| Revision as of 01:56, 7 April 2007 editBongHitz4Musa (talk | contribs)79 edits Promoted to GA← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:13, 14 November 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers806,689 editsNo edit summary |
| (211 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{GA}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Universities}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=26 May 2006 |
|
{{WPMILHIST|class = B|US-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1#Good Article nomination has failed |
|
{{WikiProject Maryland}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=Failed |
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|class=B}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=54894485 |
|
{{FailedGA|March 8, 2007}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
|
|action2date=8 March 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/Archive 1#GA Review |
|
|
|action2result=Failed |
|
|
|action2oldid=113490242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAN |
|
==Requested removal from Wikiproject:Maryland == |
|
|
|
|action3date=7 April 2007 |
|
I have requested that this article be removed from ] because this is a national institution, not a state one, and a military base. Please contribute to discussion there (not here).] 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3link=Talk:United States Naval Academy#Promoted to GA |
|
|
|action3result=Listed |
|
|
|action3oldid=120844632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAR |
|
==Old History== |
|
|
|
|action4date=May 30, 2009 |
|
Remved 1911 text: |
|
|
|
|action4link=Talk:United States Naval Academy/GA1 |
|
:In 1911, each midshipman was paid $600 a year, beginning with the date of his admission; and he must bind himself to serve in the United States Navy for eight years (including the years spent in the academy) unless he is discharged sooner. The course of instruction is for four years -- "final graduation" comes only after six years, the additional years being spent at sea -- and is in eleven departments: discipline, seamanship, ordnance an 1 gunnery, navigation, marine engineering and naval construction, mathematics and mechanics, physics and chemistry, electrical engineering, English, modern languages, naval hygiene and physiology. Vessels for practice work of midshipmen in the first, second, and third year classes are attached to the academy during the academic year, and from early in June to September of each year the midshipmen are engaged in practice cruises. |
|
|
|
|action4result=Delisted |
|
|
|action4oldid=292953372 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=PR |
|
:The academy is governed by the ] of the United States Navy Department, and is under the immediate supervision of a superintendent appointed by the secretary of the navy, with whom are associated the ], a disciplinary officer, and the Academic Board, which is composed of the superintendent and the head of each of the eleven departments. |
|
|
|
|action5date=13:10, 29 August 2010 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United States Naval Academy/archive1 |
|
|
|action5result=reviewed |
|
|
|action5oldid=381463136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
Needs to be checked before being put back in. --] 01:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2011-10-10|otd1oldid=454878414 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Higher education}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject National Register of Historic Places|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Maryland|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Maritime-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|B-Class-1=no|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low|USMIL=Yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion to editors to add "Hopper Hall" to the buildings list == |
|
== NPoV == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opened in 2020, Hopper Hall is the Academy’s newest and most state-of-the-art academic building on the Yard. The building is named for Rear Adm. Grace Hopper, an accomplished mathematician who joined the U.S. Navy Reserve during World War II. In her legacy, the Hopper Hall building will be home to midshipmen in the Cyber Operations; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Information Technology; and Robotics and Control Engineering majors, as well as to laboratories for Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering and Physics majors. ] (]) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
The edits of 131.122.37.113 about 04:19, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC) seem non-neutral point of view. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rape Statistics == |
|
|
|
|
|
We need to include in this article rape statistics -- dont ask -- but if it's pertinent for the USAFA article than it should be in here -- unless we base all of our "encyclopedia" articles on newspaper articles... |
|
|
*Why should we have rape stats for the Naval Academy unless we have them for every other college described on here? |
|
|
**I concur. This would constitute a non-neutral viewpoint unless it is information we provide for all universities. The case of the Air Force Academy is different as the investigation and the depth of the problem has clearly become a part of the history of the institution. |
|
|
