy
    2. the official university position prior
    3. the protests, counterprotests, and the ultimate decision by the university
    I'm very hard pressed to see what else you'd like to see added/changed. It isn't "administration heavy" by any stretch of the imagination. An informal student senate survey (which most everyone acknowledged was statistically questionable based on its sampling methodology based on poor student sampling...those with strong negative feelings responded at significantly higher rates than the general student population and there were poor controls on who could respond [more than one student came forward claiming they'd tried to respond to the survey to oppose any action only to find they'd allegedly submitted a response already]) showed that the student body opposed the statue's removal by a ratio of 2:1, but the results were highly striated on racial lines. I've asked you for further clarification in the past as to what you think should be added/what should be changed. I cannot address a point that is so vague. Could you perhaps be more specific? Give me a sentence or two that would illustrate the shortfalls/the changes you want? If you want me to include the unscientific student poll, I'll be happy to do so, but I don't think it changes anything substantive in the paragraph.
  • "As a spot check, the statement that 'The event received worldwide attention during World War II, when 25 Aggies held a brief Aggie Muster during the battle for the island of Corregidor' is not supported by the source, which refers to this receiving attention only in the US."
    While the Houston Chronicle is read worldwide, I'm not going to quibble over that: changed to nationwide. Buffs (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. Oppose and recommend withdrawal.

This is the first time I have looked at this article, US education not normally being my thing. But I thought this FAC may benefit from fresh eyes. I still haven't read all of it, as it seems clear to me that this is not yet ready for FAC. I could go on at some length about specific points and areas, but I shall stay with those used by Nick-D above. I note in passing that the nominator's responses to Nick-D's very clear and clearly made points (to my eye, coming across them and the article for the first time) puzzle me. I am unsure if the responses are deliberately evasive or reflect, somehow, genuine bafflement as to the points being made. Neither bodes well for a constructive exchange of opinions leading to promotion.

  • The para on the statue does seem to use "language that privileges the views of the university's administration."
    As I've asked repeatedly, can you please specify what it is that you feel meets that criteria? I'm happy to rewrite it. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph in which the erection of the statue is covered also seems PoV: eg "well-respected Confederate Brigadier".
    "well-respected" is the exact verbiage of the source. Would it be better to place it in quotes? Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is The Bryan-College Station Eagle, a local daily newspaper. Would remove the verbiage. Ceoil (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, out of respect, I've deleted it, but I'm confused. Why would a local newspaper's reporting be a reason to exclude something, especially something that was a local opinion at the time? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this paragraph there is a longer sentence on the statue than on the first admission of women, which would seem to cry out for some background and context; come to that, whether any women ever did attend classes. (And if so, how many, when and whether on an equal footing?)
    "whether any women ever did attend classes" apparently you skipped the lead which states that the institution is currently coeducational.
    Material in the lead should also be included in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little concerned that you haven't read the article. My point was that the answer to the specious query "whether any women ever did attend classes" was certainly in the article right from the very beginning.
    A few quotes from the article:
    • Enrollment expanded again in the 1960s under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder. During his tenure, the school desegregated, became coeducational, and dropped the requirement for participation in the Corps of Cadets.
    • Initially, women were permitted to attend classes only as "special students," but were not permitted so seek degrees. In 1893, Ethel Hudson, the daughter of one of the faculty, became the first woman to take classes; in 1899, two of her sisters, Sophie and Mary Hudson did the same. Though not envisioned explicitly as an all-male school, over time it became a de facto all-male institution and led to a decades-long debate as to the role of women at the school. Under pressure from the Texas Legislature, in 1911 the school allowed women to attend classes during the summer semester
    • Over the coming years, Texas A&M augmented and upgraded to its physical plant and facilities while diversifying and expanding its student body by admitting women and minorities. Additionally, membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary beginning in the fall semester of 1963. Initially, the decision to admit women made the student body very unhappy. Though initially resisted and some minor efforts persisted for several decades, the positive impact of these changes was rapid. By 1972, on-campus housing was dedicated for women and the student body elected its first black student body president in 1976.
