Wikipedia:Peer review/Indian Institutes of Technology/archive1

Indian Institutes of Technology

Requests for Reviewers: A lot of improvements have been made in this article in the recent past. Please post your comments on how this article can be improved to get Featured Article status soon. Please take care of the following issues while going through this article:

• Look for Non-neutral Point of Views. As large parts of the articles have been added by people deeply associated with IITs, there is a good chance of unintentional addition of POVs.
• Look for missing data/link. Again because of the reason mentioned above, we might have missed including information that was quite obvious to us but not public in general. Not knowing anything about IIT will be a great asset for the reviewer.
• Look for missing citation. Please indicate statement that need citation, but currently don't.

-Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any commonalities of student culture at these universities? As in what life there is like for the students? More information on the programs availbale might be nice as well. Arundhati bakshi 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response:I am working on a common cultural section detailing similarity in life and details of cultural fests. I will add it as soon as its finished. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Search for Whiz Kids: Inside the Indian Institutes of Technology’s Star Factory by M Kripalani, P Engardio, L Nathans, published in Business Week in 1998. Most major libraries will carry back issues of Business Week. And for what it is worth, there is this blog: ITT Global-Archives. --maclean25 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response:Thanks for the reference. I will surely look it up in the coming few days. However the IIT Global one seems to be a collection of opinions and is unlikely to benefit the article. Anyway, I will definitely go through it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• University of Michigan has a good structure to begin with. Go through that article and try and match it with similar content.
• That table at the top needs to go
• A picture in the lead would be better that a map
• An infobox would be a welcome addition
• There's hardly any history between 1960 to date. Expand
• Remove titles like Sri, Pandit etc.
• Subsections detailing each IIT (max 2 paras) would be a good addition.

I'll review once again the structure is molded simlar on the lines of UoM. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response:Have gone through UM Article. The biggest problem I feel with this article is that since it is about a collection of Institutes, the standard infobox templates won't do. I will have to custom-make one myself for this article. Picture can definitely be replaced. I have temporarily moved the KGP Building up and replaced it by IIT Roorkee Main Building. Titles have been removed (although with a frown as I am used to refer them as such). Will add subsections about IITs soon (tomorrow itself). I am keeping the table untill a substitute is worked and agreed upon. The idea was taken from Ivy League. History between 1960 to date....never heard of any change apart from the fact that JEE pattern kept changing(which should be addressed in its own article). Anyway, will try and find something on it. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Some comments:

• It's a very good start, and Ambuj has done yeoman's work. The only thing it's missing are the little intangibles.
• The language is a little clunky in certain places (there are many examples; "Setting up of more IITs" as a title, is reminiscent of Someone set up us the bomb)
• There's a lot that needs to be referenced (i.e. Quality of education, Dangerous Precedents, the whole criticism section as bold comments are being made unreferenced)
• The IIT family section is far better than the previous box. As opposed to pictures of all the IITs in the IIT family section, why not interspace the geographic map with some of the stronger pictures?
• The article maintains NPOV quite well
• Many of the photographs are too small -- I wouldn't go as far as Michigan State University's photography, but I'd expand the size of some of the images
• Budgetary information? Is it available? e.g. Research budget, etc.
• There have to be more notable alumni.
• Infobox for the top right? It will be difficult, as Ambuj says, but it would be a great addition.
• Little things may need definition for the global audience (e.g. IT-BHU Varanasi and ISM Dhanbad at the top, UP and AP as abbreviations, etc.)

