Revision as of 01:01, 4 February 2006 editC.Fred (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators277,596 edits gtsux← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:03, 19 February 2024 edit undoPbritti (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers37,468 edits Reverted 1 edit by 129.174.255.57 (talk): This was part of a broad campaign of disruptive editting, so removingTags: Twinkle Undo |
(383 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
==The Whistle== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|importance=High|atlanta=yes|atlanta-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Higher education}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Atlantic Coast Conference}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Georgia Tech}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=Feb 22 2007 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Georgia Institute of Technology#GA review |
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=109685898 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
The Whistle was replaced in 2004, as I recall, with a differnt ultra-modern one or something like that. Check the Technique (www.nique.net) for details. |
|
|
|
|action2date=Mar 08 2007 |
|
:This is true. A contractor replaced it by a whistle designed to sound the same as the old one, because it was getting old. It might deserve brief mention. (thinking of moving some of that stuff to a later point in the article) ] 23:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 |
|
: The new one is damn annoying, it sounds nothing like the old one. |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=113368595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FTC |
|
== Regarding the North Avenue Trade School nickname == |
|
|
|
|action3date=Sep 27 2007 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=failed |
|
|
|action3oldid=160024236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAR |
|
I was under the impression that the reason the nickname is so persistent was because students felt that the teaching styles of some of the faculty was more in keeping with a trade school than a university. If there are other Tech alumni who share this sense, perhaps we should integrate it into the article. ] |
|
|
|
|action4date=July 22, 2009 |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Georgia Institute of Technology/GA1 |
|
|
|action4result=Kept |
|
|
|action4oldid=303272521 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
:I hadn't ever heard the nickname, honestly, but I agree with your impression. I like to say that the undergraduate "computer science" degree is more of a programmer training course. Also, I think this portion of the article should probably be moved or put into a new section or something — it's somewhat overemphasized. ] 03:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=19:24, 18 August 2009 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Georgia Institute of Technology/archive1 |
|
|
|action5result=not promoted |
|
|
|action5oldid=308613819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
::I was under the impression that the NATS nickname was a derogatory phrase invented by those affiliated with the University of Georgia. I believe that I know of a source for this, but let me check. ] 23:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2013-10-13|otd1oldid=576816997 |
|
|
|otd2date=2015-10-13|otd2oldid=685569216 |
|
|
|otd3date=2017-10-13|otd3oldid=805067359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6 = GAR |
|
:::The Georgia Tech bookstore (Barnes & Noble, now) sells "North Avenue Trade School" t-shirts alongside the offically-licensed GT memorabilia. (Ask the staff, they're there. They're pretty comfy, too.) However it got started, it's now an affectionate nickname. ] 01/07/05 |
|
|
|
|action6date = 18:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|action6link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Georgia Tech/1 |
|
|
|action6result = delisted |
|
|
|action6oldid = 1157270830 |
|
|
|currentstatus = DGA |
|
|
}}{{todo|1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=9 February 2023|destination=Georgia Institute of Technology|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1140462570#Requested move 9 February 2023}} |
|
::::To some it may be affectionate, to others it may not be. Connotation may vary. I.E. Graduation from GT is often called "Getting Out" - it's become a cliche, but there is a reason it became popular in the first place; there's a reason the traditions of calling the school a "Trade School," calling the education "the Shaft," or calling graduation "Getting Out" won't go away. They're still fairly honest ] of what academic life is like at GT. 11:59 PM 2 Feb 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
:::::I'd say all the comments above are correct, to some extent. Once GA decided to have a technical school, a committee was formed to study other engineering schools. Some concentrated on theory, while others focused on practical skills. A concious decision was made to provide both. So, early students learned things like blacksmithing (the team was once called "The Blacksmiths" by some). As late as the 50s, all Freshmen learned drafting and surveying, along with calculus. Likewise, students often felt they were fighting "Ma Tech" right up until they received their diplomas, after which they loved it. The struggle was a very valuable preparation for life in the real world. Industry has always considered GT grads some of the best to "hit the ground running" in their jobs. While opponent fans use the NATS nickname as a derision, GT students enjoy it. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move 9 February 2023 == |