] 21:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I look forward to being able soon to add well sourced information that the atmosphere at the Naval Academy has greatly improved but fail to see any basis for removing well sourced information regarding the current situation and past incidents. ] 14:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I corrected the sexual assault statistics. If we're including them, they may as well be correct. - A Midshipman 06 DEC 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Make a separate wiki for Academy issues to include sexual assault, honor, gays in the military, prayer, and athletics. These are issues that exist, but should not be included in the wiki about the school. Example: I do not see statistics for how many gays were reported, how many complaints about prayer were reported, or how many people were kicked for honor. Example: Other colleges experience more sexual assaults than any of the SAs, but I do not see statistics included on those pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
The "Graduates famous outside the Navy" should probably me merged with the the other notable graduates. Jimmy Carter certainly acheived his greatest notoriety oustide the Navy, yet is not in the outside the Navy group. John McCain is notable both for his naval service and his post-naval career. Only three astronauts among dozens graduated from the Academy are listed. One of the most well known USNA graduates, astronaut James Lovell is not listed. A deputy assistant cabinet secretary is listed, but 5 secretaries are not. The whole list needs to be rationalized in terms of who to include, and their organization. ] 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think naming Cape Leahy is Adm. Byrd's claim to fame. If no one objects, I'm going to remove it.] 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
. No objections, so I removed it (now on famous graduates page).-- ] 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (same person as 24.209.173.129). |
|
|
|
|
|
== Admissions == |
|
|
|
|
|
The USNA does admit non-americans. their website does indicate some sort of admissions process for internationals. |
|
|
|
|
|
*That's true. I've changed the article accordingly. A small number of international students (<20) are admitted each year. They tend to be from smaller allied/friendly countries that lack their own academies (e.g. Jamaica); "big" allies (e.g. France, Britain) tend to send exchange students from their own military education programs. The number and country of origin of international students is listed in the Class Profiles published by USNA (cited in note 1). ] 19:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Here are the exact figures for the class of 2009, from the Class Profile: "The Class of 2009 also includes 11 international students from the following countries: Guyana (2), Honduras, Ireland, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand." ] 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Croquet! == |
|
|
I found the previous depiction of the Navy's performance in the annual SJCA/Navy Croquet Match to be rather misleading, as it implied the Navy did something other than suck out loud, and so have rectified this with statistics showing quite clearly that the opposite is true. I wish the Middies good luck this spring; if the past is an indication, they will need it. ] 01:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GA nomination == |
|
|
|
|
|
As much as I am interested in reading the article, it has no references, and thus is unsuitable for good article status. There's nothing that can done to avoid the necessity of good references for good articles on Misplaced Pages. ]]<b>]</b> 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Er, references appear to be there in the form of external links. ] ] ] ] ] 06:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**They need to be formatted into a references section. ]]<b>]</b> 06:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*In reality a great deal of input to this article is firsthand knowledge by present and former Midshipmen which is often not easily documentable. Here's one example: I am certain that somewhere there is a document which lists the 36-to-30 company conversions supporting the point that 28th company, which supplies the USNA Croquet Team, used to be 34th company, but I guarantee you is is very obscure and not easily accessed. This is not to say that there should not be some supporting documentation, but do we have an acceptable format for citing firsthand knowledge possessed by individuals contributing to the article? I have written/rewritten major portions of this article, and I actually happen to be the guy who created the first unofficial Naval Academy homepage, which later became the official USNA homepage, and served as the Naval Academy's first Webmaster. The fact is that people like me with firsthand knowledge contribute to Misplaced Pages in special ways not equalled by other reference sources, and in ways not always easily documentable. ] 20:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Ok, to some extent I'm inclined to agree with that but what about the things that can be documented like "The Commandant of Midshipmen is currently Capt. Bruce E. Grooms, USN, who replaced then Capt. Charles J. Leidig in June 2005. The Deputy Commandant of Midshipmen is Col. David C. Fuquea, USMC. The Command Master Chief of the United States Naval Academy is CNOCM(SW) Bernard B. Quibilan."? There was probably a press release or some sort of official Academey website report. That sort of statement surely has to be documentable. The problem I have with this article is that there doesn't seem to be even enough effort, let alone actual documentation.] 12:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] ] has failed == |
|
|
The ] ] for ] has failed{{#if:(The first, most glaring thing about this article is it's failure to be '''"broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
