Talk:Technique (newspaper)

The paper creation process

It seems to me the entire paragraph starting with "The paper is first assembled..." is pretty much superfluous. It is not asimilar to what any other newspaper is set up like and does not strike me as encyclopedic knowledge. I've not removed it for the moment, but if no one opposes within a few weeks (or whenever I remember) I probably will. --Elepsis 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. If the paragraph stays it should be edited to be more accurate to the actual process at the least. --Entertainingfate 1:14, 6 Novemeber 2006 (UTC)

Title and format

It looks as though the definite article was an historic part of the paper's title, but that this is not true of the current paper. If so, shouldn't the article instead be moved to Technique (newspaper) or something similar? Also, is it really printed in tabloid format? I realize this refers strictly to dimensions and not content, but while I've not held a copy in my hands, it looks like neither a tabloid nor broadsheet, maybe a Berliner or something. Just curious, anyone care to break out a ruler? -Tobogganoggin ^talk 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about moving the page, yes. And I'm fairly certain that it's considered a tabloid-size newspaper. The image on the article was captured from a PDF, and doesn't necessarily represent the dimensions of the actual paper. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

I have reviewed this article and believe it meets criteria at WP:WIAGA. I think the article is a well referenced and well written piece about a college newspaper. I also think considering it is a school newspaper and not a national publication the article is broad enough for GA class. However to improve especially if considering nominating to FAC then a few parts could do with expanding. Firstly the history section? Perhaps a list of some of the more contentious articles/issues of the past? Or perhaps a list of some (if any) famous contributors from the past, who have now gone on to other things? I have placed a few wikilinks I thought were missing as well. Anyway good job to all those who contributed to improve! LordHarris 10:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken links to Technique website

It is clear from the sheer number of broken links to the Technique website from various articles on Wikipedia (numbering over a hundred) that some major sea change has happened there. No media web site for a public institution would break links on its website en masse like this unless it was done intentionally to distance itself from past reporting. The breakage coincided in time with the loss of the famous "Two Bits", as we read here, as well. There is nothing in this article to indicate what sort of conservative takeover led to this. It should explain something. Please add it. -130.207.229.86 (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Two Bits was discontinued because all of the writers graduated, and didn't recruit anyone to replace them. The website was broken because they redesigned it and weren't bothered to include the archives. You can still access all of the Technique content through the Georgia Tech Library here, but I haven't had the time to go through and update all of the links. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And while we're talking about media sites breaking links, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is particularly notorious about that; articles from just a few years ago have rarely been accessible, much less the kind of age I'd need for the research I focus on around here. So at least we have the Georgia Tech Library to archive the GT student publications for us. :3 —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GA concerns

After Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tech Tower/archive1, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Traditions of the Georgia Institute of Technology/1, and other similar discussions, a lot of the older good/featured content related to Georgia Tech is just not up to the modern GA standards. Unfortunately, this article isn't really there either.

Some concerns of mine are:

• Circulation figures provided are from an advertising piece from over 15 years ago
• Content is not up to date in all areas, for instance " As of the 2005–2006 publication year, the paper has also taken a hiatus the week prior to spring break"
• Sourcing is generally non-independent, primary to articles from the newspaper itself and almost all sources used are affiliated with Georgia Tech, including an .xls spreadsheet from 2007
• There is unsourced content throughout, especially in the Slivers section.
• Source-text integrity has some issue; for instance The Two Bits column had been discontinued in 2010, but was brought back in 2012, to again be discontinued in 2013 is sourced to an editorial by Two Bits that is from 2012 and thus cannot support and does not mention the 2013 discontinuation and does not mention 2010 either
• It seems unusual to have an entire section related to one advertising controversy from 1995

I think this article needs good article reassessment and a general rewrite. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)