I think we have a good start on an article that covers the historical role of VMI and its current place as a liberal arts college with a military environment.
Would appreciate any and all suggestions on how to improve the article. Rillian 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it is a good introduction to the school. I commend you for the work you have done. I tend to be a tough editor and critic. So please do not take to heart the number of my queries below.
That all said, I do believe you are on the way to a featured status and I commend your work. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Article looks great in its current form! The student life section after the introduction is appropriate and it fills the space that was left open and blank in the earlier edits. The article is balanced in its facts and precisely written. Previous edits would state a fact, then quantify and or dilute the fact. For example, in the current edit, the rankings and ROTC comments are precise and to the point. Previous edits went into too much "watered down" detail. For example, previous edits were: 18% who make 20 year military careers, general peay acknowledges going from 40% to 70% is a challenge, for a small school of 1300 it does quite well: 1st of 20 something and 70 something of 2 hundred something, and so on and so on...Article in its current form states the facts:ranked first among public liberal arts colleges, all students are military corps of cadets, 50% commissioned in 2005 with 70% being a goal, largest per student endowment of any PUBLIC college, etc. This version as it is looks very good and any changes should be minimal. Noticed many of the edits made by rillian to VMI were followed up with revisions by the same to south carolina's version of VMI...is there a reason? The two schools are very different. VMI's current revision looks great and thanks to everyone for the input. How long are we going to leave the peer review notice up? Marshall3 18:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Rillian the one who disputed several proven facts about VMI's rankings in the first place? (Check archived discussions) Those "misrepresentations" were proven, and in the end he had a bit of "egg on the face." Why does Rillian choose which versions are "correct" and which are not?
Who cares about 18 percent for 20 year plus career? That type of minutia is not on other school site articles. Just leave it as 70% goal with 50 % commissioned for 2005. Also, a ranking is a ranking. What type of be-littling statement is "for a college with only 1300 cadets, VMI does quite well?" That is patronizing and not needed. 20 of this 70 of that...MArshall3 is right. The article as it stands looks very good indeed.
Also, "VMI has graduated more generals and flag officers than any other state military college" is very important and should be placed in Notable Graduate section because it testifies to the excellence of the school. There are other "lesser-quality state military colleges" out there who mislead and misrepresent...when it comes to state military colleges, VMI is premier. This statement is important and is directly related to notable graduates. It doesn't need to be buried.
Finally, take out the statement, "While not directly affilliated to the us military." Who cares? It is VIRGINIA Military Institute...that says enough. Why the qualifying statement? It reads much better to state simply that all VMI cadets must take 4 years of ROTC and VMI offers ROTC for all braches of the military.
Remember, sometimes Simplicity is much better than too much intimate and unusable detail. Cadet1 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Virginia Military Institute by Rillian 02:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
While I think the article is quite comprehensive, there are a few questions that come to mind, from a reader that knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about VMI at all:
Sera 03:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we have a good start on an article that covers the historical role of VMI and its current place as a liberal arts college with a military environment.
Would appreciate any and all suggestions on how to improve the article. Rillian 13:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
First of all, it is a good introduction to the school. I commend you for the work you have done. I tend to be a tough editor and critic. So please do not take to heart the number of my queries below.
That all said, I do believe you are on the way to a featured status and I commend your work. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Article looks great in its current form! The student life section after the introduction is appropriate and it fills the space that was left open and blank in the earlier edits. The article is balanced in its facts and precisely written. Previous edits would state a fact, then quantify and or dilute the fact. For example, in the current edit, the rankings and ROTC comments are precise and to the point. Previous edits went into too much "watered down" detail. For example, previous edits were: 18% who make 20 year military careers, general peay acknowledges going from 40% to 70% is a challenge, for a small school of 1300 it does quite well: 1st of 20 something and 70 something of 2 hundred something, and so on and so on...Article in its current form states the facts:ranked first among public liberal arts colleges, all students are military corps of cadets, 50% commissioned in 2005 with 70% being a goal, largest per student endowment of any PUBLIC college, etc. This version as it is looks very good and any changes should be minimal. Noticed many of the edits made by rillian to VMI were followed up with revisions by the same to south carolina's version of VMI...is there a reason? The two schools are very different. VMI's current revision looks great and thanks to everyone for the input. How long are we going to leave the peer review notice up? Marshall3 18:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Rillian the one who disputed several proven facts about VMI's rankings in the first place? (Check archived discussions) Those "misrepresentations" were proven, and in the end he had a bit of "egg on the face." Why does Rillian choose which versions are "correct" and which are not?
Who cares about 18 percent for 20 year plus career? That type of minutia is not on other school site articles. Just leave it as 70% goal with 50 % commissioned for 2005. Also, a ranking is a ranking. What type of be-littling statement is "for a college with only 1300 cadets, VMI does quite well?" That is patronizing and not needed. 20 of this 70 of that...MArshall3 is right. The article as it stands looks very good indeed.
Also, "VMI has graduated more generals and flag officers than any other state military college" is very important and should be placed in Notable Graduate section because it testifies to the excellence of the school. There are other "lesser-quality state military colleges" out there who mislead and misrepresent...when it comes to state military colleges, VMI is premier. This statement is important and is directly related to notable graduates. It doesn't need to be buried.
Finally, take out the statement, "While not directly affilliated to the us military." Who cares? It is VIRGINIA Military Institute...that says enough. Why the qualifying statement? It reads much better to state simply that all VMI cadets must take 4 years of ROTC and VMI offers ROTC for all braches of the military.
Remember, sometimes Simplicity is much better than too much intimate and unusable detail. Cadet1 17:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Virginia Military Institute by Rillian 02:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
While I think the article is quite comprehensive, there are a few questions that come to mind, from a reader that knows ABSOLUTELY nothing about VMI at all:
Sera 03:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)