Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Texas A&M University

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

---

History of Texas A&M University

• support- 3
• oppose- 0
• our solefirst reviewer put a whole lot of obstacles that we overcame. Please review us!

Oldag07 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-nom. This article is of top priority for Wikiproject Texas A&M and is already rated GA. I believe it meets the criteria for an FA in full. Thanks for your consideration. Karanacs 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. I made a few minor WP:MOS corrections; everything looks good structurally and the referencing seems sound. There's one change I'd suggest. Dethloff is not "Further reading"; it's a Reference. It can be listed once, and then individual citations of Dethloff can be shortened to (for example):
  • Dethloff (1975), p. 18.
• by just putting the text above in ref tags. This makes the article easier to edit. Making this change is fairly easy: let me know if you'd like for me to do it. Glad to see the Project referencing has improved over past noms! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Sandy, I fixed the Dethloff references as you suggested. Karanacs 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That was fast! I like it; much cleaner looking, and removes some of those bulky cite templates. Looking good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose — BQZip01 — ^talk but willing to switch to EMPHATICALLY Support!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk

I see problems with the first few paragraphs (I'll add more when I have time to do a full review).

"For much of its first century, enrollment at Texas A&M was restricted to young men who were willing to participate in the Corps of Cadets and receive military training."

I see nothing in the sources that states they had to be young men. In addition, some females did attend classes, but were ineligible to received a degree until later in the school's history.

Very good point. Both issues addressed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"During World War II, over 20,000 current and former students of Texas A&M served in the military, contributing more officers than both of the military academies combined.^[1]

I've mentioned this before on the Texas A&M page. There is a difference between the number of Aggies who served in WWII and the number produced for the military by A&M during WWII. The difference is analogous to the number of Aggies in the NFL from 1990-1999 and the number of Aggies who went to the NFL from 1990-1999 (just an example to illustrate my point).

Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Shortly after World War II, Texas A&M officially became a university system separate from the University of Texas system."

Discussion moved below

"In the 1960s, under the leadership of Major General James Earl Rudder, the school became racially integrated and coeducational, and membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary."

I would link Major General. Additionally, the sentence seems to run-on a little. Perhaps rephrasing it a little?

Added wikilink and parsed the sentence into two sentences. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The lede either needs to cite sources for all of its claims or none of them. Personally, I prefer the latter (since all claims in the lede should be referenced and expanded upon later in the text). Basically, I see no need for any references in the lede, but if you choose to have them, make sure everything is referenced.

You are right; references removed from lead. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

1870s...

The first sentence doesn't jive with what is stated in the Morrill Act page (I don't think Congress can sign something into law unless they override a veto).

Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On 4 October 1876, only 40 students were present, though the size of the school grew to a height of 106 students during the school year.

Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Although the legislature had originally envisioned that Texas A.M.C. would be part of the University of Texas system, the Austin college was established with a separate Board of Regents, leaving Texas A.M.C. to continue to be governed by its Board of Directors." Overuse of Texas A.M.C. In addition, explicitly state where the acronym "Texas A.M.C." comes from in its first usage, such as "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, also known as Texas A.M.C., was established by the state legislature..."

Fixed. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should wikilink a little more throughout: "Corps of Cadets", "bonfire", "yell practice", etc.

Added wikilinks to bonfire, yell practice and athletic teams. There was already a wikilink to Corps of Cadets earlier in the section Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Throughout the decade, public sentiment of A&M improved substantially." Contradicts the next paragraph (which, by its very nature should probably be in the previous section IAW its title). Hmm, Maybe it would be better to nix the years in the titles since that restricts the information that can be presented and history rarely occurs only by decades.

Fixed. Removed that sentence, which didn't make sense where it was, and moved the first paragraph of Ross section to be last paragraph here. Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ross

"Ross, the immediate past governor of Texas, had been a well-respected Confederate soldier and enjoyed a good reputation among state residents." He was more than a soldier; he was a Brigadier General. I recommend removing the passive voice "has been" and replace with "was".

Just thought I should mention that I don't think "had been" is passive unless followed by a past participle. Plus, the passive shouldn't necessarily be avoided.--Estrellador* 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Aw, eff me. You're right. See, this is what happens when you rush things... :-) That said, "had been" seems to imply he became something else later and I think "was" would be more appropriate here. — BQZip01 — ^talk

I added in his title, but I disagree about the verb change. Ross wasn't a Brig. Gen. in the CSA when he went to A&M -- that army had been disbanded. He did not take a position in the regular US army after the conclusion of the Civil War either. When he went to A&M he was a civilian, thus "had been." Karanacs 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Semantics. Fine by me if you want to keep it. I'm not a stickler on that.