Just my .02. Hope it's useful. I'll try to edit a bit also. -- Samir (the scope) 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response: Thanks for your appreciation. I have rephrased parts that were clunky. If any more are present, do point them out. Now, only Quality of education is left unreferenced with relevant references added to others. I wanted to have an aggregate statistics on no. of patents filed, etc., but couldn't find any sources. I found the IIT pictures strong enough. If you find any better picture, do change it. A lot of images are there in the article, you may even exchange one from IIT Family section. I couldn't understand how the photographs are small. I have included as many high resulotion photographs as possible. However, I don't want to add photos of size over 1MB unless absolutely necessary, which I didn't find need of. Most of the images are pretty good in resolution (in my opinion). Budgetry information is now added in Education section, also added the reference. More notable alumni added. Infobox to me seems a very distant possibility owing to special nature of this article. Links to IT-BHU and ISM Dhanbad exist. I don't want to bloat the article further as I feel it is starting to get bulky. If you feel the need to do it, I have no problems. I have another request. Can you confirm whether the Dilbert's strip qualifies as fair use or not. We should avoid such issues at later stage. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Good, but some issues need fixing before it is ready for FAC. The most difficult issue to fix will be the writing. Almost throughout it lacks clarity, I'll try to point out specific examples, but I won't be able to cover them all. There is a lot of writing where you have to already know what it is about to understand what is being said. Context needs to be provided to ease the reader in. 1) The lead is not a proper summary of the whole article. It should have 3-4 full paragraphs and cover all the most important points about the institution. What is it about them that operates jointly and what about them operate separately. Because that is a unique structure, that should be made clear in the lead. Why are the Indian Institute of Science and Indian Institutes of Management mentioned in the lead? Are they important to IIT? How? Also it appears 17,000 and 14,000 are the total figures not figures for each school. 2) The history is probably too long given it's relative importance to the overal topic. Strive for balance in coverage and prioritize what is most important. Anything that gets more space should get it because it is more important. 3) How are there 3,900 spots available in a class and 17,000 undergraduates? How many years is the program? 4) What language are studies conducted in? Is it different for each? 5) "Strength of students" is very awkward phrasing, just mention how many there are. 6) Education section should give the grants figures in consistent units. Either millions or crore, but don't switch. 7) The last half of the 'Quality of education' section needs to be reworded for clarity and probably needs a source. 8) "with a few claiming to have coached around one thousand selected candidates (nearly a fourth of all admitted students)" is unclear. Is that thousand a per year figure? Becuase the 4000 appears to be. And do those making up the few each claim a thousand or is that their total claim? What's the source? 9) 'Relevance' needs citing. Or just remove it as most people accept graduates don't need to work in the exact field of their undergraduate studies, or even a related one. Or cite the criticism to support inclusion. 10) What are "National Cadet Corps, National Service Scheme and National Sports Organization"? Provide some context. Why are they important? 11) How long do the cultural festivals last? 12) The "Sports Meet" section's first sentence should make it clearer it is a limited event and not an ongoing sports season of competition if that is the case. 13) Some of the media references seem overly minor, expecially the Cinema, but in fact most of them seem to barely justify inclusion. The nonfiction should be obtained and used as references. What's the relevance of noting there are books about the school? 14) Small paragraphs and sections should be merged or eliminated. Anything 2 sentences or less really breaks up the flow. If a section is just one paragraph it probably doesn't justify a section. I don't see a major reason the individual institutes can't be in the same section with their own paragraphs. 15) The world rankings should be merged into the academic quality discussion and expanded. What significant factors do the rankings institutions give for not having a higher ranking? Those might be significant criticisms that warrant further research. That was a lot, but you did ask :) - Taxman ^Talk 17:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response:Thanks for the excellent review. I will handle it point by point. Firstly I knew that the problem of lack of clarity will arise, not only because of my overly assuming people's knowledge about the subject, but also because of my not-so-good-english. 1) The lead has been re-written. Though still not comprehensive, it now covers a lot more points on the various aspects of the subject. Information about joint/separate work has been added. IIM and IISc details have been removed as irrelevent. Total figures problem was solved by you. 2) History has been shortened. Although I have been suggested by others that history is short, I have done my best to remove not-so-relevent parts. 3) There are 17,000 undergraduates and they belong to either 4 year(BTech) or 5 year(Dual degree or Integrated MSc) courses. Divide 17000 by 3900 and you'll get a number between 4 and 5. Does this needs to be mentioned. I have already mentioned that BTech course is 4 year program and MTech course is 5 year, separately. 4) Language of study is English, and this has been added. 5) Strength of students replaced by plain english. 6) Units are now consistent. 7) Quality of education section has been removed as its subjective as well as unreferenced. 8) Yes, its 1000 each per year. This was already mentioned. The problem is this big that's why JEE was restructured. Although there's an overlap between some as a good number of students attend coaching classes as well as subscribe to coaching material from separate sources. They get counted in both. Should I mention it in the article? Reference has been added. 9) Relevence section has been removed. 10) Information about NCC, NSS and NSO have been added. I will try to get atleast stub articles on them. 11) Duration of cultural festivals is 3~4 days and has been added. 12) It annual sports meet and now the first sentence reflects this. 13) Lot of media references have been deleted as non-notable. 14) All individual sub-sections about IITs have been merged. Now no sections is just one paragraph. I will try and merge more paragraphs so there no single or double line paragraphs. 15) World Ranking has been merged with education. Will add more info on it soon. I haven't been able to find the non-fiction books in the library. Chances are there aren't any copies in whole Kharagpur city. Feel free to add more comments/criticisms. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good improvements. I'll just mention on a few specific points. 3) is fine I guess I didn't see that. 7) Objective information on the quality of the education really needs to be covered. What are the important viewpoints? So this needs some research. For the rankings, check this source, I've seen it used in other articles as another international ranking . 8) That's still just not clear. So overall very good improvements, but you're still going to have to recruit someone to work with you on the English. There's nothing wrong with it not being your strong suit, but the article can't be a successful FAC without clear writing. - Taxman ^Talk 12:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

History and IIT family HI - I perceive some problems between these two sections. The history details the formation of these institutes across India. The following section does repeat this very info when discussing each IIT separately, while adding little new info. I think one needs to add more information on what distinguishes each IIT, in a better organized manner, such as making each IIT a sub-section in IIT family. Rama's Arrow 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be more on each IIT. Right now its not enough. Rama's Arrow 20:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Deep review

