Talk:Texas A&M ring

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pink target.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

All stuff that had copyright problems is gone or cited now

Introduction

Hello! I am a student editor from Texas A&M University. I will be performing edits on this article in terms of organization and style as well as fact-checking the information already written. After reading this article, I recognize major organizational issues which can be addressed by rearranging the section headings and reorganizing where certain information is written. As well, I see information that does not really need to be written or its style can be improved. I will be performing these types of edits during the next few weeks, and I will be explaining these edits on this talk page. Thank you!

Edits on the lead paragraph 2021

On the first sentence of the article, it is mentioned that the Aggie ring is a "rite of passage". However, this phrase refers to a significant event or ceremony while the subject to which it is being applied is an object. I consider this phrase violates WP:NOR since there is no reliable, independent sources that support this allegation. Additionally, "rite of passage" is usually used as a cliché or idiom, which destroys the professional, unbiased tone and WP:Tone. I think this phrase should be deleted.

Next, the adjective "most" is used to describe how the Aggie ring is "the most visible" way for Aggies to distinguish one another and how this ring is one of the "most well-known" symbols. However, the use of this word violates WP:NPOV since it makes the statements lean more towards being an opinion instead of a fact. I consider that the word "most" should be omitted on both cases for which it is used; this will present the statements as facts rather than opinions.

Finally, on the last sentence, the term "Aggie Network" is used to describe the community composed of current and former Aggies. However, this term cannot be assumed to be known or understood by the general audience. I consider this is mostly common knowledge for Aggies themselves but not the general public. Taking this into consideration, I think the term "Aggie Network" should be switched to "Texas A&M University" since this may be a more commonly known reference among the general reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink target (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits on History and Appearance Section 2021

My first comment on this section would be that there is multiple topics that are unrelated to one another in a single section of the article. I consider that this information should be managed and organized into multiple sections instead.

The first paragraph, which briefly gives a historical background on the ring and its design, is too short to stand as a section on its own. However, I also don't think it's appropriate to combine this with the appearance information. I have decided to combine this paragraph on the lead paragraph. If more background information on the Aggie ring can be added to the article in the future, a longer "History and Background" section could be made. Another issue I saw in this paragraph was the sources from which the information was obtained. Since the Battalion and Traditions' Council are both organizations affiliated with Texas A&M University, could they be considered reliable, independent sources? Within these sources, there are external sources which include statements from interviews. This is what leads me to consider the sources independent and reliable, but I am a bit unsure.

The next two paragraphs discuss the appearance of the Aggie ring while giving an appropriate amount of detail and information to the reader. My main observation is that these paragraphs are composed of simple, short sentences. I would like to combine related information into more complex sentences to aid in the professional tone of the article. I also consider that the appearance paragraphs should be combined into a single "Appearance" section since the information presented is independent and extensive enough to withstand as a section on its own.

The third paragraph talks about the manner in which Aggies wear their rings while the fourth paragraph talks, in extensive detail, about an unofficial tradition regarding the ring. In my opinion, both of these paragraphs present random facts involving the ring. Each paragraph on its own seems like extra, unnecessary information. This is why I would like to create a new section on the article named "Traditions". In this section, I would like to combine these two traditions in a section dedicated to this type of information about the Aggie ring.

Should the Aggie ring dunk information be included at all? 2021

My first impression reading this paragraph was that it gave an unprofessional tone to the article; it made me believe that the article could lose credibility. I believe the fact that the tradition is described as "unofficial" puts the credibility of the author and the article in jeopardy.

The term "dunk" or "dunking" is an idiom used to describe this unofficial tradition, but unless the reader is an Aggie or has association with an Aggie, the term may not be understood in the context of the article.

I don't think this information is crucial/necessary for the success of the article. However, I can see how it is loosely related to the topic. I'm currently debating on whether this unofficial tradition should be deleted or not. The other option would be to re-organize the sections of the article and add one that talks only about traditions surrounding the Aggie ring and include this information within that section.

Edits on requirements section 2021

This section has very informative content, and the information is extensive enough to have its own section. A couple of sentences were simple and short, and since the information is related, I'd like to combine them into a more complex and complete sentence. The majority of the article; however, lacks reliable sources on the specific requirements of each student classification, so I believe this violates WP:NOR.

There is an inconsistency issue between the first and last sentences of the longer paragraph in this section. The first sentence states that the "Aggie ring cannot be purchased unless specific requirements are met"; however, the last sentence contradicts this information by stating that if a student does not meet the requirements, he or she can purchase a ring upon graduation. I think clarification is necessary, so I think I will add a bit of explanation within the paragraph about this.

The last paragraph in this section is not related to the requirements at all, so I don't think it should be included in this section. However, the information is not long enough to have its own section. It seems to be random facts about the Aggie ring ceremony although the ceremony itself is not introduced or explained anywhere else on the article. I think the Aggie ring ceremony can be covered in the "Traditions" section that I would like to add to the article. The facts presented on this paragraph, however, seem a bit random and brief. I consider more information about the ceremony itself should be extracted from external sources and added to the article in the future. Should this information be included at all until then? WP:Deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink target (talk • contribs) 16:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Should a table of contents be added? 2021

I noticed this article does not have a table of contents, and it may be due to its short length. However, since I'm thinking of re-organizing the article and adding a new section, it may be beneficial to add a table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink target (talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)