Jump to content

Talk:Georgia Tech Research Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGeorgia Tech Research Institute has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2011Good article nomineeListed
June 6, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 23, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 28, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 8, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Cleanup

[edit]

Someone did an excellent job expanding the article - now this information needs organization and structure. Also, the individual labs should have their own pages. --Disavian 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Push Improvement Drive

[edit]

Disavian asked me to look over this article ahead of a planned GA push. I think it's close. This is kind of a running to-do list to keep track of what needs to be done before moving forward with that.

--LaMenta3 (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Georgia Tech Research Institute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. Please fix Autonomous system which is a disamb. link. or external links[reply]

Done Disambiguated to Autonomous robot. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "80% of GTRI’s total expenditures.[2]"->"80% of GTRI’s total revenues.[2]"
    "This group investigated the forty existing engineering experiments at universities around the country"->"This group investigated the forty existing engineering experimental stations at universities around the country"
    Please reword for greater clarity: "The new organization was created as a non-profit contract organization for the EES, "
    Use active voice: "In 1940, Gerald Rosselot was appointed by Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer as the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station."->"In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station."
    "and Rosselot's hand in the foundation of Scientific Atlanta" - explain how Scientific Associates was renamed Scientific Atlanta. Also do you mean "founding" instead of "foundation?"
    Explain that the reactor was on-campus or close to campus.
    "GTRI operates independently" -> "GTRI operates independently of Georgia Tech"
    "must comply with negotiated Federal Acquisition Regulations"->"must comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations for negotiated contracts"
    Please reword: "GTRI reaches out to the academic side of Georgia Tech" - meaning unclear. Do you mean teaching side vs research side?
    Please reword: "take advantage of the broad experience and expertise of Georgia Tech’s top-ranked programs," - this can be stated more neutrally.
    Question: If I can cite that the programs are top- or highly-ranked, would that satisfy neutrality a bit better? I can't think of a better way of wording this that makes the point that this statement is making.LaMenta3 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is important to stay focused and to be unambiguous. The sentence can mean either "Georgia Tech has highly-ranted programs." or "Of Georgia Tech's many programs, GTRI works with the highly-ranked ones." I would leave it at broad experience and expertise and not pile on. But you can try something else. Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, pending review of last item. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    State how many acres in "at a major off-campus research facility" - quantify and source its size.
    Question. Is that really relevant when we don't quantify any of the other physical spaces GTRI occupies? I'm not sure how else to phrase the sentence to communiate that it's non-trivial. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that an unmeasured amount of lab space on the main campus is used for GTRI-funded projects, not just the exclusively-GTRI buildings. However, the off-campus facilities must have some size, so it would be very helpful to the reader to give a number to explain that it is big. Racepacket (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I made some effort to elaborate on the physical space they have, how's that look? It could probably be further expanded to mention their more specialized facilities (wind tunnel, radar test areas, nanotech space) but I think it's a better overview now than it was before. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the current name?
    Done. It's the Cobb County Research Facilty. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we reference, "OMB Circular A-122 and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 31.2."? Racepacket (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's inherent in a United States defense contractor but I tossed a partial cite on there anyway. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Need source for "Comparison of ranks at Georgia Tech" table.
    Done. Reused a reference that covers this. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You have added a number of footnotes in response to my request to elaborate on the facilities. This has resulted in a large number of primary sources from the GTRI website. However, the information in question (such as the location of the branch offices) can be reliably sourced back to GTRI rather than insisting on secondary sources. Hence, I believe the article meets the GA criteria.
    C. No original research:
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Consider stating how many graduate research assistantships, cooperative education programs, and undergraduate assistantships that GTRI currently has.
    Done. "As of fiscal year 2010, GTRI employed 69 graduate co-ops, 129 undergraduate co-ops, and 132 student assistants." —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name some specific examples of GTRI research discoveries?
    Done. diff. If you think I need to add more, I can certainly expand upon that. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Add a new section about the organization of GTRI. Does it have a separate Board of Directors? How are they selected?
    Done. Assuming I interpreted this correctly, you wanted a section on the higher-level organizational structure. Here's the diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were me, I would add how Trustees are selected for the GTARC Board, " Three members shall be from the faculty of the Georgia Institute of Technology, one of whom shall be the President thereof, and the other two of whom shall be selected by said President, to hold office at his will. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech National Alumni Association, Inc. * One member shall be selected by the governing body of the Georgia Tech Foundation, Inc. * The foregoing five members shall select seven additional members from industry at large, without regard to whether such members are alumni of the Georgia Institute of Technology." see http://www.gtarc.gatech.edu/articles-of-incorporation/ They serve 3 year terms. The article needs to give the reader a sense of who heads the organization. Racepacket (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, I think that would go in the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation article. I'll consider it, though. The real question is how much input the GTARC Board really has over the organization; I don't think it's like a traditional company where the board has the final say. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both points are valid. However, the GTARC Board is the governing board for GTRI, not the Georgia Tech Board of Trustees. Once you tell the reader that they are separate, you owe the reader an objective description of how they are separate. The description of the GTARC Board shows that it is independent, but still a part of the Tech family. Racepacket (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrote a paragraph on advisory boards: diff. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How many patents does GTRI currently hold? How extensive is GTRI's licensing income?
    Done. I added the patents to the lead. No idea on the licensing income. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Patent license income not identified in the GTRI 2010 Annual Report. 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    ApparNently GTRI received stimulus funds under the ARRA that it used to build a new building. Is that worth mentioning? Racepacket (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a reference that says that? It might not hurt to throw it in if it's relevant enough. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ARRA sources: http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=48184 , http://www.gtrc.gatech.edu/financials/gtrc_2010.pdf at p. 7. $11.6 million for carbon neutral energy lab building.
    So here's the page on recovery.gov that lists the awards to the Georgia Tech Research Corporation. The thing is, all sponsored research/grants/assistantships/etc go through that contracting agency, so there's no real evidence that GTRI in particular is getting that money. Georgia Tech is definitely getting money from the stimulus, but beyond that I don't think we can draw any conclusions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, the two entities are financially independent, with contracts for GTRI going through the Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation. No ARRA funds are listed as going to GTRI or GTARC, so there's not a source to firmly state that they got any. I'm not ruling it out but there's not a RS that says it occurred. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for following up. Let's drop this. Racepacket (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Please remove all puffing.
I audited for un-citeable, non-neutral language and made a few corrections. However, I've been looking at this article for awhile and it's become easy to overlook things that are ambiguous as to their neutrality. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars.
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Can I get some elaboration on the '?' regarding suitable captions? LaMenta3 (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. You bring up some valid issues that I'll definitely have a crack at ASAP. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 16 reading