Unfortunately, I have stuff to do and I'll get back to this in the near future (Aggie Word!). BTW, excellent job overall! — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back (— BQZip01 — ^talk). Since I have a little more time on my hands, I'm going to go through each section slowly and save periodically. This will likely be a multiday review, so bear with me.

Overall Problems

• Date inconsistency You say the history of A&M starts in 1871, but then refer to the Morrill Act of 1862. Which is it? Maybe rephrase to "has its roots in the Morrill Act of 1862..."? I also recommend changing the names of the section headers to something other than dates. Dates seem to cause their own problems. An example, you start the 1900-1958 section with "In 1910..." I mean, what happened for an entire decade? You also refer to dates before and after a given timeframe. Just simplify and get rid of those dates to eliminate the inconsistencies.

Removed dates from most of the headers. Any ideas for the last two sections, or should the date ranges be okay there? As for the Morrill Act, I thought using the phrase "laid the groundwork for" made it clear that it didn't actually establish the university. The second paragraph then explicitly states when the university was founded. "Has its roots in" seems to mean the same thing??? Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point with the phrasing. I still think the history of the school begins prior to the actual establishment of the school, just like the history of America begins before it was established. — BQZip01 — ^talk

I'm following the example of FA article History of Michigan State University, which lists the starting date of the history as the date the legislature signed them into being. Texas A&M did not exist until 1871. Before that, the state and federal legislatures were thinking about a generic college, but not necessarilky A&M. Karanacs 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I renamed the headers. Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An idea!!! Why not label the 1970-90 section as Expansion and the 2000s with Recent changes and the future (or something like that)?

• Comma usage Inconsistent when used with dates. IAW WP:MoS, use the American version (put commas after "In 1917,...") or the British version (no commas after prepositions ending in dates), but don't mix & match.

I think I've caught all of these now. Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. — BQZip01 — ^talk

• Problems with numbers Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 200 pounds, use 200 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 200 pounds. — BQZip01 — ^talk

All the standard measurements were using the convert template and should thus be okay. I also added {{nowrap}} around numbers of students so that the unit "students" would remain with it. Karanacs 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you seem to have gotten everything. Again, good work. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lede

• Redo and be careful about your use of the term "Senior Military College." If I am not mistaken, the term didn't exist at the time of its inception (later established by the National Defense Act of 1920 (I think). Either way, this claim should be backed up in the main text. Near as I can tell, it isn't.

I'm not sure how that one got slipped in without me noticing it, but I've removed it. Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could incorporate it elsewhere in the article? — BQZip01 — ^talk

• Probably should have pointed this out sooner, but Rudder was retired US Army at the time he became University President and it should be noted accordingly.

His title doesn't need to be in the lead. I've noted in the body of the article that Rudder was retired from service. Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Shortly after World War II, Texas A&M officially became a university system separate from the University of Texas system."

This statement implies that we were once part of the University system of that overglorified junior college in Austin before A&M became its own separate University.

According to the State Constitution, A&M was technically part of the University of Texas system. Oldag07 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It was envisioned and originally established to be part of the yet-to-be-established system, but that never materialized and both schools have always been separate. — BQZip01 — ^talk

we could say,

Shortly after World War II, the State Legistature made Texas A&M's de facto separation from the University of Texas system de jure."

they were separated in reality but not by law. the state officially made the separation law after world war 2)Oldag07 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sources state nothing of the kind though. I am REALLY sure that this isn't true, but if I am wrong I would be happy to admit as such if you can prove your assertion. Where is your proof? All you have is "The Texas A&M University System—although not officially recognized as such until 1948—got its start in 1876, with the establishment of the state’s first public college, the land-grant Agricultural and Mechanical College (A&M) in College Station." (emphasis added by — BQZip01 — ^talk)

The Constitution of 1876 specified that the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas. From the handbook of texas source one.

the school had always been de facto separated from the university of texas, but with my limited understanding of law, the constitution would be correct unless the state would make an amendment to it. thus the school was legally part of the university of texas system until the state decided to change the constitution later on. btw, is this the time to argue semantics? Oldag07 06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(moved to left to stop the trend to the right :-) )

I do not view this as merely semantics. I view this as an error in a fact. To reiterate, Texas A&M was never part of the University of Texas, de jure or de facto. It was envisioned to be part of the t.u. system (we're both Aggies here...why not keep it friendly?), but never fell under their jurisdiction in any way.

