Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present) was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 21, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

A fact from History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that among the traditions of the University of Texas at Arlington are bed racing and oozeball?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present).

Wikipedia

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 14, 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Michael Barera (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that between 1965 and 2012, the University of Texas at Arlington's basketball and volleyball teams played on a stage in Texas Hall? Source: Barker & Worcester 2015, p. 83 and 95
- ALT1: ... that among the traditions of the University of Texas at Arlington are bed racing and oozeball? Source: Perez in The Shorthorn and Barker & Worcester 2015, p. 111
- ALT2: ... that the University of Texas at Arlington installed the first green roof in the DFW Metroplex in 2008? Source: Lutz in The Shorthorn

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Louis H. Bean
Comment: An image could be added depending on which hook is preferred.

Moved to mainspace by Michael Barera (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

While this article is long enough, it is not new enough. One has to go back to 2020 to find it 1/5 the size of today's article, so the expanded-5x-in-the-past-week prong of the newness test is not met. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Among the three hooks ALT1 is probably the more interesting one here especially due to the mention of bed racing and whatever "oozeball" is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piledhigheranddeeper: The page was moved from Michael Barera's userspace into the mainspace on the same day as the nomination, and for DYK purposes that counts as new, so that reason for declining is moot and a full review should be done. eviolite (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1, as unable to check the offline source. This is definitely the preferred alternate hook (thank you Narutolovehinata5), as the mention of "oozeball" will draw the curious. Article is long enough and appears to fall within policy. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 to T:DYK/P1

GA Review[edit]

Unsuccessful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of the University of Texas at Arlington (1965–present)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. Sorry for the long wait! I'll be using the template below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration, I would like to get a second opinion from another editor on the sourcing issue. I'm not sure what to do, so guidance from a third party will be helpful. I apologize if this leads to further delay for the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the second-opinion-giver, please see 2b below. My question is this; do you think this article, with its current sourcing, could meet the GA criteria with regards to sourcing and neutrality? Thank you for your help! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing nomination, with no prejudice against renomination, per discussion on nominator talk page. This is a fine article and is not at all in bad shape. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Like our review on the previous article (history of UTA 1917-1965), I have concerns about source independence. The same thing applies to Saxon as before: having downloaded it and read the beginning, I can see Saxon's assurances that this was not prepared as a PR piece and that no one attempted to influence him while writing the book. However, I cannot extricate the source from the fact that it was prepared as part of the centennial celebrations of the University's existence by an employee of the University. It cannot be regarded as independent. The Barker & Worcester source, too, was clearly created with the close cooperation of the University. In their Acknowledgements, they give "special gratitude" to UTA libraries dean Rebecca Bichel, saying "without her, this project could not have begun." The University also made available their photo archive as a courtesy, and the authors thank the university's Communications staff (read: PR staff). Finally, The Shorthorn is UTA's student newspaper. Per its long history and WP:RSSM, it can probably be considered reliable, but it is not an independent source. Making a rough count, probably less than 10% of the sources in the article are from sources I would consider independent of UTA, mostly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Again, I don't really have significant doubts about the reliability of these sources, but I do worry that the overwhelming use of non-independent sources may result in coverage gaps, subtle bias, or overemphasis of local detail and positive news. I'm going to think about this a little and decide what to do about it. My understanding is also that the nominator is a (properly disclosed) employee of UTA, so I want to be careful in approaching this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments under 2b.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable following copyedit - pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above 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.