[edit]

We are almost done:

  • Please check the lead to make sure that all of the facts are also in the body of the article as well.
  • When I looked over this one, I realized that the employee, financial and patent numbers weren't included in the article body and the best solution I could think of was the "Assets" section. What do you think of that? I plan on expanding the intellectual property section, but I need to find/sort through the sources there to write some decent prose. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the quotation "the research station". should the period go inside the quotation?
Thank you for the explanation. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made way for further technology transfer"->"facilitated subsequent technology transfer" ???
  • "one such example is his placement of noted physicist"->"one such example is his recruiting noted physicist" ???
  • "The establishment of research facilities was also championed by Boyd."->"Boyd also championed the establishment of research facilities."
  • "The Frank H. Neely Research Reactor would be completed in 1963 and would be operational until 1996,"->"The Frank H. Neely Research Reactor was completed in 1963 and was operational until 1996,"
  • "A TEMPEST approved version of the Apple II Plus called the Microfix was developed by GTRI in 1980 for U.S. Army FORSCOM."->"In 1980, GTRI developed a TEMPEST approved version of the Apple II Plus called the Microfix for U.S. Army FORSCOM."
  • The "Assets" reorganization is helpful, although over the long run you might come up with a better section heading - "Description of operations" or just "Description" - think about it, but it is not a barrier to GA. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ".[73] In addition to their role as a contract agency, GTARC"->".[73] In addition to GTARC's role as a contract agency, it"
  • Please change "GT" to "Georgia Tech" so that we use one short form consistently in the article. I did see where you defined GT.

Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC) This has been an interesting review. Unfortunately there are few Good Articles to use as a model for assessing a university research institute article. You did a good job on covering the hybrid nature of GTRI's governance, and I hope that you will work on improving the GTARC article as well. Congratulations on a Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! The article has been greatly improved with your help :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-FAC prose review

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • "However, there was little state initiative to see the school grow drastically until 1919" I would prefer "expand significantly" over "grow drastically". It is not a shrub.
  • "That year, coinciding with federal debate about the establishment of Engineering Experiment Stations in a move similar to the Hatch Act of 1887's establishment of Agricultural experiment stations, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act titled "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology."" This is a very long sentence, and it's somewhat hard to follow. I suggest cutting out "coinciding with federal debate about the establishment of Engineering Experiment Stations", as that phrase doesn't really add information that isn't made obvious by the rest of the sentence.
  • "This station was established with the goal of the "encouragement of industries and commerce" within the state." Citation? Sentences with quotes should always be followed immediately by a reference.
  • "The federal effort ultimately failed and the state did not finance the organization, so the new organization existed only on paper." Is the second clause necessary? It adds nothing new, and the phrase is somewhat colloquial.
  • When providing inflation-adjustment values, don't use "today". State the year in which the conversion was made (presumably 2012). See WP:ASOF for more details.
    • I changed each instance of "today" to "in {{CURRENTYEAR}}". Disavian (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may actually be more misleading: The year will update automatically, but the inflation value will not. If no one updates the inflation value in the next three years, then it will be three years outdated without any indication of such. The safest bet is to give the actual year that the calculation was made. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oop, I see now that the inflation value is transcluded from a template which uses CURRENTYEAR as an argument. Works for me!
  • "In 1933, S. V. Sanford, president of the University of Georgia ... President Marion L. Brittain" I'm confused; which of these two chaps was the president?
  • Regarding "a collection of issues related to Tech" and "a 'technical research activity' be established at Tech": As far as I can tell, these are the only two instances in which "Georgia Institute of Technology" is abbreviated to "Tech". I suggest expanding them to "Georgia Tech" to avoid confusion.
  • "Vaughan was selected as its acting director in April 1934" I think it might be a bit ambiguous what "it" refers to in this sentence, both because it occurs at the beginning of a section, and because the last sentence of the previous section mentions three different institutions which could be "it".
  • "EES's initial areas of focus... The station's name was technically the State Engineering Experiment Station, but it was generally referred to as EES (Engineering Experiment Station) or simply "the research station"." An acronym should never be introduced without an immediate indication of what it means.
  • "the 1943–1944 budget being was first in which" I'm not sure what the word "being" is supposed to mean here. Perhaps a leftover from an older version of this sentence?
  • "Vaughan had initially prepared the faculty for fewer incoming contracts as state had cut the station's appropriation by 40%" Shouldn't "state" be "the state" or perhaps even "the state of Georgia"?
  • "Other accomplishments during Rosselot's administration at the Engineering Experiment Station included the purchase of an electron microscope in 1946 for $13,000" I disagree with the idea of referring to such a purchase as an "accomplishment". Perhaps calling it an "important investment" would be better.
  • "When the Georgia Board of Regents ruled that all money received in a year had to be spent that year; this was problematic because most government contracts span multiple years." Improper use of the semicolon. Also, the claim that "most government contracts span multiple years" is extremely difficult to validate. A much more reasonable claim would be "most of the government contracts they had received spanned multiple years".