Furthermore, verbatim from The Constitution of the State of Texas, "The legislature shall as soon as practicable establish, organize and provide for the maintenance, support and direction of a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled, "The University of Texas," for the promotion of literature, and the arts and sciences, including an Agricultural, and Mechanical department." This is a directive, not an law, per se. In fact, it directs the Legislature to make a University, but does not establish one.

Nothing in your supporting documentation states otherwise. As such, it is your responsibility to bring forth proof of your claim. I am willing to be proven wrong. Please do so or change the claim. — BQZip01 — ^talk

Here's a direct quote from my source (Handbook of Texas) - "The Constitution of 1876 specified that the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas." The body of the article explains that although A&M was intended to be part of the UT system, when tu opened it had a separate board of regents and A&M kept its own Board of Directors. Although I think the sentence in the lead is accurate, in the interests of avoiding an argument I've reworded it to be "Shortly after World War II, the school became part of the newly created Texas A&M University System." Better? Karanacs 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"...the Agricultural and Mechanical College was to be a branch of a proposed University of Texas." It never states that it ever became as such only that it was intended to be. In addition, this doesn't jive with the actual words from the Constitution.

As for the rephrasing, It is better, but I think it would be better to state that Texas A&M University is the flagship of the university system and became a University at the same time as the system was established. As it is, it is somewhat ambiguous and it sounds like doesn't state that the school became a University first and that is was the flagship of the University system. The facts are correct, but seem ambiguous. A little more clarity would be useful.

I don't see how one could arguing around the constitution thingy. whatever. it seems like karanacs has the right idea. . . .Oldag07 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It never was part of the UT system. Please show me something somewhere that states a fact current with some time after 1876 that is not a future idea. Here are the facts:

• 1862 - Morrill Act passed & signed into law
• 1869 - Idea for A&M codified in Texas Constitution, but envisioned under a yet-to-be-established UT.
• 1871 - A&M established under state law
• 1876 - A&M opens doors
• 1883 - UT opens under separate governance and never has any authority (de facto or de jure over A&M)
• 1948 - AMC become AMU.
• 1948 - AMU also established as the lead University of the Texas A&M University system
  • Here's the text from Article 7, Section 13, of the Texas Constitution that explicitly states A&M is part of UT system: [1] "The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, established by an Act of the Legislature passed April 17th, 1871, located in the county of Brazos, is hereby made, and constituted a Branch of the University of Texas, for instruction in Agriculture, the Mechanic Arts, and the Natural Sciences connected therewith." Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • NOW we're talkin' hard facts! Very nice research.
    • You go girl! Oldag07 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      • UT did not exist at the time. If we write a law today that declares the Air Force part of the new Space Command, but not provide or establish any portion of the Space Command, how is it part of anything that doesn't exist? How does it fall under something that doesn't have anyone in it?
      • BTW did you notice that "the" was not capitalized in "the University of Texas"?!? LOL
      • This is an issue of legal authority and governance. The Board of Regents was set up for UT without any authority over the Board of Directors at Texas AMC. While it was certainly set up initially to be that way, it never materialized as a legal authority over A&M. There is a conflict in law here...so...
• REASONABLE COMPROMISE Why now phrase something in there like, "Though A&M was originally established under the Texas Constitution of 1871 as a branch of the yet-to-be-created University of Texas, subsequent acts of the Texas Legislature never gave the University any authority over Texas A&M. This internal legal conflict in Texas was later nullified when Texas A&M was redefined by the Texas Legislature as a University in 1948 and made a clear and separate institution..." How about that? (feel free to rephrase as necessary) — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• my point with de jure and de facto. though i must admit, i am not sure if i am using those words 100 percent correctly. i sorry i did not contribute much today. i got caught up in a huge texags thread. Oldag07 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed! The problem lies with the fact that there are two laws that are in conflict. de facto was never in question. De jure simply has a conflict, not something that wasn't being followed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• you noticed my texags thread, http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=923974&forum_id=16 or the fact that i am getting de facto/de jure all mixed up. or both. Oldag07 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A little from column A, a little from column B... — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I modified the lead and the body of the article to incorporate some of your phrasing. I did make sure to point out in the early years section, as well, that when tu was created A&M retained its own governing board. Karanacs 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Good change in the right direction (agreement). I still have a problem with "Membership in the Corps of Cadets became voluntary." It precedes the statement about the changes led to the change in status of the College to a University, but it happened after the name change. On a related question, the point where they started giving out Master's and Doctoral degrees is the point where A&M ceased to be a college and became a de facto University, correct? — BQZip01 — ^talk

PERFECT!!! — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Years

• "The Corps instead formed a large stable organization." Short and awkward. it formed a stable org...to what end? Maybe add something about the organized social programs at the time?

