Wikipedia:Peer review/United States Military Academy/archive1

United States Military Academy[edit]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work to increase the quality of this article. I would like to see the rating classification improve from it's current B-class. I think that its currently up to par if not better than the articles for Air Force or Navy, which are both GA-rated, but I want to make it better. I have tried to model the flow of the article after some other colleges that are FAs, such as Duke and Texas A&M, but West Point has some unique qualities that don't conform to an article about a civilian college. I was not sure what category to list it under for peer review (history, military history, social science). Perhaps a more experienced editor could help me better classify it for review, but for now I'll put it here. Please post any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Ahodges7 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Madcoverboy

Remove the mission statement from the lead as the lead should be a summary not an introduction. If it has some historical significance, place it in history, if it's just an artifact of 1990s mission statement-ese, emphasize the important parts and leave the rest for a citation.

Thanks, I removed it. USMA takes the wording of its mission statement very seriously. Other than adding another section for it, I didn't think it did it justice to put it in another section.Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a good scrub-down for consistency in punctuation and formatting style: punctuation in or out of quotes, citations before or after stops, etc.
Organization and density of pictures in some sections upsets the flow of text.
Citations and references are spotty in many sections like Curriculum.

by spotty do you mean that they are not high quality or they are not thorough enough? I've added a few more and will continue to refine the references for this section.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the list of academic majors as this isn't good practice in any UNI article (WP:IINFO) and there's nothing particularly surprising.

Done. I've reworked the academic section, reduced the info, and converted the table to prose.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section seems excellent: well sourced and comprehensive

Thanks.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curriculum needs to be tightened up and condensed (e.g., take out the three rules of thumb, as just one example). It may also be appropriate to demote Admissions and merge it with Curriculum.

I'm going to leave admissions as its own section for now unless I get more feedback from reviewers who feel the same way. I feel the admission process to USMA (Air Force & Navy also) is unique because of the requirement for governmental appointment. If other experienced editors disagree, I'll be happy to merge it with curriculum. As it is, I'll condense it, as it probably is too long.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cadet rank & organization section should probably be a subsection within Student life or Organization. Staff should be merged into an Organization section as well.

I moved the rank & organization section down to the "cadet life" section and reworked it into prose.Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The embedded lists throughout need to be prose-ified - traditions especially.
Change the caption of the picture with Coaches Knight & K to emphasize their relationship with USMA

Done.Ahodges7 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think club or company sports/athletics have substantial enough notability to warrant inclusion.
"litany of traditions, songs, and facts about the Academy that all cadets are required to learn their freshman summer." Without getting crufty, this should definitely be expanded upon.
Alumni section needs to be unpackaged as well. Listing last names of alumni w/o contextualizing. Some more descriptive info about the number of alumni holding significant posts (congressmen, senators, governors, fortune 500 CEOs, astronauts, etc.) I would also recommend merging the two daughter articles as it seems like a strange spin out.
Take out the trivia section "West Point in fiction & media"

Done!Ahodges7 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that peacockery and boosterism is generally well under control. The primary issue is condensing and reorganizing the structure and then secondly tightening the sections under curriculum. Madcoverboy (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would pain you more to ask a midshipman, Aggie, or Hokie for advice, but if I had to choose among these military-oriented universities, Texas A&M has some of the most exemplary content and talented editors that all university articles should strive to adopt. I would strongly encourage you to get in contact with BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and ask for his advice/feedback. Madcoverboy (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw geez. Thanks Madcoverboy. <user blushes, puts hands behind his back, and twists toe into the ground> — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll contact BQZip01 (talk · contribs). Don't mind talking to Middies or Hokies either if it will improve the article. Ahodges7 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USMA help[edit]

Sure. I'd be happy to help. As far as "improving and then getting FA", I'd say scrap that plan altogether and just go for FA. I've brought two articles straight from stub class up to FA and it isn't that hard, but it can be tedious. In general, I think the article is almost there. The references seem pretty good and are varied. As a start on how to find stuff that will be a problem in the FA process, read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more info.

A few things I'd run by first

Citations - make sure they all use the EXACT same format and the links work
OK. I formatted them all wrong. I'll have to go back and redo them all to WP:CIT standard. dang, this will take a while, I had to go back to work today... Ahodges7 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Images - remove all pixel sizing. Use [[File:Image name.jpg|thumb|right/left/center|description]] add |upright in there if the image is a portait.~~
Complete!Ahodges7 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MoS - I think this one will bite you the most. Do yourself a favor and at least read through it once (don't memorize it or anything, but be familiar with it).
Working through WP:MoS now. Will do best to conform ASAP.Ahodges7 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Realize that almost any number has an associated unit of measurement: 14 feet, 80 students, 190 classes of cadets, etc. and all need no-break spaces.~~
I think I've gotten them all. Ahodges7 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a glance through the lead, I noticed that a few terms did not have metric equivalents included (namely "acres"). If you'll look through Texas A&M's page, you can find a simple program that will provide automatic conversions with many of the measurements.

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]