Unresolved comments

[edit]
  • "In its first decades of its existence, Georgia Tech slowly grew from a trade school into a university." I think the first sentence of this section should state when exactly Georgia Tech was founded. Otherwise, the reader is left wondering what period the "first decades" refers to.
  • The chronology of the Scientific Atlanta section is a bit wonky. The company was founded at the end of October 1951, then "Robinson worked as the general manager without pay for the first year" brings us to October 1952, then "Despite its rocky start, the company managed to become a success" pushes us some indeterminate amount of time into the future... but the next paragraph starts off in 1951 again. This is particularly confusing since the last sentence of the first paragraph is redundant with "his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta" from the second paragraph.

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing review from second FAC (now closed)

[edit]

I'm posting below a chunk of text from the second FAC, containing my comments and nominator responses. I'll strike anything that is resolved and add any further comments in a section below (I didn't complete the article review before the FAC was archived). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I will add comments here as I go through the article; I don't have much time this morning so it might be a day or two till I get through it.

  • "The federal effort ultimately failed": What federal effort? That paragraph seems to be just talking about state initiatives.
    • I see how that's not clear. Let me give you the relevant source material (emphasis mine):
      In that year, in a move related to the ongoing federal debate on establishing engineering experiment stations with legislation similar to the Hatch Act, the Georgia General Assembly passed an act, "Establishing State Engineering Experiment Station at the Georgia School of Technology," included as Appendix B. The act set up the station for, among other purposes, the "encouragement of industries and commerce." Because the federal legislative initiative failed to create engineering experiment stations and because the state did not appropriate funds for start-up or operations, the station at Georgia Tech remained only a paper organization until 1934.
    Disavian (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I get what you mean in the article, but I don't think I understand the source. Surely if the federal initiative to create engineering experiment stations had succeeeded, it wouldn't have been EES which would have been created, it would have been a federally funded station instead (perhaps of the same name, of course)? If so, then perhaps we can change this sentence to "A parallel federal effort to create engineering stations failed, and the state did not finance the new station, so the EES was established in name only." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of "Establishment" seem a bit repetitive. How about: "The Georgia Board of Regents provided the new Engineering Experiment Station with $5,000 ($449,000 in 2013), and Georgia Tech provided infrastructure and personnel. The station started operation in April 1934." This omits "directly", which I don't understand; what does it mean to say that the board of regents "directly" allocated the money?
    • If I had to guess, I'd say it is typical to funnel money through the various schools that comprise Georgia's university system. For the board of regents to directly allocate funds would probably be unusual but not unheard of. Your version is much clearer, though. implemented it, diff Disavian (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer appointed Gerald Rosselot the assistant director of the Engineering Experiment Station. Rosselot was the organization's director from 1941 to 1952." This is a little out of chronological sequence, and slightly confusing for the reader; I can see why you did it this way but it would be nice to clean it up a little. How about: "However, Bunger died not long thereafter in August 1941. (section break) Bunger's successor was Gerald Rosselot, who had been appointed assistant director by Georgia Tech president Blake Van Leer in 1940" and leave the date of the end of Rosselot's tenure to later in the narrative?
  • "In 1940, Georgia Institute of Technology president Blake Van Leer": according to the article on Van Leer, he wasn't president until 1944.
  • "...increased support from industry and government eventually counteracted low state support." This repeats "support", and I also don't think "counteracted" is quite the right verb. How about: "...increased support from industry and government eventually compensated for low state support", or maybe "more than compensated for", if that's the case, as it appears.
  • "$240,000 ($7,055,000 in 2013)": I suggest going with -5 on the roundup parameter, to give $7.1M; -3 gives a spurious impression of precision (assuming that the $240K is itself a rounded number). The inflation template is used multiple times; I'd suggest doing the same throughout -- I think the value of the last non-zero unit in each number should be the same, relatively; that is, a 1 in the $10K column represents about 4% of $240K, but a 1 in the $1K column represents only 0.014% of $7.1M.