The history section ends with the institution through World War I. There's about 90 years of history missing. Those 90 years include World War II, desegregation, and the induction of women (later addressed) |
|
|
|
|
|
Which brings up the point of it being '''"well written"''' specifically b '''"it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles.;"''' It seems to have a lot of things scattered about. For instance, the seperation of the Moral Education section and the Mission of the Article section. |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the recent featured University of Michigan article, I think that a better structure could be thought of for this article, especially given its current content and potential. |
|
|
|
|
|
References and other citations are a problem too (see above) |
|
|
|, for the following reason:|. <font color="red">'''Please provide a reason!'''</font>}} |
|
|
:(The first, most glaring thing about this article is it's failure to be '''"broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic."''' |
|
|
|
|
|
The history section ends with the institution through World War I. There's about 90 years of history missing. Those 90 years include World War II, desegregation, and the induction of women (later addressed) |
|
|
|
|
|
Which brings up the point of it being '''"well written"''' specifically b '''"it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles.;"''' It seems to have a lot of things scattered about. For instance, the seperation of the Moral Education section and the Mission of the Article section. |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the recent featured ] article, I think that a better structure could be thought of for this article, especially given its current content and potential. |
|
|
|
|
|
References and other citations are a problem too (see above) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
] 12:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sports == |
|
|
|
|
|
Where is the sports' section for the USNA? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== 28th Company == |
|
|
|
|
|
28th Company needs to be a seperate page. It is bias to give info on one company and not the other 29. (28 sucks anyway) --] 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, it seems like it's an example of one of the sports traditions at the academy. (I fixed broken link #1). The article references 28th Company, so I can see leaving it in. If the article went on and on about 28th Company specific info, I can see removing it/spinning it off, but it doesn't. If you don't like it, maybe ''your'' company should start a memorable tradition! If it makes you feel better, I edited/updated the article to reflect your ]s' loss in 2006. :) ] 22:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am the one who added most of the info in the ] about 28's Croquet match with St. Johns. "There is even an unofficial..." It should have been removed and ] (the one who added it) agreed and un-merged it. What shipmate have we lossed in 2006? We lost one in 2005. Oh and by the way my company does have a tradition, croquet. 28 is my company. --] 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We've had a misunderstanding. On your second point, I was referring to the fact that your croquet team lost in 2006, not a loss of life. I had edited the croquet section to reflect the most recent result. On your first point, when you said "28 sucks anyway" I assumed you weren't in that company. I thought you were bashing 28th Company and the croquet tradition. But I now realize that you were addressing a section already removed talking only about 28th Company not relating to croquet. "Belay my last." ] 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yep, I am glad you figured it out. --] 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::When something mentioned on a talk page is resolved on the article page, please follow up on the talk page. ] 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merchant Mariner License? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is it common practice within some majors for Midshipmen to graduate with a Merchant Mariner's License as ]s or ]s? Federal regulation makes it possible, but I wondered if it actually happens. Thanks. ] 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==World's Largest Dormitory == |
|
|
Many references can be found citing Bancroft Hall as the world's largest dormitory. Eliminating Bancroft Hall, I could not find another dormitory that so claimed. Why was that phrase eliminated? Either claim needs to have a citation/footnote.] 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Good Article ? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that with a little more work this article could be renominated for Good Article status again, as said before there needs to be more history added, I have added history from WWI to WWII but there needs to be history from WWII to Present, There was question about desegregation being a point to discuss in the history but seeing is how the military was far ahead of its time and the first african-american graduate (Lieutenant Commander Wesley A. Brown) graduated in 1949 I dont believe anything more than a little sentence about him would be necessary. Also the structre of the article (where to put certain sections) needs to be discussed. Leave comments on this talk page if anyone thinks they can help and share their opinions.--] 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have nominated the article for Good Article status after I added all the history from WWI to Present, I also rearranged the entire article for better flow. I also fixed the references.--] 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Owens case == |
|
|
|
|
|
