Talk:Florida State University

}}

GA Reassessment

Florida State University

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: With acknowledgement of Sirberus's efforts to improve the article and address concerns, I am still unfortunately closing this as a delist. This is driven by the repeated issues with failed verification brought up by Nikkimaria, and the overreliance on non-independent sources noted by several editors. The best path forward here is likely to restart the article from scratch (though the sources can be kept) to fully eliminate both of the problems which led to delisting. Once this is done, please feel free to nominate the article for GA again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This article contains significant copying/close paraphrasing of non-free sources. I've removed some but more substantive rewriting appears warranted. Samples:

• Article: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS' emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as, developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team composed of researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry"
• Source: "The Center for Advanced Power Systems (CAPS) is a multidisciplinary research center organized to perform basic and applied research to advance the field of power systems technology. CAPS emphasis is on application to electric utility, defense, and transportation, as well as developing an education program to train the next generation of power systems engineers. The research focuses on electric power systems modeling and simulation, power electronics and machines, control systems, thermal management, cyber-security for power systems, high temperature superconductor characterization and electrical insulation research. With support from the U.S. Navy, Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the U.S. Department of Energy, CAPS has established a unique test and demonstration facility with one of the largest real-time digital power systems simulators along with 5 MW AC and DC test beds for hardware in the loop simulation. The center is supported by a research team comprised of dedicated and highly skilled researchers, scientists, faculty, engineers, and students, recruited from across the globe, with strong representation from both the academic/research community and industry."
• Article: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay, which studied red tide. "
• Source: "Other marine stations maintained by Florida State University until 1954 included one at Mayport, on the St. Johns River near Jacksonville, which conducted research related to the menhaden and shrimp fisheries and oceanographic problems of the Gulf Stream and the mouth of the St. John's River, and one on Mullet Key at the mouth of Tampa Bay which studied red tide."

The article also contains a number of other cleanup tags that should be addressed once the copying is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Kindly explain why you removed this material:

In 1819, the Florida Territory was ceded to the United States by Spain as an element of the Adams–Onís Treaty. The Territory was conventionally split by the Appalachicola or later the Suwannee rivers into East and West areas.

Since you appear to be from Canada and perhaps unaware (forgive me if this is incorrect), this material brings out important information about how and why the East and West Florida Seminaries came to be (these became the flagship universities of Florida State University and the University of Florida), and why Florida was divided by early leaders. This sentence accurately, referenced, and concisely illustrates the early view of Florida by both Federal and State leaders. Additionally, this historically relevant information is formative in Florida politics generally since higher education in Florida shows how Florida turned from a rough territory into what is now one of the fastest-growing states in the United States. Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am reviewing your changes and am generally fine with your revisions. You are making the article better - thank you! Wikipedia is a time suck, so it will take a while for me to make corrections and continue the review.Sirberus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I rewrote the CAPS article. Kindly review and advise if more work is required.Sirberus (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• I rewrote the marine research article. Kindly advise if more is required. I will wait a few days for your response. If I don't hear from you I will remove the tag you placed and replace the sentence of discussion. Thanks again for improving the article!Sirberus (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the approach you're taking (in both cases) is not going to address the problem. The original was copied almost directly from an external source. Your revision creates a derivative work of that external content, which still can't be used. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content has some guidance on how to approach this instead. Note also that these are examples only, not a complete list. I've opened a CCI request concerning an editor who worked extensively on this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good, let's hope the other editor can help. What I did was to rewrite the text based on my interpretation of the original. It was not a mere paraphrase, the personality of the original author is gone. I don't see that as derivative, as I relied on my education and experience. However, let's see what results from the skilled editor.

  You seem to have skipped over my first question - can we resolve that small matter? Thank you!Sirberus (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• I removed it because the details of what treaty accomplished this are misplaced in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Florida leaders of that era thought of Florida in east and west terms, resulting from the A-O Treaty. Congressional records show the desire for a "University of Florida" by reserving two townships in east and west Florida in 1836. The 1836 document was signed by Francis Eppes, among others, who later would be the mayor of Tallahassee and the first leader of the West Seminary, which evolved into what is known today as Florida State University, though it was also titled in state law the University of Florida in the post-Civil War period. This link may be a clearer to the origins of West-East Florida. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/florida. I think it makes sense to show why there were two seminaries and how the concept developed. The references to this are already in the history section of the article. Sirberus (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed “research university” from the first sentence of the page? This seems inconsistent with the style used on the pages for all other major research universities. TravelsWithCharley (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Good Article Review (GAR) process - it appears we need to refresh ourselves with the GAR process:

Reassessment process Editors should discuss the article's issues with reference to the good article criteria, and work cooperatively to resolve them. The priority should be to improve articles and retain them as GAs rather than to delist them, wherever reasonably possible. If discussion has stalled and there is no obvious consensus, uninvolved editors are strongly encouraged to add a new comment rather than closing the discussion. If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close.