|
I was under the impression that the "North Avenue" portion of the nickname stemmed from the fact that during the start of Georgia Tech, both buildings were on North Ave., not because North Ave. is the southern border of the modern day campus. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
== Regarding the T == |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' ] (]) 12:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
I added a link to the stolen T picture, the image wont stay there long as most accoutns are deleted after graduation. Anyone can put the image ( http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte165i/images/StolenT.jpg ) somewhere more secure and re-link it? |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Georgia Institute of Technology}} – The Georgia Institute of Technology is the school's official name used in the vast majority of cases. It should be noted that Georgia Tech is only a common abbreviation for the full name of the school, and does not constitute ] situation in the Misplaced Pages Community Guidelines.<br><br> |
|
:If we can get permission from the person who first took the picture, we can store it on Misplaced Pages (see ''Upload file'' in the left sidebar). Ideally we'd want a statement from them releasing it either into the public domain or under the GFDL — then we could redistribute it with the encyclopedia content. ] 19:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The precedent that can be referred to includes the common abbreviation of the ] is MIT, but the entry is still the original name. The common abbreviation for The ] is Caltech, but the entry is still the original name. The ] is often abbreviated as UC Berkeley, but the entry is still the original name.<br><br> |
|
|
In the 2019 discussion, some contributors mentioned "]" as a precedent. First, "Virginia Tech" is a rare case of article title usage among U.S. university and college Misplaced Pages entries. Second, the use of the name "Virginia Tech" is a different case: its original name is too long and contains "and", and is hardly used in general. If you were to ask passers-by on the street in the United States if they knew about the "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University," they'd probably be confused. But if you mention "Virginia Tech," it will be more likely that they say "oh, I know it." This is where Misplaced Pages's COMMONNAME guidelines apply. I don't believe it would be appropriate to refer to Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech as precedent here. ] (]) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)<small>— '''''Relisting.''''' —usernamekiran ] 05:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. It has not been made clear why this current title does constitute ] like the nomination says. Saying it doesn't because it is "only a common abbreviation" is just ]. If we look at the , Georgia Tech is far more common than Georgia Institute of Technology. So it isn't apparent what the problem is here, to me at least. --] 01:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
::I contacted the student hosting the image, and he doesn't recall its source. I'm afraid we can't upload it without identifying its original source. It looks professional, so I suspect the Technique. ] 23:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*:Out of curiosity, I took a look at . There have been multiple past attempts to rename the article The Ohio State University. Interestingly, the most common name used was "Ohio State" and not Ohio State University nor The Ohio State University. Checking the , "Michigan" is more common than University of Michigan. takes a different route and uses "MSU" 17 times over the single use of Michigan State University. does not mention themselves as University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign on their website, but does mention "Illinois" and "U of I" instead. To wrap this up, goes by that name once and by "Penn State" at least 13 times. To sum it up, I don't think that we should be using the website of a university to determine the name that Misplaced Pages should use. --] (]) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::As a brief follow-up, has use Georgia Institute of Technology recently outside of sports coverage, {{Tpq|A dozen universities contacted by Reuters, including the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Rice University in Houston and institutions of higher learning in Hungary and Slovakia, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.}} I checked to see what the AP did, but all I could find that was recent was sports articles. --] (]) 04:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' I made my arguments last time in the section up the page, but ... '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::My point made above is that there is no clear practice concerning popular names for educational institutions, and that there appears to be a sentiment here that "Foo Tech" is obvious common usage, but "Foo State" isn't. I'm not sure why we're drawing the distinction. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. The current title is the common name, just like ], not "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University". ] (]) 02:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' Many educational institutions are commonly known by some abbreviated nickname and in some case several but this hasn't been the basis for titling the pages in a likewise shortened form as the proposer has shown. Virginia Tech seems to buck that trend but as some people have noted its formal name is quite a mouthful and it's also famous for a school shooting so it is not only famous for strictly educational (or athletic) reasons. If that's the crown jewel example for opposition, I expect more. In any case, anyone looking up Georgia Tech would land on the same page anyway so there aren't any obstacles being imposed for people interested in this school. --] (]) 08:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose move.''' Just as with Virginia Tech, the short name is the common name. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per ] and ]'s comment above. It's clear that "Georgia Tech" is not only common but has official imprimatur. All of the subsidiary entities of the institute at ] save one use the abbreviated name, even officially (NB e.g. the ]'s ) evidently. — ] 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' It is preferable to avoid nicknames for universities in titles. While they may seem common for US TV sports audiences, where nicknames are often used, they are not really as familiar to non-American readers. ] (]) 14:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' per Rreagan007’s comments. ] 15:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support'''. Nobody calls it ] either, but that's still what we use. Abbreviations are best avoided for article titles. -- ] (]) 14:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:So shall we move ] to ] and ] to ] because that’s their official names? ] 21:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*::Now, I didn't say we should use the official name, did I? Please don't twist my words. -- ] (]) 10:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. "Georgia Tech" is sufficiently common to be the appropriate title IMO. ] (]) 00:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' per Rreagan007. ] (]) 02:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
Does anyone here have any first hand knowledge of the security stuff on the T? I suspect it's rumor, or at least exaggerated. --] 05:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:'''Oppose''' Georgia Tech is the common name and is used for academics as much as sports. Many university entries use abbreviated names (], ], ], ], ]). ] (]) 13:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Good article criteria == |
|
:Depending on what you heard, it may not be exaggerated at all. It's fairly sophisticated, and you can spot some of the equipment around the T itself if you look carefully. I'd like to get an interview from someone in the know, though. Maybe someone could e-mail the administration and ask who's in charge of "T security"? ] 05:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: They got around the pressure sensors by obtaining schematics and layout for the roof and inferring a 'safe ' route to the T. The members of that team made dozens of trips up there to case the job. Initially they were going to alligator clip the connection, but once they stripped the wires they realized it was fiber optic. So they ended up cutting the T itself with a hacksaw (again, over many nights). The big night they were caught after successfully taking the T down, because secrets like this travel quickly. The perpetrators were given semester suspensions. Afterwards Tech made them reveal the exact route they took in order to retrieve the T, and fixed the security problems accordingly. In case anyone has any great ideas, it is highly unlikely that building schematics are available to us peons, the members involved in this last caper were extremely well connected. Ok... I'm showing my age, let's just move on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article was first promoted to GA status in 2007, and reassessed in 2009 but since then seems to have slipped. While the prose is fine, the main issue is missing citations. The traditions section has had a refimprove tag since 2010, but more are needed elsewhere. ] (]) 23:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::I am one of the "extremely well connected" individuals who last stole the "T", and I'm happy to quickly set the record straight. We did not have any building schematics. Rather, we figured out a safe way up by trial and error, and a little creativity. You are right that we were on top of the building several nights (my recollection is ~15), and that we originally thought the fiber optic line was an electrical circuit that we could by-pass with alligator clips. We also did have to show the administration how we made the ascent, but have since figured out a new way up that might actually work pretty well. The suspension was one semester, but we had to fight pretty hard to escape two semesters. Expulsion was thrown around briefly, but not really an option because we turned ourselves in. But that is a different story... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Reassessment== |
|
== Regarding student media and organizations == |
|
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Georgia Tech/1}} |
|
|
|
|