  • "the 1946 establishment of the Industrial Development Council, renamed to the Georgia Tech Research Institute in 1948 and to its present name, the Georgia Tech Research Corporation, in 1984": this gave me flashbacks to the James E. Boyd FAC, where this came up. That's a super-confusing name change, and I don't think you can let it pass without explanation. I'd suggest re-using note 4 from that article, or some slight modification of it, but I also think you need to clarify things a little inline -- the reader is going to be stopped in their tracks as it stands.
    • Yeah, that was a fun FAC. I kind of miss it. Anyway, I took a stab at using the text from that note from the Boyd article in the GTRI article itself, it seemed relevant enough. diff. Disavian (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Rosselot resign his post because of the conflict with Emerson? At the moment it's implied but not stated. If the sources are specific I think the article should be too. Further down you say he "left to work for Bendix Corporation", so perhaps it wasn't because of the conflict.
  • "his participation ensured the eventual success of Scientific Atlanta and facilitated subsequent technology transfer by Georgia Tech's VentureLab and the Advanced Technology Development Center": Two things here. First, is this referring to Rosselot's participation in Scientific Atlanta? If so, how about "his participation in Scientific Atlanta ensured its eventual success"? Second, it's not clear what you mean by saying that his participation "facilitated subsequent technology transfer"; can you clarify?
  • "Cudd reversed this trend such that EES's 1952–53 Annual Report stated that 66 faculty in 15 schools performed research at the station that year": I don't like "such that". How about "Cudd reversed this trend—so much so that"? Or "to the extent that"?
  • "made a last-minute request to the contract organization in May 1954 to cover the $20,000 deficit": will the sources support "the resulting $20,000 deficit"? And if you're inflating other dollar numbers, shouldn't you also inflate this?
    • I suppose we can inflate that one too, diff. That number is explicitly mentioned in Dress Her In White and Gold (Wallace pp. 240-241):
      This is apparently a quote from Van Leer's 1953-54 annual report: "All of these activities resulted in creating a serious financial drain on the budget of the Station. The net result was that the surplus carried over from the previous year's operation was exhausted, and in May 1954 it became apparent that unless expenditures were reduced a serious budgetary deficit would result. Dr. Calaway took immediate and vigorous steps to meet this unexpected situation, and at the close of the fiscal year the Georgia Tech Research Institute agreed to pay slightly over $20,000, which would otherwise have been a deficit."
Disavian (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; I added "resulting" -- I think the source makes it clear that that's the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cold War" doesn't seem the right title for that section; it covers the period of the Cold War, but is not entirely about military research. How about "Cold War era"?
  • The sentence starting "In 1954, a faculty committee" doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the paragraph it's currently attached to; how about moving it up to the end of the previous paragraph, which mentions budgets?
  • "and then appointed as Director of the station from July 1, 1957 until 1961": you don't usually capitalize "Director" in this context; should it be capitalized? And how about mentioning that Calaway was the director he took over from: "and succeeded Calaway as director on July 1, 1957" -- I think you could skip the end date, since it will be covered later.
    • Hmm, I just went ahead and gave him a sentence. I might want to look to see if he did anything noteworthy that I haven't mentioned. Let's see... ENS 246 says he became the GT Chemistry Director in 1948, and ENS257 mentions him winning that Sigma Xi research prize. DHWG 240-241 mentions him taking the position after Cudd left, and that he was Director of the School of Chemistry at the time, and that he was the one that took care of that $20,000 advance from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization) to prevent the deficit. In 1955, the Rich Electronic Computer Center, a new wing on the Hinman / Research Building was dedicated, which was paid for by $85,000 from the Rich Foundation and a matching grant from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (the contract organization). Hmm. I moved a bit of stuff around for this one. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, what do you think of adding a table of all the directors towards the end of the article, perhaps in the Organization section, in "Structure"?
