Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/G. Wayne Clough/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

G. Wayne Clough

G. Wayne Clough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria, and covers a rather notable subject in detail. I took a good deal of time in Feb 2012 to dramatically improve the article, nominated it for FAC in Jan 2013, and replied to or fixed all reviewer comments, but the nom was archived due to lack of feedback. The FAC delegate suggested that I take it to Peer Review, which I did, but that was also archived without any feedback. So, I'm back. Hi! Disavian (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just some quick comments for now.

  • There are many double citations, and even cases with 3 or 4 inline citations. Could you check, if all of those multiple citations are really necessary? A simple fact should be ideally cited by one reliable source. Occasionally complex, disputed or dubious statements may need more than 1 cite, but most of the cited statements seem rather common.
    • I've always erred on the side of providing more citations than are absolutely necessary in case the reliability of one of them is challenged. As far as problems go, that one is pretty minor. :) Disavian (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming the awards are properly covered in the main text, they need no citations in the lead (WP:LEADCITE).
  • Talking of coverage, the "President Emeritus" part seems missing in the main text. Make sure all lead information is covered in the main text too. Also when and how did he get this title (maybe add some info from ref #2 to last paragraph in "honors and awards")?
  • "On March 15, 2008, Clough announced in an email to students and staff that he would be stepping down as President on July 1, 2008, after almost fourteen years as President." - as of 2013, all of this is in the past - should be rewritten (and integrated in a larger paragraph to avoid single-sentence paras).
  • Images are all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any specific guidance on the multiple citations question in the MOS, so i'll leave that for other reviewers to comment on. Thanks for adressing the other points. GermanJoe (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Honors and awards: "During the ground breaking ceremony for G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons building held in 2010." Needs another "the" before the building name.
  • Find a Grave (ref 13) isn't a reliable source. Something else will have to be found to support that sentence.
    • This came up in the last FAC, and my comment then was:
I typically avoid FindAGrave as well, but used it to cite his parents' death dates as 1) that information is not contained in any other source I could find 2) it is noncontroversial information 3) a picture of the grave is included. So yes, I would prefer another source, but that seems like reasonably important uncontroversial information to me. Definitely a grey area as far as RS goes, though. I wouldn't be opposed to commenting out that sentence, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Is it preferable to not include the info in that context? Disavian (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no truly reliable source that covers facts, it is preferable to exclude them. That's in general, not just when an article is at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was just hoping that the picture of the grave conferred some extra reliability. I've gone ahead and hidden the statement in question. diff Disavian (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. :) Disavian (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
  • when he oversaw dramatic changes in the institute, including $1 billion in new construction, increased retention and graduation rates, a higher nationwide ranking and a much larger student body. - Not so sure about the use of construction without further description. May just be better to mention new construction without the money value.
  • Need to stay consistent with use of the serial comma throughout the article. I've switched everything I see to the structure X, Y, and Z rather than X, Y and Z.
  • Bessie Johnson - Was Johnson her native name, or did she not take her husband's name? If she did take the name, she should be nee Johnson.
  • Since it mentions his children, it seems the section early life could just be changed to personal life.
  • However, the faculty encouraged him to pursue a graduate degree, so he continued his education and received his master's in 1965.[5] - Masters in what?
  • Structure of this paragraph is disorganized. It switches between undergrad and grad.
  • against his wishes, a surveyor for a railroad company.[6][7] - Why is it against his wishes?
    • These are the quotes I have for that:

    • "Co-oping was a fabulous experience for me," Clough said. "A lot of people say you become a co-op student to find out what you want to do--the odd twist for me was that I found out what I didn't want to do. But; it was very valuable experience. "I was a surveyor for the railroad company. I surveyed when it snowed and when it was burning up. I decided that if I wanted to do something else, I had better start studying."

