From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory of the Georgia Institute of Technology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2007 Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
August 8, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
August 14, 2007 Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 25, 2008 Good article reassessmentKept
December 19, 2012 Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Bob McMath was a history prof at Tech: I had him for a class about 1983 (IIRC); and he was well liked by the students per the Course Critique book. For the record, I was a student at Tech 1978—`83; and back for 2 quick quarters in 1988. Discpad ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC) reply

User subpage

Why is this a user subpage, and not a main namespace article? ---- Rodzilla ( talk) 06:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The rationale for using a user subpage is that it serves as a place to develop text that isn't not mature or stable enough to be a mainspace article. Also, once this history article is fleshed out, I'd like a summary of the expanded article to replace the contents of Georgia Institute of Technology#History. I'm leaving the "readyness" up to MaxVeers more than anything, as it is his user subpage. Make sense? — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Or more simply, we could move it to the mainspace. We just don't want to yet. :p — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hammertime!

I think the page is mature enough for the mainspace. What do you guys think? I know it needs some serious expansion, but it's no longer the young section that it once was. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know...perhaps we should tick a few more things off the to-do list first. On that note, might I suggest a subsection about the history of women at Tech? There is a lot of specific information about the subject that is distinct from the rest of the timeline and doesn't particularly flow well with the rest of the text. For example, there is the info about the women at the school of business, then women being admitted, then actually being able to enroll in programs,the opening of dorms, then finally the issue of "tripling" in female dorms the 1980s (?) because more women were admitted than they had housing for.
Also, speaking of "flow," that's another reason I don't think it's quite ready...parts of it feel really choppy. I think some consideration for style should be made before it goes "live." LaMenta3 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC) reply
It's good enough to be a mainspace article after that last expansion. I'm moving it. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 17:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Amazing work! MaxVeers 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm especially proud of my paragraph on Crecine's institute reorganization :) — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

GA Review

Spotted a sentence or two that needs an individual citation, but overall the article meets all the criteria for GA. Congratulations and good work. Mocko13 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

A-Class

I have downgraded this from an A to a B for WikiProject History. There was no formal A-class review and I don't believe it would pass one in it's current state-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It passed a Good Article nomination, and as such is at least GA-class. Also, it has had one FAC (unsuccessful, but barely so) - so despite the length of the to do list, this is a high-quality article. If you want to put it up for A-class review, or if you don't believe it's GA-class and you wish to put it up for Good Article review, please do so. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply
No, it was fine as a GA. It has improved somewhat now and might pass an A-Class review. I won't be nominating it though, as I haven't worked on it.-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Georgia Tech Gym.jpg

Image:Georgia Tech Gym.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Page name

Surely this should be located at History of Georgia Institute of Technology, shouldn't it? I mean, the article on the university itself is at Georgia Institute of Technology, not at Georgia Tech. Just seems like we should use the official rather than colloquial name.

Any objections to my moving it? Dylan ( talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sort of on the fence with this one; while I believe that the main article ( Georgia Institute of Technology) should adhere to the official name, I'm not so sure about the sub-articles such as History of Georgia Tech and Georgia Tech traditions. I'm actually rather happy about where they are at the moment. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 21:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm inclined towards keeping the colloquial name, personally. Some school articles use their common name like Georgia Tech does:
I'm not dead set on it, but it seems to at least be acceptable to use the school's colloquial name in related articles, while the main article uses the official name. • WarpFlyght ( talkcontribs) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Good examples. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The official name of Georgia Tech is THE Georgia Institute of Technology. If you thing it should be the title at least get it correct. Need proof? Look at the school seal, its around the rim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.34.177 ( talk) 02:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No it's not. Don't even pretend. Seriously. If you want proof, GT's trademarks are listed on this page. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I just wanted to update that the trademarks page has moved since I posted that: Georgia Tech Licensing & Trademarks. Disavian ( talk) 03:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC) reply

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend taking the article back to WP:FAC if editors are interested. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 07:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been working on the suggestions from the last FAC (listed in the to do list) but it's hard to maintain momentum with that many pending tasks for this article. Thanks for the corrections, though. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

File:GT Lorraine.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:GT Lorraine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so ( commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding a question of neutrality

Hello,

I noticed some interesting wording while reviewing History of Georgia Tech. Particularly with the desegregation of Tech. Naturally, the history of Georgia Tech and the rivalry with UGA makes fertile breeding ground for a little biased talk against University of Georgia and other universities. I don't think it would hurt for us to reevaluate the neutrality of the article.

For all Tech alumni out there, I will be soon creating the History of the University of Georgia article. You should expect the same reciprocality and good nature of neutrality from me when I create this article.

Best, DMB112 ( talk) 03:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply

This article cites references which supports all of the historical facts found in this article. Please be more specific regarding wording in this article which you have identified as bias. Thanks Mistercontributer ( talk) 01:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The sources that discuss integration all highlight that UGA had a hard time of it, and GT did not. That's not bias, that's a fact. I suggest you pick up a copy of Engineering The New South if you doubt it. Disavian ( talk) 02:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Having re-read over the integration section, I don't see language that could be interpreted as non-neutral, and every statement of fact that could be questioned seems to be backed up with one or more source, some of which are from the University of Georgia Library's own historical records. Please provide examples of statements which you find non-neutral, facts of which you question the veracity, or sources of which you question the reliability, because I don't see any issues. LaMenta3 ( talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't see the neutrality issues either, but looking forward to the UGA History article. MaxVeers ( talk) 19:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you all for your prompt replies. I am sorry for the delay. I see that I'm in the minority regarding the article's neutrality. That's fine. I was concerned when I saw the initial desegregation comparison to U. Georgia. While tensions did exist regarding desegregation, many [students] also rallied at the Georgia Arch in 1961 for integration, not against it. The article, intentionally or unintentionally, worded the University of Georgia's desegregation to be more along the lines of the Ole Miss riot of 1962. However, that aforementioned bit has been removed. I see no need to continue the question of neutrality claim. It was simply distasteful and reeked of a holier than thou frame of mind.
I will also note for your general knowledge, that UGA integrated before Georgia State University(1962), Emory University and Mercer University in 1963. University of Alabama also did not integrate until 1963. In fact, Georgia Tech only integrated "peacefully" (as your article indicates) as a direct result of the witnessing turmoil University of Georgia faced after their riot. [1] After the riots at Georgia, the GT community figured it would be cleaner if they went peacefully. I'm not saying that the author had demonized UGA, but I wanted to set that fact straight. The only reason the riot first happened at Georgia is because UGA is the state's flagship university. Naturally, any desegreative event would occur at the larger university.
Once more, I don't mean to question the whole article, only some wording and occasional lack of sources. By on large, everything seems fine. Small semantics count. "Brittain suggested that the lack of Georgia Tech alumni on the Board of Regents contributed to their decision." Where is a source for this? Does citation 89 hold for this statement? It is likely true, but a source is still required for further readings.
I recommend a deeper inspection of other articles regarding Georgia Tech. It's important to keep neutrality in mind. Let us make like our school's researchers and work together. [2]
MaxVeers, I am glad you look forward to it! I do as well.
Best,
DMB112
DMB112 ( talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Georgia Tech Follows Suit". History: Desegregation of Higher Education. Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 February 2013.
  2. ^ "UGA, Ga. Tech, Emory team up for malaria research". 11 Alive. Retrieved 21 February 2013.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on History of Georgia Tech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 21 external links on History of Georgia Tech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Georgia Tech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Georgia Tech. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply