Talk:Georgia Tech Research Institute/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Disavian in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. Please fix Autonomous system which is a disamb. link. or external links
- Done Disambiguated to Autonomous robot. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for criteria)
Disamb. links and external links check out.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "80% of GTRI’s total expenditures.[2]"->"80% of GTRI’s total revenues.[2]"
- "This group investigated the forty existing engineering experiments at universities around the country"->"This group investigated the forty existing engineering experimental stations at universities around the country"
- Please reword for greater clarity: "The new organization was created as a non-profit contract organization for the EES, "
- Use active voice: "In 1940, Gerald Rosselot was appointed by Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer as the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station."->"In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station."
- "and Rosselot's hand in the foundation of Scientific Atlanta" - explain how Scientific Associates was renamed Scientific Atlanta. Also do you mean "founding" instead of "foundation?"
- Explain that the reactor was on-campus or close to campus.
- "GTRI operates independently" -> "GTRI operates independently of Georgia Tech"
- "must comply with negotiated Federal Acquisition Regulations"->"must comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations for negotiated contracts"
- Please reword: "GTRI reaches out to the academic side of Georgia Tech" - meaning unclear. Do you mean teaching side vs research side?
- Please reword: "take advantage of the broad experience and expertise of Georgia Tech’s top-ranked programs," - this can be stated more neutrally.
- Question: If I can cite that the programs are top- or highly-ranked, would that satisfy neutrality a bit better? I can't think of a better way of wording this that makes the point that this statement is making.LaMenta3 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is important to stay focused and to be unambiguous. The sentence can mean either "Georgia Tech has highly-ranted programs." or "Of Georgia Tech's many programs, GTRI works with the highly-ranked ones." I would leave it at broad experience and expertise and not pile on. But you can try something else. Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done, pending review of last item. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question: If I can cite that the programs are top- or highly-ranked, would that satisfy neutrality a bit better? I can't think of a better way of wording this that makes the point that this statement is making.LaMenta3 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- State how many acres in "at a major off-campus research facility" - quantify and source its size.
- Question. Is that really relevant when we don't quantify any of the other physical spaces GTRI occupies? I'm not sure how else to phrase the sentence to communiate that it's non-trivial. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume that an unmeasured amount of lab space on the main campus is used for GTRI-funded projects, not just the exclusively-GTRI buildings. However, the off-campus facilities must have some size, so it would be very helpful to the reader to give a number to explain that it is big. Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I made some effort to elaborate on the physical space they have, how's that look? It could probably be further expanded to mention their more specialized facilities (wind tunnel, radar test areas, nanotech space) but I think it's a better overview now than it was before. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I assume that an unmeasured amount of lab space on the main campus is used for GTRI-funded projects, not just the exclusively-GTRI buildings. However, the off-campus facilities must have some size, so it would be very helpful to the reader to give a number to explain that it is big. Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Question. Is that really relevant when we don't quantify any of the other physical spaces GTRI occupies? I'm not sure how else to phrase the sentence to communiate that it's non-trivial. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is the current name?
- Done. It's the Cobb County Research Facilty. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should we reference, "OMB Circular A-122 and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 31.2."? Racepacket (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's inherent in a United States defense contractor but I tossed a partial cite on there anyway. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- State how many acres in "at a major off-campus research facility" - quantify and source its size.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Need source for "Comparison of ranks at Georgia Tech" table.
- Done. Reused a reference that covers this. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You have added a number of footnotes in response to my request to elaborate on the facilities. This has resulted in a large number of primary sources from the GTRI website. However, the information in question (such as the location of the branch offices) can be reliably sourced back to GTRI rather than insisting on secondary sources. Hence, I believe the article meets the GA criteria.
- Need source for "Comparison of ranks at Georgia Tech" table.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Consider stating how many graduate research assistantships, cooperative education programs, and undergraduate assistantships that GTRI currently has.
- Done. "As of fiscal year 2010, GTRI employed 69 graduate co-ops, 129 undergraduate co-ops, and 132 student assistants." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you name some specific examples of GTRI research discoveries?
- Done. diff. If you think I need to add more, I can certainly expand upon that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Add a new section about the organization of GTRI. Does it have a separate Board of Directors? How are they selected?
- Done. Assuming I interpreted this correctly, you wanted a section on the higher-level organizational structure. Here's the diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it were me, I would add how Trustees are selected for the GTARC Board, " Three members shall be from the faculty of the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of whom shall be the President thereof, and the other two of whom shall be selected by said President, to hold office at his will. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association, Inc. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. * The foregoing five members shall select seven additional members from industry at large, without regard to whether such members are alumni of the Georgia Institute of Technology." see http://www.gtarc.gatech.edu/articles-of-incorporation/ They serve 3 year terms. The article needs to give the reader a sense of who heads the organization. Racepacket (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, I think that would go in the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation article. I'll consider it, though. The real question is how much input the GTARC Board really has over the organization; I don't think it's like a traditional company where the board has the final say. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both points are valid. However, the GTARC Board is the governing board for GTRI, not the Georgia Tech Board of Trustees. Once you tell the reader that they are separate, you owe the reader an objective description of how they are separate. The description of the GTARC Board shows that it is independent, but still a part of the Tech family. Racepacket (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wrote a paragraph on advisory boards: diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both points are valid. However, the GTARC Board is the governing board for GTRI, not the Georgia Tech Board of Trustees. Once you tell the reader that they are separate, you owe the reader an objective description of how they are separate. The description of the GTARC Board shows that it is independent, but still a part of the Tech family. Racepacket (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- If anything, I think that would go in the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation article. I'll consider it, though. The real question is how much input the GTARC Board really has over the organization; I don't think it's like a traditional company where the board has the final say. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- If it were me, I would add how Trustees are selected for the GTARC Board, " Three members shall be from the faculty of the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of whom shall be the President thereof, and the other two of whom shall be selected by said President, to hold office at his will. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association, Inc. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. * The foregoing five members shall select seven additional members from industry at large, without regard to whether such members are alumni of the Georgia Institute of Technology." see http://www.gtarc.gatech.edu/articles-of-incorporation/ They serve 3 year terms. The article needs to give the reader a sense of who heads the organization. Racepacket (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Assuming I interpreted this correctly, you wanted a section on the higher-level organizational structure. Here's the diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- How many patents does GTRI currently hold? How extensive is GTRI's licensing income?