• I have requested help from other editors to protect the process while the GAR is underway. Sirberus (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• • The delisting editor (Real4jyy) shows up and says the reason the delisting was made is that no additional edits were made in two weeks...while the two active editors were waiting for a subject matter expert in non-free material to contribute to the review. Pardon me, but I live in the real world, and Wikipedia is a low priority for me and others who want to make Wikipedia better. It may takes months to finish the work. Frankly, the pattern of this individual appears to be to move from one GA review to another and delist whatever falls under their cursor. That is absurd. It takes substantial work to bring an article to GA status. I suggest if any editor want the authority to delist a GA, they should at least bring an article to the GA standard first.Sirberus (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Copyright violations in articles are a GAN quickfail criterion, Sirberus. You will note that WP:COPYRIGHT, a policy with legal implications, is just as much a part of "the real world" as whatever you consider not "low priority". Sitting around "waiting for a non-free expert to contribute" is not acceptable (I don't know where you got that—Nikkimaria didn't say anything of the sort would happen), and if you truly want to make Wikipedia better you would let the article be delisted and take the months to finish the work yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
      • AirshipJungleman29, I suspect that was based on my mention of opening a CCI request - that request has now been opened but given the backlog it might take some time for it to be fully actioned. It covers considerable content in this and related articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

        I am looking through what SeminoleNation added, but what data specificailly is the problem? If you cannot be more specific, what percentage is of concern? Help me identify and eliminate problem text.Sirberus (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

        Nikkimaria Just to be clear, I see you are targeting a user's contributions, not this article. Your report to CCI covers many different additions and edits a single user made to perhaps as many as four or more different articles, related in some way to FSU. Let's simplify this to the article at hand - the other edits in other articles are beyond my concern at this time. Help me to identify what is a problem in the main FSU article. Then we can (or I can, your choice) correct the issues and AirshipJungleman29 can weigh in as I appreciate all the work he's done in Wikipedia (sans the snark). Sirberus (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

      We should note that Good Article Nomination is not Good Article Reassessment. Once a Good Article, the effort is to preservation. Achieving GA status is not easy as you well know. I will not let it go if I can fix it.Sirberus (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

    • AirshipJungleman29 I will not sink the GA status of the article for the sake of the two questioned paragraphs. The two paragraphs can be deleted if indeed they are a violation of copyright, which I tend to doubt, absent some verification. And if we refer to GAR process we note that delisting is perhaps the last action to take, with emphasis first on correction and preservation. Out of respect for the process Nikkimaria started I was waiting for input.

      Nikkimaria, how are you determining the two questioned paragraphs are burdened? What process are you using? If I can corroborate that status, I will delete suspect material today. Or, shall we continue to wait? Sirberus (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

      • I'm not sure what you mean by "burdened" here. I provided above sample comparisons showing copying between the article and external sources, and a link to a page that explains how to address that. I do want to emphasis though that these are samples only, not a comprehensive listing. Essentially at this point someone needs to go through the entire article to eliminate copied and closely paraphrased content, and unfortunately that's not a quick or easy process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

        Being burdened means having a problem. Let's start with your first concern - the two paragraphs you identified. Who is to judge when it's not a derivative work? Let's then clear the article by section. Once the initial concern is resolved, we can move to the top (lede) and work down. Sirberus (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

        • Again, I'm not sure what answer you're looking for here. Nobody is named as the arbiter - it's just that per Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Rewriting_content rewriting in situ continues rather than resolves the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

          I am looking for a process we can agree to follow to achieve consensus. For some items I can approach the university directly and request they authenticate and submit permission for detail which cannot otherwise be included.Sirberus (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• If rewriting is to occur, that might be a good opportunity to shift lead-exclusive information into the body and handle the unsourced text scattered here and there. I've removed an odd paragraph stating the university was building generic university facilities and trying to make campus look visually appealing. CMD (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I saw your edit and appreciate the culling. The article has accumulated much chaff over time and it is time to clean it up. Sirberus (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• FTR I've now requested a CCI for a second editor involved in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the heads up. But that is not this article. I suspect copying and pasting text from other sources is common across Wikipedia especially among young editors, because it is easy. That's why preservation is important here, it took me a lot of work to collect sources and render referenced information for this work.Sirberus (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I found an online tool to detect plagiarism and tested it. In the last History section you deleted this text:

  By 1854 the City of Tallahassee had established a school for boys called the Florida Institute, with the hope that the State could be induced to take it over as a seminary. In 1856, Tallahassee Mayor Francis W. Eppes again offered the institute's land and building to the legislature. The bill to locate the Seminary in Tallahassee was signed by the Governor on January 1, 1857. On February 7, 1857, the first meeting of the Board of Education of the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River was held, and the institution began offering post-secondary instruction to male students. Francis Eppes served as the Seminary's Board of Education president for eight years. In 1858 the seminary absorbed the Tallahassee Female Academy, established in 1843, and became coeducational.

  The tool gives a percentage score to other sources. In the tool, it scores this as 43% matches an FSU source. I can seek permission of the university to use this and other material. But what percentage is acceptable? Can we agree to use this method to clean the work? Are you good with FSU giving permission in a fashion acceptable to Wikipedia?

  This as interesting history which I intend to correct and replace, however it evolves. Especially about the battle streamer earned by the cadets during the Civil War. What are your thoughts?Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Sirberus (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  what percentage is acceptable? Unfortunately, there isn't one. Automated tools can be helpful for catching word-for-word copying of freely accessible English-language web sources. But they will frequently flag correctly marked appropriately sized direct quotes or proper names, and miss close paraphrasing or copying of less-accessible sources. This page has more details (focused on one such tool but generally applicable). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • In refreshing myself in this area, Wikipedia has many helpful references. I see straightforward ways to cure suspected non-free material in this article.

  * Delete the material.

  * Reference the material.

  * Rewrite the material.

  * Get permission to use the material.

  * Use a combination of the above, especially in the History section, where the material is so old copyrights have expired. Sirberus (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Referencing the material is a solution only where the material is so old copyrights have expired. If all of the affected sources are willing to freely license the content, that might be another. But failing that, the solution is delete and start again (not rewrite from the existing content). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am rewriting some sections of the history. It may be the easiest to deal with due to the age of the material. Fortunately, I have many of the the references on hand.Sirberus (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  • The recent deletions of suspected non-free material is helpful. Now material may be vetted and added without concern for non-free taint.Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

    Nikkimaria are you good now with the non-free tag being removed?Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately not at this point - while great progress has been made on one CCI, there's at least one more that impacts this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    What user?Sirberus (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    I was thinking of this one, but even that might not be the end of the story - the piece I removed today was not from either of those two CCIs. I should also note that in doing spotchecks, I'm running into a lot of cases where the citations given are not copied but also don't support the material they are claimed to. I'm not sure whether that's because a different source was used originally (as was the case for at least some of the copying), or whether uncited material was interspersed with cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

    This article has picked up a lot of stuff over the years and was written mostly before Wikipedia copyvios were closely followed (before Wikipedia started trying to monetize things?). It has also been edited over time. The entire work should be checked. Back then, citations were manually entered, and citing material properly took a lot of work (remember Kate Turabian’s book? - lol). Today, there is an automated process that simplifies cites. I want to preserve GA status. It will be cleaned up one way or another. Sirberus (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sirberus, as this article contains significant uncited material, many WP:GACR-relevant tags such as {{failed verification}}, {{clarification needed}} and {{cleanup gallery}}, not to mention the concerns about non-free material usage, it will be delisted as a GA unless significant improvement is made within the near future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I have corrected a number of cites and added cites where tags were located. I think the non-free material has been removed, unless other editors think more culling is required. The gallery was a mess and I removed anyone not elected or fired into space at taxpayer expense. What else? Sirberus (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Lots of additional edits, checks and rewrites. I scanned the article for additional copyvios and found none. Removed the Non-Free tag.Sirberus (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What other problems need to be addressed? I'll keep tweaking, but I need objective assistance.Sirberus (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Created page for FSU College of Applied Studies - waiting for review. Sirberus (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove a failed verification tag when the paragraph is not verified by the citation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed several FV and CN tags after I have addressed the assorted problems, like a page number problem. If you have a concern with the cite itself, please be more specific. What else needs to be done? Thanks for taking the time.Sirberus (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Does any other editor have comments on this reassessment? I'd like to wrap this up.Sirberus (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that there still seem to be verifiability issues. Couple of quick examples: "Doak Campbell Stadium is a unique venue for collegiate athletics. It is contained within the brick facade walls of University Center, the largest continuous brick structure in the world" - the given source states "Doak Campbell Stadium is the largest continuous brick structure in the United States"; "In 2008, the lower floor reopened as the graduate- and faculty-focused Scholars Commons. In 2010, the main floor was transformed into an undergraduate-focused Learning Commons. The most recent renovation added smart study rooms, an enlarged computer area, new circulation areas, a tutoring center, and the nation's first double-sided Starbucks" is cited to a source that verifies only "the nation's first double-sided Starbucks"; "The NSF denied the appeal, explaining that the superior enthusiasm for and commitment to the project demonstrated by Florida State led to the decision to relocate the lab" is cited to a source that confirms the appeal was denied but doesn't say anything about the NSF reasoning for why. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Great - this is what I need. I will correct those issues. Thanks!Sirberus (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

All done - do you see anything else? I've been cleaning up a lot of the article as I see problems. Sirberus (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Does any other editor see anything which is not GA level? I want to wrap this up. Sirberus (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Cites added to things which could reasonably be challenged. Graphics added to improve presentation. Grammar and clarity checked fine. Any reasonably cognizable copyvio material has been removed. Old data and references deleted. Excess alumni graphics trimmed to elected officials and astronauts. Any tags placed by other editors have been addressed. Anything else? In my opinion, unless someone has an issue I don't see, GA status should be affirmed. Sirberus (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Still failing verification on spotchecks. For example, "In 1992, Holton patented an improved process with an 80% yield" - don't see any of that at the given source. Also missing citations, particularly in the alumni section which seems to be largely unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where you find problems. The alumni section is of questionable value...Sirberus (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Good catch on the Holton reference. That's been updated. The alumni section may have to be mostly offloaded to a non-good article page...do you have any suggestions? Sirberus (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking other Good Article major universities I find a similar situation - some aren't verifying all the vast claims allegedly made by their alumni. At least [one doesn't verify anything]. [| This university] has done a good job with alumni referencing. Note how short the section is. But this pattern is also common: [| BYU], [| MIT], [| Syracuse U.], [| U Miami], [| U No. Dakota]...

So what do you consider a problem in a Good Article university alumni/people section? Which way should I go with this? Sirberus (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, for a start, poor-quality prose with missing or incorrect punctuation or clearly uncited material. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Let me see if I can make things better with organization and some trimming. Frankly, I'd like to delete this section. The other Good Article-rated universites retain it, but I question the value.Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I went radical and dumped the ever-growing list. Please take a look and see if this will work. The special pages set up for this list are a far better location to document all these people. Sirberus (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I will pause work to see how this rework is received. Sirberus (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Any other comments on the "People" section? Any other problems to fix? I think it (People section) looks better, but I am not sure of the final configuration. I'll continue to tweak other aspects of the article, but can we pass this and wrap this up?Sirberus (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Any other comments generally? Do we have a Good Article? Sirberus (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again hitting verifiability issues on spotchecks. Examples: "A Mysterious Clarity. It debuted at the 621 Gallery in 2004 (Tallahassee, Florida), and by popular demand, quickly evolved into a traveling show" is cited to a source that confirms this show was at that gallery in 2004 but not that that was a debut or if/why that later became a traveling show; "the ROTC unit at Florida State University is one of four collegiate military units with permission to display a battle streamer" does not appear in the given source at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In regard to the battle streamer and one of four ROTC units here's the corroboration in the listed cite: 1861-65 – During the Civil War, formal military training began at the seminary and it was briefly renamed The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute. Cadets from the institute defeated Union forces at the Battle of Natural Bridge on March 6, 1865, and because of this victory, the FSU Army ROTC is one of four in the United States permitted to display a battle streamer. That is clear enough in my opinion. However, here is a more detailed reference from another school (The Citadel) authorized to display battle streamers: As a result of actions on the battlefield by The Battalion of State Cadets, The Citadel earned the right to post nine “institutional” battle streamers for “significant participation in a battle of historical importance.” Only VMI (one “institutional” streamer), Florida State, William & Mary and Univ. of Hawaii Army ROTC units (each with one) have also been authorized that right. The national service academies post the battle streamers of their respective services, but none for “institutional” participation by the cadet corps. I'll add the cite, but it's overkill.

I'll concede the art claim as being weakly supported by the cite and not worth trying to find a better one. I deleted it. I also found a tag which I fixed, about the MoFA.

Anything else? Sirberus (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll continue to work through the references and update old material. Your primary assertion was copyvio material, which is now gone. Do you see any big stuff remaining? Sirberus (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged numerous uncited statements. I also notice excessive MOS:OVERSECTION and MOS:SANDWICHing (although I don't believe the latter is part of the GA criteria). There are many unreliable references in the article—I see Wordpress, Blogspot, and five Facebook citations. I also note that dozens of the citations are to non-independent references, which are obviously substandard compared to independent sources and may compromise WP:NPOV. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll address the references - if needed. Perfect references are not required for a Good Article. I also don't see MOS standards mandated in a Good Article. There are no website standards in the Good Article criteria either, but while desirable, and I'll work towards better presentation and cite quality none of that should stop recertification as a Good Article. Great suggestions, though. Sirberus (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

These are not suggestions... "I also don't see MOS standards mandated" it's literally on the second line! Criterion 1b) states quite clearly that a GA must comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT (in which you may find MOS:OVERSECTION), MOS:WTW, MOS:WAF, and MOS:EMBED. Criterion 2b) requires that all information in a GA is cited, and that reliable sources are used. Seriously, did you even bother to read the criteria Sirberus? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. I did skip over the MOS part in the criteria, mea culpa. I'll take a look. Sirberus (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I reworked the lede and checked the style and it was clunky. I reworked it and am open to suggestions about how it may be improved from here. However, this is still a reassessment, which has turned into a major rework. The assorted cites from lesser quality sources are going to have to be selected out carefully. Everything does not rate an article in the WSJ. Show me the ones you consider to be the worst of the lot and I will either delete the statement or replace the cite. Sirberus (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RSP, WP:SPS, and the sources I mentioned above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I have the dubious cites removed. Let me know if you catch one I missed. Sirberus (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we done? Sirberus (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This article now substantially comports with GA standards and should be re-approved for GA status. No, it's not perfect, mainly because the cites for many salient details covered in the article come from FSU news articles. No one has shown me the FSU factual information in their news blasts is misleading or otherwise incorrect, so I say they are fine until a workaround is found for more independent citations. Sirberus (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with basing entire sections on only non-independent sources is that there is no way to tell if the information is WP:UNDUE—because the balance of the article is not based on reliable sources. As it stands, the entirety of the "Campus" section is sourced only to non-independent sources—the article currently does not justify why it is necessary! The {{third-party}} banner I have placed is unquestionably valid, and it would be eligible for quickfailing at a GAN per criterion 3. No, we are very far from done, as the article is very imperfect; every time I look at it I find something wrong, and it would greatly help if you bothered to go look for things to fix yourself. Otherwise, I'll probably just give up and !vote delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this WP:FIXLOOP is getting quite exhausting, and we're all volunteers here. Ping me when you believe this article meets the GA criteria, and I'll have a read through and !vote on whether it should be kept or deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the tags you placed. I am tired of this as well, but I want this article to be GA. So I am not giving up on it. I got it through once...I'll do it again. The third-party banner for a state university...I think is unwarranted. That's like there any other authority you'd believe to produce campus maps more than the university - who has a duty to oversee the properties. However, point taken and I'll see what I can do to improve it. So much crap crept into the article over the years. I have nearly rewritten the entire article to address your reviews. Not to mention the massive changes on campus since I was a student in the 1970s. I have spent hours tracking facts and then writing something people will read, and relearning how to make it work on Wikipedia. It's work. Sirberus (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I'll give you a heads up when I'm finished. Sirberus (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In my view the loop you describe is an iterative improvement process, and I am not afraid of the hard work. It is reality in a complex environment. And we're both volunteers. I think the article is vastly better than it was when we started. I haven't done much on Wikipedia in years and have forgotten much, but I'll keep at it. The automated routines make things like cites a little easier. But the paywalls for good information are a pain and require constant workarounds. Sirberus (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU to all who have corrected my inept edits and errors. I see the work and am grateful for the work! GA or not, this article is better than it was. Sirberus (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the article is ready for review. Nikkimaria ~~ AirshipJungleman29 TravelsWithCharley StefenTower GreenLipstickLesbian Melchior2006 Beer4me ElKevbo Ira_Leviton Chipmunkdavis Real4jyy Sirberus (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Still running into failed-verification issues. For example, "Dix became the first person to hold the individual title in the 100 m, 200 m, and 400 m at the same time" does not appear in the cited source, nor does "Jimbo Fisher succeeded Bowden as head coach in 2010, winning a national championship in 2013 before departing to join Texas A&M after the 2017 season", nor does "normally holds a capacity of 1,600 people" etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. I added more cites and deleted peacock text. Sirberus (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Anything else which is material? I'll keep updating the small things as I see them. Sirberus (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  The Dix piece still fails verification: the provided sources confirm he has won titles in 100m and 200m but say nothing about him being the first to do so. (Also not sure why that whole section focuses on 2006/07?) Other examples of failed-verification issues that we're still hitting are the list of intercollegiate sports and the hymn composer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Another look:

• There is still uncited material in the article: the "College/school founding" table is uncited, and many sentences scattered around, which means that the article fails GA criterion 2b).
• The vast majority of some sections of the article is cited to non-independent sourcing. Non-independent sources are fine if used in moderation, but this is not moderate. Only two of the citations in "Research" are independent; only four in "Organization and administration"; only five in "Student life", etc. This means that I cannot say this article meets critical parts of WP:NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, and thus I don't believe the article meets GA criteria 3b) or 4).

If I was a GAN reviewer, I would not pass this article. Therefore, my !vote is delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I vote Keep As Good Article. The Section 2b reliability of the sources cited has not been shown to be unreliable, even if they are esoteric to the academic criteria of a particular state university. Every other source outside the university relies on data from the university. I will add cites as necessary to items which would reasonably be challenged, or delete any which cannot be confirmed. In my view the article substantially complies with all GA criteria. Sirberus (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@GAR coordinators: this GAR needs closing, please come to a decision. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the proponent of the GAR cited "non-free" material in the article, which has been removed. Then the proponent moved to unreliable citations, which have all been corrected. A second editor wrote of other deficiencies, all of which have been corrected during the GAR. The entire article has been nearly rewritten as a result. The criticism has become nit-picking after the corrections. GAs aren't perfect, they are "good". Thanks again to all editors who have helped with productive criticism make the article better. Sirberus (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sirberus: With respect, the lack of independent sources is not nit-picking. They are a very valid reason to delist the article. Unless you think you can largely reduce the reliance on them, and cite the college foundation as mentioned within a reasonable timeline, this article will have to be delisted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Kindly show me the cites of concern. I'll see what I can do. Sirberus (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll work on what AJ has listed: C/S Funding - add cites; Research - need independent verification; Org & Admin - Need independent verification; Student Life - need independent verification. Agreed? Sirberus (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

And I appreciate the assistance. The article is far better now. Sirberus (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Referring to noticing breaches the NPOV policy, non-negotiable for all articles as "nit-picking" is laughable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep it between the lines, AJ. We all want the article improved. It's far better now thanks to your help. To me, at times, it seems the goal posts keep being moved. However, I want to keep it GA, so I'll keep working. Sirberus (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

References

GA delisting

I understand the rationale for delisting from GA but I object to restarting the article. Public university articles usually have a good deal of primary sources and they are usually a cut above the usual primary sources - after all, they come from a government institution and can reasonably be expected to be factual. That said, of course, we want more secondary sources for figuring out the proper coverage/balance of sub-subjects - but those can be added in place. Also, the massive amount of recent work demonstrates the article in on the path to higher quality. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

My reading of the GA close was that "restarting" was more about the issues with verification than the sources. Rewriting the text directly from the sources, whether independent or not, without reference to the existing text can ensure the text is verified in a way that smaller edits does not. I also would not take this as a particular comment on this article, article quality and text-source integrity dropping over time is common. CMD (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone kindly point out what the problem with the article is as it presently stands in meeting GA criteria. I have rewritten almost everything and checked and added citations far beyond what is ordinary. By comparison, see the multiple other university GAs I listed, like this one, which was kept as a GA, have far fewer citations and have evident boosterism. Why was it passed and this article dropped? This process looks political and not objective. Sirberus (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer Review Requested

I have requested peer review of the article as it stands. Hopefully this will identify and correct any remaining problems before the article is submitted for GAN. Sirberus (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Add Lenny Hall (FSU Basketball - 1966) to Civil Rights

Reminder - Lenny Hall (1966) needs to be added as the first Black basketball player. Sirberus (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Added mention of Lenny Hall (with citation) to Civil Rights section. Sirberus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please Check All References

Editors, please take some time to check this article's references. If you can improve accuracy and diversify the origin of the reference, it may yield better quality work. However, in the case of a major state university, much data originates from the university itself. There are scant outside sources that do not rely on information from the university. In other words, diversity, for its own sake, is probably not an improvement in objectivity or accuracy. Thanks! Sirberus (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)