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of student organizations at this school. The ones listed after the first two aren't significant in any way other than that they probably had members who came to the page and thought it would be a good place to get some free advertising. |
|
|
|
|
|
For this reason I removed the irrelevant entries. If you feel the need to put them back please explain your reasoning here or I will revert to my edit. |
|
|
:I added back the reference to stealing the T & Beta Theta Pi. I know the entire saga behind that if anyone thinks that would be interesting in this article (probably deserves its own page). |
|
|
|
|
|
==Sports== |
|
|
''The Yellow Jackets advanced to their first NCAA finals in 2004, losing to UConn. The Jackets have since become a perennial Top 25 team. In 2005, the Jackets lost to the University of Louisville in the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
How can the team be "perenially" a Top 25 team after one year? The word "since" implies "after 2004," which means the word "perennial" needs to go. I'd change it but I don't know what to. ] 16:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Changed to ''The team has been consistently ranked in the Top 25 since the 2004 season.'' ] 17:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sorry, but I don't think that was the intention of whomever typed that sentence first. I've changed it to "Tech has been a perennial top 25 team since the 1983-84 season." (which is a useful fact) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this page claims that Tech's 8-bowl game streak is tied for longest in the nation. This is not true, Tennessee has been to 13 bowl games in a row. Far surpassing GT's eight. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Corrected 7/23/05.] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Buildings Height== |
|
|
Can someone confirm that Georgia Tech does not allow any building to be built at an altitude higher than Tech Tower? I was told by several faculty/staff but I can not find any literature to confirm it. Apparently Tech Tower was the tallest building in the Southeast back in the day and GT has a tradition of keeping it the tallest building in campus. |
|
|
:: Seems like I heard or read that at one time, but I couldn't confirm it. Practically speaking, it's not likely any building taller than the Tower will be built, as the spire is rather high and it's on high ground. Some years ago, some wanted to replace the tower with a new Administration Building, but the traditionalists perservered, and it was renovated instead. 7/23/05 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Yea, this is standard trivia for Connect w/ Tech & Faset Leaders to parrot. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Famous Alumni== |
|
|
I'd like to see the famous alumni categorized by type. Right now, the list is dominated by sports types. I'm all for having really famous sports alum listed, but feel their sheer number are making those famous in other fields not stand out. What do you think? Is this a good idea, and is it acceptable to Misplaced Pages? 16:05 Z Sun 24 Jul 05. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Fight Song Details== |
|
|
The details around the GT Fight Song seem out of place in the middle of the sports section, does it merit a new section? -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Zip Code == |
|
|
Could someone confirm (and add to the article) GT owns the entire zipcode 30332 ? |
|
|
:It's quite possible but not really notable. Most universities and many other agencies, even private companies, do as well. See ]. ] 06:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:30332 is the zip code for the Georgia Tech Post Office and all student affiliated postal boxes. ] 11:05, 27 January 2006 (EST) |
|
|
:I don't know if GT owns the entire ZIP code. You can buy maps with ZIP code boundaries as well as streets to check this, or you could try lining up with a road map somehow. ] 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Section on achievements== |
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe we need a section that will highlight the strengths and achievements of GT. (). After all, it is a nationally respected |
|
|
school.--] 20:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Myers-Briggs Type Indicator== |
|
|
I belive this info might be helpful on the article: |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Prof. Colin Potts (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~potts/) (Info given in class, not listed on his page but you may email him for confirmation) |
|
|
|
|
|
A ] Survey performed at Georgia Tech revealed: |
|
|
<pre> |
|
|
Introversion -- Extraversion |
|
|
American Public: 30% 70% |
|
|
Georgia Tech: 68% 32& |
|
|
Intuition -- Sensing |
|
|
American Public: 30% 70% |
|
|
Georgia Tech: 68% 32& |
|
|
Thinking -- Feeling |
|
|
American Public: 30% 70% |
|
|
Georgia Tech: 68% 32& |
|
|
Perceiving -- Judging |
|
|
American Public: 30% 70% |
|
|
Georgia Tech: 68% 32& |
|
|
</pre> |
|
|
This could be integrated in the article as it pertains to the 'antisocial' aspect of campus--wide personality |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unsigned|199.77.208.154|12:41, 3 November 2005}} |
|
|
:However, are these results typical of all American colleges or just Tech? -] 19:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've had potts, he gives this to CS MAJORS, which are at the far end of the spectrum as far as these things go, and totally useless for the population at large. |