  • "While at Georgia Tech, Boyd wrote an influential article about the role of research centers at institutes of technology, which argued that research should be integrated with education, and correspondingly involved undergraduates in his research." This needs copyediting: the subject of "argued" is the article, but the subject of "involved" ought to be Boyd, not the article.
  • It would be nice to quote the year the Applied Systems Lab was founded, instead of just saying it resulted from 1970s research -- that could place it as late as the mid-1980s.
  • "facilitated technology transfer in over 40 developing nations": I don't think this is what the source says; as far as I can see it only talks about technology transfer in Latin America and Egypt.
  • "this era began EES' role" -- a bit awkward; can you rephrase?
  • 'The period of student unrest in the late 1960s that resulted in protests at many university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense was not particularly seen at EES or at Georgia Tech. Long credited the school's "conservative student body" for the absence of any protests against the station's defense-related research.': how about 'The late 1960s saw a period of student unrest, and university research centers that worked on contracts for the Department of Defense were often the site of student protests. Neither Georgia Tech nor EES became the focus of protests, and Long attributed this to the school's "conservative student body"'.
  • "Institute president Arthur G. Hansen's" -- Hansen wasn't a president of the GTRI, according to the navbox at the bottom, so which institute is this? Was he present of what was then called the GTRI and is now the GTRC? I assume that's what you are referring to, but I think it needs some inline clarification.
  • I don't fully understand what's meant by "completely integrate the station into Georgia Tech's academic units". Was the plan to eliminate the separate existence of the EES? Or something else?
  • The Technique needs to be identifed as the student paper when mentioned; the Atlanta Constitution is well enough known that I don't think it's necessary there.
  • In March 2010, Cross was named to the new position of Executive Vice President for Research for the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he oversees all research at Georgia Tech: seems odd to spell out Georgia Tech's full name again at this point, and link it again too. How about: "In March 2010, Cross was named Executive Vice President for Research, a newly created position within Georgia Tech with oversight over all research at the university"?
  • "Out of the approximately 1,050 research scientists and engineers working for GTRI in June 2011, 19% had attained a doctorate, 53% had up to a master's degree, and 28% had up to a bachelor's degree": the source has been updated to 2012 and I would suggest updating the numbers. I think "up to a" doesn't work; I think you mean "had at least a", but to me "up to a master's degree" means "had a master's degree or something less".
  • "At a given time, laboratories may work with 200 or more agencies simultaneously" is unsourced and I think might be rephrased, once you source it -- do you mean all laboraties together, or any given laboratory?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. This is a pretty busy week for me, but I'll do my best to get to these. :) Disavian (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to complete the review by Friday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional post-FAC comments

[edit]

I'll add post-FAC comments to this section.

  • "For that reason, it uses a separate contracting entity": I assume this means that GTARC is used specifically for the commercial contracts? If so, how about "For these contracts, it uses ..."?
  • "GTRI reports to the Georgia Tech Executive Vice President of Research (currently Stephen E. Cross) who currently serves as the President of GTARC": I changed the first "currently" to "as of 2013" but I'm not sure about the second one; perhaps "since <date>"?
  • "by conducting externally sponsored, applications-oriented research programs that benefit the state, region, and nation": "benefit the state, region and nation" sounds a bit like puffery. Could this just be cut, with the first part of the sentence merged into the next sentence?
  • "that take advantage of the broad expertise within Georgia Tech's highly ranked programs": this also sounds a bit too much like straight marketing.
  • Footnote 143 ("Our interdisciplinary research centers") is a dead link. Per the checklinks tool (I haven't clicked on these myself) you should also look at these: it seems that the footnote numbering that page uses is off so you'll have to match them up.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've completed a pass through -- drop me a note when you've had a chance to respond to these and I'll come back and take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Georgia Tech Research Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Georgia Tech Research Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Georgia Tech Research Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgia_Tech_Research_Institute&oldid=1206122137"