    • The women's basketball team has one Southwest Conference Tournament championship, one regular season Big 12 Conference championship, two Big 12 Tournament championships, and two SEC Tournament championships, most recently in 2021. As of 2022, the women have advanced to sixteen NCAA Tournament appearances including fourteen consecutive seasons, winning the National Championship in 2011. They have also competed in the WNIT twice, winning that tournament in 1995.[262] The women's team was coached by Gary Blair from 2003[263] to his retirement in 2022.[264] His replacement, Joni Taylor began coaching the team in March 2022[265]...As of 2021, the women's soccer team, formed in 1993, has been in every NCAA Tournament appearances since 1995.[268] The women's volleyball team is a frequent qualifier for the annual NCAA tournament including thirteen consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances from 1993 to 2005.[269][270] Texas A&M also fields teams for men's and women's swimming and diving, men's and women's golf, men's and women's tennis, cross country, track and field, softball, baseball, and equestrian[271]
    Buffs (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in this paragraph "Enrollment doubled to 467 cadets". As of what date? And doubled from what number and when? The last mention of numbers is "Enrollment climbed to 258 students in 1881 before declining to 108 in 1883". 467 is four times 108, not a doubling. What is the difference, if any, between "students" and "cadets"?
    The number of cadets doubled under his tenure. I think that's pretty implicit from the given sentence (before he arrived: x, after: 2x). I don't think we need to specify a number, but I will be happy to do so if that's your hangup (please clarify if I'm missing something). There is no effective difference between "cadets" and "students" at this point in the school's history. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had a separate Board of Directors". Why the upper case initial letters?
    It is a governing body established by the state; a proper name similar to the US Senate. (see WP:MOSCAP) Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his tenure, many Aggie traditions were born, including the creation of the first Aggie Ring." Re "Aggie Ring" (why the upper case R?) see MOS:NOFORCELINK "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." To most readers this sentence will mean little without chasing the links.
    Again, capitalized as a proper name. Rephrased as "class ring" is more prevalent. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the college was saved from potential closure by its new president Lawrence Sullivan Ross". How? What did he do?
    Expanded Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to emulate the traits of Ross". Which were? And/or were perceived to be?
    I feel like you're asking to be much more specific than is necessary for the article. I could add "soldier, statesman, knightly gentleman" (the words on the base of his statue), but the sources only state they sent their sons to "Be like Ross". It doesn't specify what the specific attributes were that they were attempting to emulate. We don't speculate. We use WP:RS. I can't give you what isn't there. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During his tenure". Which is not given.
    It is. He started in 1891 and served until his death in 1898. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to cover Nick-D's other two points, but I feel that the non-exhaustive examination of the one near-random paragraph adequately illustrates why I think the article is not yet ready for FAC. Note that if all of the points above were addressed this would not change my mind; almost every paragraph has similar - and/or different but equally egregious - issues.

I recommend withdrawal, a thorough visit to PR and another to GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for clarification almost 3 months ago from you so I could address any shortcomings, but you chose to provide no feedback until now. No one to-date, has brought up the concerns you brought up despite the review of (by my count) about 60 people. Almost all were easily corrected and were at least arguably accurate, but, you wanted more specificity, so I obliged. I've added the additions you sought, but the article is getting increasingly/inappropriately long. Previous reviews complained about the length. When you say "add more" and others say "shorten it" and both of you say "...or it doesn't get my FA blessing", it's a no-win situation. This idea that it needs to go through two more processes seems more than unnecessary for trivial and easily fixed changes. If you could be so kind as to clarify and let me know whether I've addressed your points, it would be appreciated Buffs (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: "I am unsure if the responses are deliberately evasive or reflect, somehow, genuine bafflement as to the points being made. Neither bodes well for a constructive exchange of opinions leading to promotion."