1. They are known especially for their undergraduate degree programs remove this sentence as it is also known for MTechs.
2. spell out 7 in the lead
3. The Indian Institutes of Technology are also referred to as IITs -- the acronym should come in the first sentence.
4. Remove last para in the lead. It talks of the the JEE and not the institutions as a group.
5. order to move the country ahead -- cpedit
6. History should be renamed to =Establishment of IITs= since it has little to do with history of all. Expand on it. Agiations etc should be covered, and why the particular institution was selected. Merge =Expansion plans= under this.
7. 5, Esplanade East - not required
8. Please give the location of MIT
9. Wikify Jogendra Singh and Nalini Sarkar
10. first class institutions -- how about elite?
11. ' declaring this institute -- declaring it
12. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of the Republic of India, --> J N, India's first PM
13. Also include the countries that assisted in the setting up of each institution. Wasn't IITB set up with Soviet collaboration?
14. established itself as an excellent academic institution. -- "excellent"? There must be some additional reasons to add.
15. Is IIT-Delhi in Delhi or New Delhi? Please verify.
16. How much funds do the IITs get from the government? Education in the IITs are subsidised, so please mention the costs per student as of 2005. Also what are the other sources of income?
    1. What about government controls over the cirriculum? Can the government prescribe books, hire teachers etc? What is the exact level of autonomy that the IITs have?
17. Structure of the management of IITs seem to be absent. Is it run by a dean, does it have a board of governors? Does a government have a hand in their selection? See Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport.
18. Wikify the dates.
19. Please use metric units as first preference.
20. claimed to be the largest among all the IITs. -- weasel word. Please support by solid references or remove.
21. the capital of Maharashtra. -- extra text; remove
22. Location of IITM is not given. Is it within Chennai city? Similarly with Kanpur.
23. Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act, 1963' -- Italicise
24. 'all IITs is done by the Joint Entrance Examination -- copyedit
25. Institute of Technology (Banaras Hindu University) and Indian School of Mines (Dhanbad) also select student through IIT-JEE. not needed.
26. BTech, Dual Degree and Integrated MSc courses in IITs. -- expand these terms
27. tough subjective pattern of questioning? -- how about "highly competitive"?
28. ...their Qualifying Examination -- expand on this exam
29. general category, SC, ST and PD categories -- These are terms unfamiliar to non-Indians. It should be logical to promote the =Reservation= policy before this section.
30. resit --> ...attempt the examination in the future
31. A section ... students taking coaching. -- avoid debating on the reasons. This should be in the JEE article.
32. Which IIT is most sought after?
33. Snip the Dual degree discussions.
34. IITs are also hired by government organisations for surveys etc. Please add. eg.
35. IITB also has a geology department. Please check.
36. Rankings should be promoted to a top level heading
37. Use British English spellings. (honoring-->honouring)
38. =Factors behind success= should be given a better title.
39. Include Mandal Commission I in the article. Very important to the setting up of reservations and the mass protests in the early 1990s.*=IITs in the media= -- plain trivia section. should be removed. The Dilbert part can be included in the =Sucess= story.

I've not finished... I suggest you start working on the above points. There's still a lot more to add. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent review Nichalp. Will get back to you as soon as I am done fixing the issues. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Response:Below is the response point-by-point:

1. Done.
2. Done. It is anyway already mentioned in first sentence before.
3. Done.
4. Done. Removed the sentence that was very deep about JEE. Another author suggested to specify in the lead how the IITs are connected, hence I am keeping the first sentence of the second last paragraph. Open to negotiations.
5. Done. I was quoting Jawaharlal Nehru, though no quotes are shown. Still I copyedited.
6. Done. Agitations about Assam students was anyway covered!
7. Done.
8. Done.
9. Done.
10. Done.
11. Done.
12. Done.
13. Done.
14. Yet to do.
15. Done.
16. Done. Exact estimates are difficult as infrastructure and faculty are shared.
17. Done.
18. Done. Tell me if any more is left.
19. Done.
20. Done.
21. Done.
22. Done.
23. Done.
24. Done.
25. Done.
26. Done.
27. Done.
28. Done.
29. Done.
30. Done.
31. Done.
32. Yet to do. This is a subjective question and choices vary year to year. Will even be difficult to quote neutral sources. Still I will try. Anyway, a link to India Today's Top 10 Colleges exists already.
33. Done. Tell if it isn't sufficient.
34. Done.
35. Done.
36. Done.
37. Done.
38. Changed to "Success story". Is it acceptable? Actually even I am in search of a neutral title, but couldn't find one yet. Saw "Success Story" in your review so thought why not give it a try.
39. Done. Please go through to confirm if this was what you asked for.

I will get back to you as soon as I can write "Done" against all points mentioned. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Briefly replying to certain questions: 1> I meant spell out the number 7 in the text. 2> The last para in the lead is not up to the mark, I'll copyedit it later. 3> Success story is a little poetic. I'll think of something better. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I came so late

I came here so late - I am sorry. But, I find that Ambuj had really done a nice job, and perhaps all the points raised have been appropriately attended to. I wish success of this article as a FA. --Bhadani 08:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)