Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Georgia Tech/archive2
Please review this article with the Featured article criteria in mind. As it stands now, there is one redlink yet to be written (George C. Griffin), and there are a few mid-sentence references. A previous peer review for this article is located at Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Georgia Tech/archive1. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Overall, one hell of an article. I also like the subtle organization by administration by having the 'Includes the administration of..' subheaders. Some points:
- I'd like to see the lead section expanded to 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD so it can serve as a concise encyclopedia article in its own right
Done - The last paragraph of the ==Establishment== section has a jarring transition from a description of the first land being donated and sold for the campus to an almost aside recalling of some Civil War trivia. A better place is needed for the Civil War stuff (maybe near the top of the section or in a new section that talked about how the land that Georgia Tech now sits on was used prior to its establishment. Done
- This sentence should be moved to another article "Several sources claim that The Technique is among a number of student organizations to be founded by the ANAK Society." Who cares besides the members of the society? Done
- One of my pet peeves is seeing a series of paragraphs all start with 'In YEAR', 'By YEAR' or 'Around YEAR' (even when the month or day is mentioned as well). This is especially notable in the ==Integration== section. Please try to mix things up a bit. Done
- This sentence is awkward and not particularly clear: "In 1981, the Southern Technical Institute was split from Georgia Tech, around the same time most of the other regional schools were separated from University of Georgia, Georgia State University, and Georgia Southern University." Please rephrase (I think that should be split into two sentences). Done
- How does the 1992 Vice-Presidential Candidates Debate fit into the ==Reorganization and expansion== section? Sounds like trivia to me. I suggest finding a better place for it or simply removing it. Done
Again, great job. If the above points are adequately addressed, then count me as an Approve vote on FAC. --mav 20:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Great suggestions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote the article for that last redlink, by the way. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)