Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1917–1965)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by DannyS712 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Arlington State College aerial view, circa 1950–51

• ... that Arlington State College (pictured) was the first Texas A&M University System school to integrate? Source: Barker & Worcester 2015, p. 35 and Saxon 1995, p. 87
  • ALT1:... that Arlington State College (pictured) left the Texas A&M University System after 48 years to join the University of Texas System? Source: Barker & Worcester 2015, p. 55; Saxon 1995, p. 97; and Fort Worth Star-Telegram
  • ALT2:... that Arlington State College (pictured) first gained national recognition by winning back-to-back Junior Rose Bowls in 1956 and 1957? Source: Saxon 1995, p. 101 and Barker & Worcester 2015, p. 35

• Reviewed: The talk (parenting)

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC).

• This article was moved into mainspace on May 30 and is new enough and long enough. The image is suitably licensed, the hook facts are cited inline and any of the hooks could be used. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1917–1965)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Returning to this review today. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: I've completed my GA review. As you can see there's just one issue to fix (3b) and then this should be at GA standard. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I've just shortened that section to five paragraphs, trying to mostly remove the less essential and supplementary content without losing much meaning. What do you think? Michael Barera (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Michael Barera: - I think it looks good, and that this article passes GA! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As I usually do for GA reviews, I find it easier to just go through and make any prose tweaks needed myself. If there are any major changes, I'll mention them here, and you can review my edit to see if there are any differences you object to. But it usually saves both of us time in addressing nitpicks. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Pass, prose looks good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I do have concerns about the independence of the Saxon source. Having downloaded it and read the beginning, I can see Saxon's assurances that this was not prepared as a PR piece and that no one attempted to influence him while writing the book. However, I cannot extricate the source from the fact that it was prepared as part of the centennial celebrations of the University's existence by an employee of the University. It cannot be regarded as independent. However, that doesn't mean it is unreliable. Despite my misgivings, I don't think this is a reason to stop the article passing GA, but I would have concerns to move to FA with the article depending on Saxon as heavily as it does. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues - well referenced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues found in Earwig or by manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Extensive coverage. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In general, the article is not too detailed despite its length. However, the 'Move to the University of Texas' subsection is excessive. I understand it was a significant debate both statewide and on campus, but I think summary style can withstand a reduction to 4-5 paragraphs from the current 8 without becoming overly general. Pass, issue addressed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.