|
|
::{{unsigned|208.177.178.85|03:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The data in that table are questionable on their face; the percentages are the same for each spectrum. Assuming one did get the 'accurate' results from professor, if unpublished, is the data not in conflict with ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
SCEhardt, I would expect GT's (or any other technically-oriented university) results to differ from those of the entire set of American university students which should pretty closely track those of the American Public, being a much broader sample. ] 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're probably correct. The point I bring up is that these statistics should only be mentioned if they are fairly unique to Tech. I also agree the statistics look very suspicious in general and would need to be verified. -] 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Facts == |
|
|
Does anyone have anything to backup the "Virgin Graduate" entry? I've been unable to find anything related to it online, but in general it may be a standard college legend? |
|
|
:I was a student for several years recently and recall no such legend. But maybe a current frat student or something would know better. ] 02:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Social Life== |
|
|
There seems to have been a minor struggle a few times in edits to cover the internal stigma of Tech as an unhappy place by deleting or "glossing" over parts of the student life section and replacing them with irrelevant or nonspecific (to tech) college facts. I think that it's safe to say that Tech is probably one of the worst major colleges to go to socially and that that is pretty well accepted at the school itself, although it's pretty tricky to portray that without violating NPOV. I know that the School of Psych published a report about high levels of depression a few years (2002, maybe?) ago, and also that the Princeton review published a list of the most hated schools (by their own students) that tech was on. Can anyone find links to either? Also helpful would be any information that could provide a more informed counterpoint to the antisocial side. |
|
|
] 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
My first two attempts were vandalism, I'll admit it, even though I had planned on changing the site back shortly. However, the link I added is extremely popular, even a few years after it was published. I think it is very relevant to the average Tech student. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It may be a popular site, ], but the site is an admitted work of fiction. For that reason, it does not belong in the list of external links. ] 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm not so sure that gtsux doesn't deserve some mention. I was at GaTech when it hit and it was a pretty big deal for the school. The creator of the website was a student, and he was threatened with academic censure if he didn't remove the site. That wasn't upheld , but the school successfully sued him for copyright violation (the site originally had the GaTech logo on it). I'm not sure how to properly include this in the article, except as an example of common editorial for the school. But within in the bounds of GaTech it is definitely noteworthy. And I don't see it said anywhere that it is a work of fiction.] 14:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You know, I'll grant that it does deserve mention in the text of the article. A couple of sentences, possibly near the section on the Shaft, would probably do well to set it up—especially if there's backstory. As for the fictionality, the disclaimer at the top of says "NOTHING ON THIS SITE IS TRUE. IT IS ALL FICTIONAL, SO LEAVE HERE NOW." ] 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== gtsux == |
|
|
|
|
|
I present the following paragraph for contemplation of inclusion at the bottom of student life. Before posting, I want to get some consensus here and make sure it captures events fairly. |
|
|
|
|
|
:These efforts are not always successful in improving conditions for students. Most notably, an anonymous student launched the web site in the spring of 2002. The site proved popular with fellow students visiting the site and also sharing their grievances against the Institute. Within a week of its launch, 4,700 persons had visited the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
With a reference to with the author of the site. Does anybody have a citeable source, other than gtsux itself, about the author being threatened with expulsion? ] 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
This article was first promoted to GA status in 2007, and reassessed in 2009 but since then seems to have slipped. While the prose is fine, the main issue is missing citations. The traditions section has had a refimprove tag since 2010, but more are needed elsewhere. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
I am nominating this article for GA reassessment. It has been sixteen years since this was promoted, and a lot of issues have accumulated since then. The biggest is a lack of adequate citations, which would be an automatic fail in a GA nomination. There are two {{more citations needed}} tags, one of which has been there since 2010, and has somehow flown under the radar since then. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.