I removed the following: "other alumni simply realize that there is a profound feminist presence within the administration. Midshipman Owens was separated from the institution for engaging in sexual activity within the dorm. The female with whom he was engaging in these activities remains enrolled and awaits graduation. She was granted immunity for her testimony in the rape case, and despite a number of false statements, has not been reprimanded for her part in the offense." A citation to a Washington Post article documents not this inserted material, but the previous sentence (which remains in the Wiki article). According to the Post, Owens has not been separated (rather, his fate is still undecided). Although the Post article does state that the female midshipman received immunity, it says nothing about her making false statements, nor does it address whether she has been disciplined in some way. The view attributed to "other alumni" is not a view expressed by any of the alumni interviewed by the Post. Rather, they criticized Rempt for being overzealous in cracking down on sexual assault; to quote the Post, "The alumni argue that Rempt's overzealousness in prosecuting high-profile sexual assault cases is part of his effort to advance an agenda designed to appease Congress and women's groups demanding a crackdown on sexual assault and harassment at military academies." This view is contained in the Wiki article, and sourced to the Post. ] 04:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Nowak vs Carter == |
|
|
I'd like to make Jimmy Carter "disappear" from the article. If the current attempt to make Nowak disappear is ultimately successful, I hope I would get support from the rest of you to make Carter disappear. I am more embarassed about him than Nowak. :) Thanks in advance. P.S. I promise to support anyone else you guys might want to vanish! ] 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*No one is trying to make the Nowak case "disappear", only removing sections that are not sourced (outside of wikipeida). On another note, Nowak was in the news for 2 weeks and now the whole story has all but disappeared, I don't see why she warrants an entire paragraph when she has already been forgotten by most, additionally she is not made "famous" by her time at the academy but instead her time at NASA so this section would be better fit in the NASA article (which it probably already is).--] 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that this event is a flash in the pan. It will all go away, but not within days. Within months maybe. This paragraph will be greatly shortened, though perhaps never completely eliminated, at that time. I think the point is that we have the opportunity to demonstrate that we are not afraid to report bad news. One of the major faults, IMO, in the ] article is that there is '''no''' bad news. An absolutely perfect service that's never made any mistakes. What is the problem there? It (therefore) has no credibility. |
|
|
::As far as "fame" goes, almost no one but the football players achieved "fame" at school. It mostly came later. If we take credit when it isn't due, we have to take debit(?) as well. |
|
|
::Actually, I was kind of disappointed to discover that Machine Gun Kelly did '''not''' graduate from the Academy, having been told repeatedly, while I was there, that he '''did'''! Nowak will have to do, I guess, until we can come up with someone better! :) ] 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The paragraph you've attempted to add is (a) way too long giving the event undue weight, (b) unsourced by anything except another Misplaced Pages article which is the same as having no source, and (c) being added into the wrong section. I don't mind Nowak being mentioned as an alumna but the mention must be appropriate in form and content. A brief and well-sourced mention in the new "Graduates currently in the news" subsection would be appropriate, IMHO. --] 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I like that suggestion. (I didn't write the original article and will defer to others). ] 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==GA Review== |
|
|
Well, first of all, I think I should note that the GA criteria have changed quite a bit from the last review in May of 2006. I think this is important to note, because the referencing standard may not of been as high back then for articles, and i'm primarily failing this article for not being well-referenced by current standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
The first three sections, Description, Mission, and History, don't appear to have any obvious citations at all. The Mission section isn't attributed to a source, which makes it look ambiguous, leaving the reader to question whether it is a direct quote, (Which it is, for example, this reference- ) or an insanely POV pushing interpretation of the mission (Which would actually be better titled "Mission Statement" instead of just "Mission" in my opinion) by an editor. The sections on war look to be fine, and the campus section appears to comply with ]. However, the next four references also have unclear referencing, is something in the Bibliography covering them? And why are there so many citation needed tags in the midshipman activities section? And then there's this sentence- "Robinson himself was the consensus best all-around American college player at the time." Considered by whom, and who mattered in terms of consensus building? Notable graduates seems fine because the parent article is referenced, but the Appointment process section looks suspicious because of lack of apparent referencing and the lack of wikilinks. For one thing, what does "then as long as that candidate is physically, medically, and academically found qualified by the academy, he or she will