I just removed that sentence. It isn't really necessary to the paragraph.Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ross Looks good!

Program Expansion

• "In 1940, Texas A&M awarded its first Ph.D., and more programs at the college began offering doctoral degrees." Awkward "paragraph". Rephrasing and place elsewhere.

There is really nowhere else for this to go. The paragraph before talks about the Great Depression and women and the events of the 30s and the next paragraph talks about WWII. I did rewrite it into two sentences that hopefully flow better.Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. That'll do as is. No worries — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• More of a pet peeve than anything, but the references should be in order (i.e. not 9, 1, 10, but 1, 9, 10).

Fixed. Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Get a source for We've Never Been Licked

Done. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Shortly after World War II, in 1948, the state Legislature officially recognized A&M as a separate university system, distinct from the University of Texas system. A&M's Board of Directors continued to oversee the system." I was hoping this would change with the lede without having to mention it. Short version:

• 1862 - Morrill Act passed & signed into law
• 1869 - Idea for A&M codified in Texas Constitution, but envisioned under a yet-to-be-established UT.
• 1871 - A&M established under state law
• 1876 - A&M opens doors
• 1883 - UT opens under separate governance and never has any authority (de facto or de jure over A&M)
• 1948 - AMC become AMU.
• 1948 - AMU also established as the lead University of the Texas A&M University system

This can be crossed off now, per discussion above. :) Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...and attended classes at the base, which became known as the Annex" maybe add "and later became known as the Riverside campus."

Done. Karanacs

Marked off the list — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rudder Era

*Place reference 14 at the end of the sentence (you referenced a date? or something later in the sentence?)

Done (yes, I was just referencing the date). Karanacs 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice LOL. — BQZip01 — ^talk

• "In 1970, he went on to become the first to receive a degree from the College of Veterinary Medicine." I assume a masters degree or a doctorate? Please specify.

Done (it was a DVM). Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• "In 1970, he went on to become the first to receive a D.V.M. degree from the College of Veterinary Medicine." I assume he wasn't the first person ever to get a DVM (if so, that is certainly of note). You may want to rephrase.

Okay, fixed. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

looks good. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, combine the above two sentences into the previous paragraph (a 2 sentence paragraph is a bit too small by itself).

• Done. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Rephrase "a woman's dorm" to "an all-female dormitory."

Done Oldag07 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

70s-90s

• You don't need two consecutive references (like reference #21) of the same references in consecutive sentences. Take out the first one.

Apparently, this has been fixed because I don't see any instances of this. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the second paragraph in the 70s-90s section (new refs must've made that one 23 now). I went ahead and fixed it myself so you know what I meant. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• "As of 2006, the remainder of the lawsuits were unresolved." needs a reference

New sentence, because the lawsuits actually got thrown out, and is now referenced. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good rewrite! Note, however that there are still local lawsuits pending. (I think that is splitting hairs and have no objection to the current wording. It shows where everything stands and not where it may or may not lead: back to bonfire being rebuilt. Good balance). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

2000s

• "across the world" is awkward. Usually its something like "around the world"

doneOldag07 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Phi Beta Kappa seems a bit trivial. I recommend removal.

I see some of your points. however, A&M dedicated almost a paragraph in the history section of the course catalog to phi beta kappa. http://www.tamu.edu/admissions/catalogs/GCatalog2004-5/GenInfo.htm . That is why i feel it probably is a good idea to have it. I guess beginning part of that organization is a bigger deal for individuals than it is for colleges. Oldag07 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, keep it. It isn't that big of a deal and it can easily be changed.

• Move the AAU sentence to the Current Status section.

Done. Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikilink "magnetic resonance imaging." It is commonly known as an MRI.

Done

• Awkward: "70,000 of which are graduate and professional degrees." Rephrase to "of which 70,000 are graduate and professional degrees."

doneOldag07 20:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh ("Ugh is frustration on my part for not catching it sooner), I just caught the mismatched verb tenses in the previous sentence. Please fix

????Done? is most people have realized, grammar is not my strong suit.. . . Oldag07 04:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed it myself (no reflection on anyone's grammatical prowess, just easier to fix than to explain). — BQZip01 — ^talk

References

• Reference #20 (Korzenewski) needs a full date

Done. Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Be sure all references are italicized correctly (Major publications like newspapers need to be italicized)

Done. Karanacs 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure when this happened, but many dates in the references are not wikified. I tested it and I think it is a glitch with the citation templates. just put brackets around the dates and it should fix the problem.

