Talk:History of East Texas State Teachers College/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. Stedil (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Some light copyediting, but otherwise clear and effective prose. Stedil (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	All images are public domain. Stedil (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Except the Memorial Stadium pic, which has a CC license. Stedil (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reviewer Comments[edit]

by 1957–59 of its 132 faculty members held doctorates. The dash is confusing. Does it mean the years 1957–59 or should there be a comma instead?
- Should be a comma: now fixed.
Sentence beginning Gee's tenure as president is very long and difficult to follow. Does all this detail need to be in the lead? Consider trimming to make clear the purpose of the sentence: what the two major controversies are.
- I have removed the two clauses in parentheses from the lede, which I believe resolves this problem.
I see the term physical plant used several times, and its usage doesn't make sense to me in all cases. My understanding is that the physical plant at colleges is a maintenance facility. In the article, it seems to be referring, in places, to... something else (maybe all of the buildings on campus?) Double check the usage of this word in the article and replace with a more accurate term, if needed.
- I'm using it in the sense of "the necessary infrastructure used in operation...of a given facility" (per the article physical plant), with the understanding that the facility in question is the entire campus, not just a single building. This is the same way that the term is used in the Reynolds book, but if you think that it is too confusing, I'd be happy to change it. "All of the buildings on campus" would probably be the most elegant way to replace it, if you think that is necessary.

More on the way. Looks good so far (through 1920's section). Stedil (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With his blunt, direct, and at times profane style citation needed. Check pg. 119 of Reynolds.
- Sorry to miss that. Page 119 of Reynolds is exactly what I was sourcing that line from, so I've gone in and added a reference to it."
drawing attendances of 10,000 at home Source says the stadium's capacity was expanded to 10,000, not that crowds reached that amount.
- I've toned this down to "attendances of up to 10,000" and taken out the word "very" from earlier in the sentence, as nothing in the source explicitly says that crowds reached 10,000. However, in that same paragraph in the source, two key sentences also appear: "Students and many local residents packed the stadium when the Lions were in town" and the "stadium, which had been rebuilt and expanded in 1936, had to be expanded again in 1938, when its seating capacity was increased to 10,000." I think that, considering this context, it is safe to say that attendances were very strong and probably near capacity. Please let me know if my rewording is satisfactory to you.

That's all I have. Let me know when you've addressed the above. Stedil (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything now, Stedil. Thanks for your review! Michael Barera (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out. I went ahead and wikilinked physical plant; I think its use should be fine given how it is used in Reynolds. Stedil (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.