Talk:Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• There are over 30 dead links in this article, which leaves it seriously uncited.

• Some of the language seems excessively peacock, "... renowned chicken finger baskets, its superlatively friendly staff", for instance.

• "... the popular but rare tradition of stealing the 'T' from Tech Tower." How can a tradition be "rare"?

• What makes The Tech Dictionary a reliable source? Particularly as it begins with the words "Yes, I AM making most of this up"?

• blogs cannot be considered reliable sources.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the notice on the Wikiproject. I will get to this, but I've been a bit busy so far. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So about the broken links - most of them are from The Technique, which is a print source. They recently redid their website, and the archives were moved. So while the links are nice to have, they shouldn't be considered a priority. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through and fixed these errors. Note that the urls are pointing to the right places - if it is still a dead link, it is outside of my control, but the article does exist. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As for Stealing the T being rare - well, you're stealing a letter off of a tall, well-secured building. Of course it's rare. If you doubt me, we have an entire featured article about the building with a very healthy section about the tradition: Tech Tower. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't doubt that the T is rarely stolen, but that doesn't make the tradition rare. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Malleus that the phrase "popular but rare" doesn't really make sense. I went ahead and replaced the phrase with "now-banned", which is more factual, anyway. MaxVeers (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Tech Dictionary" is the name of an article published in the North Avenue Review, which is a student publication that deals with a different genre of student life than The Technique, but should be considered on the same tier as our yearbook as far as a reference for Tech minutae. And despite the author claiming that 'he made most of it up' those are actually commonly used terms. Not that other references couldn't be found elsewhere, but it's not an illegitimate source for Tech jargon. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The blog was citing an ESPN article. I ref'd that too: diff. And admittedly, this says blogs are generally not to be used, but keeping the ref there doesn't hurt. I'm pretty sure The Technique and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution both use that blog as an informing source. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

Thanks for what's been done so far. Still a couple of problems though:

• Ref #65 is still dead, which leaves the whole of the Goldfellas section uncited.

• There are half a dozen or so citations linking to a wikipedia article.[1] Apart from the fact that wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, the article in question does not support the claims made in its name. See Ref #55 for instance.

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First I just wanted to say that I agree that the article could use a bit of help; that it's not perfect; and thank you for helping improve it. About 'citing Wikipedia': The Blueprint is the (physical/offline) school yearbook. Those citations are pointing to actual yearbooks, which are not available online. It's the same idea as citing a book that has a Wikipedia article about it, really. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the specific yearbooks that need to be cited, not the yearbook itself if you see what I mean; doesn't matter whether they're online or not, but their publication details (particularly year) need to be given. In any event, wikipedia can't be used to source itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked through the refs to the Blueprint, and each of them lists a year and an article, although few list specific page numbers. (Thank you, Firefox inline search.) So for example, the following (currently ref #57 in the article):
  The Blueprint, 1910 Bull Dog Club, 1911
  specifies the 1911 issue of the Blueprint, and the article about the 1910 Bull Dog Club. The only refinement I would suggest would be specific page numbers, but they're not really needed to find the specific article that each of those refs refers to. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For quick reference, these are all of the refs to the Blueprint from the article:
  The Blueprint, 1969 Homecoming, 1970
  The Blueprint, 1973 Ramblin' Reck Club, 1974
  The Blueprint, 1975 Ramblin' Reck Club, 1976
  The Blueprint, 1910 Bull Dog Club, 1911
  The Blueprint, 1969 Bull Dog Club, 1970
  The Blueprint, 1961 Bull Dog Club, 1962
  The Blueprint, 1957 Block-T Club, 1958, pp. 172–173
  They all look complete enough to me. Are you looking to add the publisher (presumably Georgia Institute of Technology) to each of them? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps you are suggesting that the ref should be rearranged; as in:
  Article name. Year Publication. Publisher.
  or something to that effect? (It is currently Publication, Article, Year).—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The ref for the Goldfellas secton is from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Anyone with LexisNexis access should be able to find it. I tried looking up the article on Archive.org but the link then points to some registration page. Not helpful. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not too worried about the GoldFellas stuff, I don't see it as contentious and there are plenty of online references to it anyway. I'll settle for some kind of resolution to the yearbook issue. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone involved for all the work that's been done during this review, which I'm now closing as a "keep". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]