I've been trying to figure out why this changed in the citation templates, and it looks like we aren't supposed to wikilink them anymore. From Template:Cite news - accessdate - "Do not wikilink the date." Karanacs 14:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Accessdate always wikilinked it for us, I'm referring to the other dates. — BQZip01 — ^talk

I fixed the one regular date that wasn't wikilinked. It looks like the {{cite web}} and {{cite press release}} templates are still wikilinks the access dates but the others aren't. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how they decided to do it. I don't know why. I had the same problem on the main A&M page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that WP:DATE guidelines override a template, I'm just going to fix them and save the discussion for the template's talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, but I went back and looked at the A&M main page. They have the same problems, but I KNOW we had it right not more than a few months ago. I'm guessing the templates have been effed up by someone. Just keep it as is for now; it will be easy to change in the future. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One more I just noticed in the lead. Texas A&M became a "University" in 1948, but the lead states that changes (co-ed, non-mandatory Corps, and integration) that happened in the 60s were the reason for the name change. Might want to clear that up. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reworded the lead a bit; the official name change didn't take place until 1964, though. Karanacs 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good info, see previous posting for an additional issue to address related to this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganized that paragraph about. It should be more straightforward now. Karanacs 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Two images need examining:
  • Image:Texas AandM University seal.png needs a fair use rationale - the current one is inadequate. The image is also quite large, and not the same as the one on Texas A&M University. Personally, I'd remove the image from the nominated page altogether, on the basis that it's purely decorative there.
  • Image:Rudder Statue.JPG also needs a better fair use rationale. Assuming the uploader has correctly assessed its copyright status under freedom of panorama rules, it should also be reduced in resolution in accordance with WP:NFCC: unlicensed derivative work is copyrighted work and we shouldn't reproduce it at a higher resolution than is necessary. As with the above, its significance in the context of this particular article should also be assessed.

— mholland (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, gotta say I disagree about the comment that the image is purely decorative. It is the seal of the subject of the article. If we wrote a History of the 82nd Airborne It would be appropriate to put their unit patch on the page, would it not? Why does it need to be the same as the image on the Texas A&M page?
• As for the picture of the statue of Rudder, why is this not adequate? Its significance is extremely important in the history of Texas A&M. Rudder instituted the changes in the school to bring it from a military college of ~3000-4000 students to a world-class University of 45,000+. In addition, this image is shown at the default resolution of Wikipedia, not above the standard. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course Rudder himself is of great significance to the article. I'm just questioning whether this particular image of Rudder is absolutely necessary. The statue didn't transform Texas A&M, Rudder himself did: and there's a freely-available public-domain image of the man himself already uploaded to Wikipedia.

The 82nd Airborne insignia is public-domain, by the way. Both the A&M seal and the statue are copyrighted. I don't mean to come across as a kill-joy: I recognise that images are a big hoop-jumping exercise. There are just still a couple of hoops to jump through here. — mholland (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I disagree with you, but I see your point. You didn't come across as a Kill joy in any way. You are just commenting on the subject as am I. If more people were as civil and reasonable, Wikipedia would be a lot easier. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I replaced the seal with another image of campus. I also disagree with removing the image of Rudder's statue. It was also used in the article Texas A&M University, which recently became a Featured Article. As it uses the default resolution, and it was deemed acceptable for another FA, I believe it should also be acceptable for this companion article. I have added a separate fair use rationale for this article, though. Thanks for your comments! Karanacs 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the rationale (although I would recommend looking at {{Non-free use rationale}} for a set of suggestions for constructing a genuinely watertight fair-use rationale in any circumstance). In terms of image size, per WP:WIAFA (3), "images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content", and per WP:NFCC (3b), "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity is used ... This rule includes the copy in the Image: namespace". The thumbnail resolution isn't what's relevant.

Nevertheless, the resolution issue is soluble without interfering with this FAC, which I am happy to Support: the article appears to meet all of the criteria. — mholland (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. (I'm a "significant editor" according to Wikipedia terms...If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this.) I just read through it and it definitely reads like a featured article. Fixed minor problems. Great work Karanacs, BQZip, and Oldag!! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done minor stuff. it really is BQZip and Karanacs. . . . my biggest contribution to wikipedia is organizing the project. other then that, I am pretty much support for everyone else. . . .Oldag07 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All I have really done is the review and a few minor changes. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.