Let's just WP:AGF and assume the latter "genuine bafflement". When I've asked either Nick or you for clarification (multiple times), your response has been silence. There is no "constructive exchange of ideas" when I'm the only one who responds. That isn't an "exchange"...but it isn't because of me... Buffs (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much for me to respond to here to be frank. I have noted that my comments in the previous FAC weren't addressed, and you are arguing that most of the examples I've given above aren't correct in response. The same thing happened in the previous FAC and peer review, with you taking this approach with several editors who'd left comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Of the three points you made above, I made changes for two. "...you are arguing that most of the examples I've given above aren't correct in response." is an objectively and abjectly false statement or is intentionally misleading. If those changes are not sufficient, what more do you want? Let me be succinct with the remaining point: what in that paragraph is "evasive language" or "privileges the views of the university's administration"? I'm not seeing it.
Of the 5 points your brought up in the previous review, I have made changes for two of them and asked for clarification on the other three (which you never provided):
  • women and students from a minority background -  Done In the history section alone, from my quick count, of the ~60 sentences, 9 focus on this alone: 15% of the school's history. I'm not sure what else you want. It also doesn't focus on what white men did either, just the student body as a whole. The amount of controversy is proportionate with the history of the school.
  • over-emphasis on the experiances [sic] of the minority of the student population who live on campus What they do off campus is no different from any other person in the area. From my perspective, you are asking "what do they do when not associated with the University?" in an article about the University. This seems to be the opposite of the subject at hand: the school. If I am misunderstanding this, can you please clarify?
  • the more unusual aspects of the university, most notably its militaristic flavour and range of rather old-fashioned 'traditions' In addition to the intro and history, there are 3 paragraphs in the article dedicated to the Corps of Cadets and a whole article about it as well; these include criticism. There are 5 paragraphs and and article about traditions as well. Perhaps an explanation or a sample of pseudotext would make is clearer: "Traditions blah blah blah, however, they also blah blah"? I'm not sure what you're expecting here. Can you please clarify?
  • The article contains boosterism, and is not neutral. Where?
  • Covid vaccine info. Removed the entire paragraph per WP:RECENTISM
I am perplexed as to your response and lack of clarity. Please just answer the questions I posed. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the confrontational approach which I noted is really unhelpful. I'm a hard oppose here, and won't be engaging further. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: If a point-by-point request for clarification "is really unhelpful", imagine how I feel when you (effectively) say Oppose and give vague reasons you refuse to clarify. I can't address these if you won't make it clearer because I don't understand what you think is wrong. Without such clarification/discussion, I feel your concerns should be dismissed. Lastly, asking questions for clarification is not a "confrontational approach".Buffs (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left a detailed peer review upon your request, and you didn't address my comments there (I noted that I would be an oppose in any FACs as a result). Subsequent comments have received the same response, with other editors getting a similar treatment. To be frank with you, your approach here is wrong headed: experienced editors are leaving you good faith comments noting fairly serious concerns with the article's suitability for FA level, but instead of acting on them you are trying to argue that they are wrong. You seem to have some links to this university, and I'd suggest that you develop articles on topics you can be more detached from. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I most definitely addressed your comments there (as noted there and above). I had followup questions as well. You didn't respond (still haven't). Buffs (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry to have taken up space in your section. Do my responses effectively address your concerns? Buffs (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are you going to reply? I respectfully find that you suggestion to take it to PR is more than a bit of joke. I've already contacted literally every single active Wikipedian (all 35) who have expressed a willingness to give a PR. You want me to roll to GoCE, fine, but that's not really an objection. Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- clearly we're still at an impasse with this nom so I'll be archiving it shortly; I realise there was a PR earlier this year, continuing any discussion on the article talk page might be another route to a future re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 31 August 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/archive3&oldid=1107702142"