    • I worked for the railroad, doing surveying and drafting up and down the line between Atlanta and Cincinnati. These railroad surveys were the basis for the platt maps of towns all along the rail line. In addition to keeping them up to date, we surveyed for new industrial parks with rail sidings.
      We also measured the arcs of curves and the height of tunnels, overpasses and bridges with ironwork across the top, to see if the new triple-decker train cars that were designed to carry automobiles would fit. If a tunnel was too low, we would test the bed to see if the tracks could be lowered.
      That co-op job taught me one thing about my chosen major of civil engineering, and that was that I did not want to become a surveyor after I graduated. I enjoyed being outside, but I wasn’t too thrilled about searching for survey monuments in pigpens that had been built over them since the last survey was taken. So I became a geo-technical engineer instead, and never used the surveying skills I had learned on my co-op job.

    • Basically, it was a job he did not enjoy. I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing it, but nothing is coming to mind right this moment. Disavian (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clough's first academic position was as an assistant professor at Duke University.[5] He then became a full professor at Stanford University.[5] - Years?
    • According to the source: "Clough was an assistant and then associate professor at Duke University (1969-1974) and an associate and then full professor at Stanford University (1974-1982)." diff. Disavian (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1982, he went to Virginia Tech as a professor of civil engineering - Not went. Joined the faculty of
  • In 1993, he moved to provost and vice president for academic affairs at the University of Washington.[5] - He didn't move to provost; he became provost.
  • Clough founded the United States Universities Council of Geotechnical Engineering Research, and served as the organization's first president in 1993.[12] - Does he still serve? When did he stop serving, if not?
  • On September 1, 1994, Clough became the first Georgia Tech alumnus to serve as the President of the Institute, succeeding John Patrick Crecine, and was in office during the 1996 Summer Olympics.[13][14] - In all honesty, while I understand the Olympics nod, I don't think it's pertinent to this article.
    • Well, the 1996 Summer Olympics really changed the campus - Georgia Tech was the site of the Olympians' Village and the Aquatic Center where all of the swimming events took place. The plans were presumably well in the works when he took office, but he was around when the event actually occurred. I don't mind removing the snippet, but that's why I included it in the first place. Disavian (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1998, he separated the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs into the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and returned the College of Management to "College" status. - this sentence is a mess. It should read separated... into the Ivan College of Liberal Arts and the College of Management, which he returned to independent status.
  • This separation was a major organizational change that built upon the large (and controversial) reorganization of the institute by Clough's predecessor.[15][16][17] - Why was it controversial?
    • I explain this in History of Georgia Tech#Restructuring controversy, I'll copy that bit here for you:
      President John Patrick Crecine proposed a controversial restructuring in 1988. The Institute at that point had three colleges: the College of Engineering, the College of Management, and the catch-all COSALS, the College of Sciences and Liberal arts.[188] Crecine reorganized the latter two into the College of Computing, the College of Sciences, and the Ivan Allen College of Management, Policy, and International Affairs.[187][189] Crecine announced the changes without asking for input, and consequently many faculty members disliked him for his top-down management style.[187] The administration sent out ballots in 1989, and the proposed changes passed with very slim margins.[187] The restructuring took effect in January 1990. While Crecine was seen in a poor light at the time, the changes he made are considered visionary. In January 1994, Crecine resigned.[187][190]
      Disavian (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech also received the Hesburgh Award,[11] - for?
  • The largest result of this case was a change to Georgia Tech's Student Code of Conduct and Community Guide removing penalties for harassing or discriminating against other students.[34][35] - This is a bit confusing. I think the explanation should be brief, but this explanation doesn't really do anything for me in terms of explaining it.
  • Oppose - Prose needs some work. If we work together quickly, we can get this to FA level. :) ceranthor 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After these comments are fixed adequately, I'll post more comments for the rest of the article. ceranthor 12:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- While I applaud Ceranthor's offer to work with the nominator to get this to FAC in short order, after six wees I think we have to put it to bed for now. Pls continue to address any outstanding comments away from FAC and when a minimum of two weeks has passed the article can be renominated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/G._Wayne_Clough/archive2&oldid=1086353753"