- Done. I added the patents to the lead. No idea on the licensing income. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Patent license income not identified in the GTRI 2010 Annual Report. 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I added the patents to the lead. No idea on the licensing income. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- ApparNently GTRI received stimulus funds under the ARRA that it used to build a new building. Is that worth mentioning? Racepacket (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference that says that? It might not hurt to throw it in if it's relevant enough. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- ARRA sources: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=48184 , http://www.gtrc.gatech.edu/financials/gtrc_2010.pdf at p. 7. $11.6 million for carbon neutral energy lab building.
- So here's the page on recovery.gov that lists the awards to the Georgia Tech Research Corporation. The thing is, all sponsored research/grants/assistantships/etc go through that contracting agency, so there's no real evidence that GTRI in particular is getting that money. Georgia Tech is definitely getting money from the stimulus, but beyond that I don't think we can draw any conclusions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Basically, the two entities are financially independent, with contracts for GTRI going through the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation. No ARRA funds are listed as going to GTRI or GTARC, so there's not a source to firmly state that they got any. I'm not ruling it out but there's not a RS that says it occurred. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for following up. Let's drop this. Racepacket (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- ARRA sources: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=48184 , http://www.gtrc.gatech.edu/financials/gtrc_2010.pdf at p. 7. $11.6 million for carbon neutral energy lab building.
- Do you have a reference that says that? It might not hurt to throw it in if it's relevant enough. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consider stating how many graduate research assistantships, cooperative education programs, and undergraduate assistantships that GTRI currently has.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Please remove all puffing.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I audited for un-citeable, non-neutral language and made a few corrections. However, I've been looking at this article for awhile and it's become easy to overlook things that are ambiguous as to their neutrality. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Can I get some elaboration on the '?' regarding suitable captions? LaMenta3 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article. You bring up some valid issues that I'll definitely have a crack at ASAP. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please let me know when you are ready for me to re-read the article. Racepacket (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
May 16 reading
editWe are almost done:
- Please check the lead to make sure that all of the facts are also in the body of the article as well.
- When I looked over this one, I realized that the employee, financial and patent numbers weren't included in the article body and the best solution I could think of was the "Assets" section. What do you think of that? I plan on expanding the intellectual property section, but I need to find/sort through the sources there to write some decent prose. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- In the quotation "the research station". should the period go inside the quotation?
- According to wiki style, no, unless the punctuation is part of the quote. Here's the policy: MOS:LQ —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- "made way for further technology transfer"->"facilitated subsequent technology transfer" ???
- Fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- "one such example is his placement of noted physicist"->"one such example is his recruiting noted physicist" ???
- Fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- "The establishment of research facilities was also championed by Boyd."->"Boyd also championed the establishment of research facilities."
- Fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- "The Frank H. Neely Research Reactor would be completed in 1963 and would be operational until 1996,"->"The Frank H. Neely Research Reactor was completed in 1963 and was operational until 1996,"
- Fixed —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- "A TEMPEST approved version of the Apple II Plus called the Microfix was developed by GTRI in 1980 for U.S. Army FORSCOM."->"In 1980, GTRI developed a TEMPEST approved version of the Apple II Plus called the Microfix for U.S. Army FORSCOM."
- Fixed. I love these changes you're proposing, great copyediting work there ^_^ —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The page http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/synergy-with-georgia-tech lists a number of current projects that might be worthy of mention.
- Should you clarify that Applied Systems Laboratory at Huntsville (ASLH) is in Huntsville, AL in the table and clarify that the sentence, "Additionally, GTRI operates a laboratory in Huntsville, Alabama." could be expanded to refer to ASLH.
- Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "Assets" reorganization is helpful, although over the long run you might come up with a better section heading - "Description of operations" or just "Description" - think about it, but it is not a barrier to GA. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wasn't totally happy with that section name either, but couldn't think of anything more apt for what I wanted to describe. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- ".[73] In addition to their role as a contract agency, GTARC"->".[73] In addition to GTARC's role as a contract agency, it"
- Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please change "GT" to "Georgia Tech" so that we use one short form consistently in the article. I did see where you defined GT.
- Fixed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC) This has been an interesting review. Unfortunately there are few Good Articles to use as a model for assessing a university research institute article. You did a good job on covering the hybrid nature of GTRI's governance, and I hope that you will work on improving the GTARC article as well. Congratulations on a Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! The article has been greatly improved with your help :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)