be admitted, even if there are more qualified applicants." even mean? What standards does the academy use to decide what physically, edically, and academically qualified mean? It looks like somebody just copy and pasted the page of the collage for the moral education section, which definently is not right, as a reader doesn't have any indication of this, and might assume that some increadibly obvious POV pusher advertiser wrote this section because it is written in such glowing terms. It really ought to be attributed to the source properly, especially if its going to be the limit of content in this section. The satellite program section also appears to of been mostly copy and pasted from various web sources, (I googled a line and got something straight from a collage related site I think) its mostly the compleatly un-wikilinked sections that seem to be copy and pasted. This really isn't a very reliable way to write an encyclopedia article. |
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, for a combination of ambiguous referencing, copy and paste jobs in several sections, several sections which a bunch of citation needed tags, and various other problems, I am failing this article. Also, reference 20 isn't a reference, its just an unsourced statement, where are these Class Profiles? ] 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sure reference 20 is a reference, it just isn't an online reference . The Class Profiles are printed documents, produced and distributed by the Academy, just like the Catalog. Printed documents are available in libraries, archives, and from the publisher. Class Profiles, in particular, are available for free to anyone in the Academy's Visitor Center; I've not inquired of the Academy how extensive its distribution list is. Parts of some of the Class Profiles are available on the web (the 2009 profile is linked to later in the article), but online sources are prone to instability, so a citation to the actual document is preferable (just as, for example, the Wiki article on ]'s ] cites the original published paper), although an online link is useful if available (again, for example, as does the plant hybridization article). Reference 20 provides the title, dates, and publisher of the cited documents, which are the proper elements for citation of a periodical of this sort. You are right, however, that the state of citation in the article is quite heterogeneous. ] 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The implication seems to be that online references are superior to hard copy. I disagree. Hardcopy doesn't change. Web pages tend to vaporize. Usually someone spent good money on publishing hard copy. Soft copies are often "for free." Sometimes you get what you pay for! Yes, offline references are harder to check. But they can be way more accurate and "encyclopedic."] 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have addressed all of the issues in the GA review and here are the major ones: |
|
|
|
|
|
*The Mission section isn't attributed to a source--{{tick}} |
|
|
*why are there so many citation needed tags in the midshipman activities section--{{tick}} |
|
|
*this sentence- "Robinson himself was the consensus best all-around American college player at the time."--{{tick}} |
|
|
*Appointment process section looks suspicious because of lack of apparent referencing and the lack of wikilinks--{{tick}}, (the whole section is now under one citation) |
|
|
*The satellite program section also appears to of been mostly copy and pasted from various web sources--{{tick}} (mostly removed) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to get some feedback and I plan on resubmitting the article for GA soon.--] 23:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== SSP == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have never understood the importance of the article on the SSP, it does not seem to help the article in any way and the SSP program is not what makes the academy an important place, either the section should be turned into another article or it should just be removed entirely. If anything it surely does not warrant so much space in the article. If anyone else agrees with me I will be removing/shortening the section by the end of the week.--] 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree. As per your suggestion, I changed it. See what you think. The original article did go on. Seems funny to have a stranded college article, but what can you do? ] 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, I read too quickly. Had skipped your message that you were intending to work on it later in the week. Feel free to change anything. You've probably thought about it longer than I did! ] 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I already thanked you on your talk page but I'll do it here too, you actually saved me from having to do it and since you agreed with me then it is perfectly fine. You did an excellent job.--] 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==New majors in Arabic and Chinese== |
|
|
The Academy really is offering two new majors in Arabic and Chinese; see <http://www.usna.edu/LangStudy/>. Previously, a variety of minors had been offered in various foreign languages (French, Spanish, Japanese, etc.), but no majors. These new majors are available starting with this year's (class of '10) plebes. There's been some entering and removing of these majors by various editors, but the cited webpage that says there are only 19 majors has simply not been updated-- there really are two new majors. I'm not sure if the new majors are in the latest printed catalog, but they'll be in the next, and that's the most authoritative source.] 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I knew that Arabic and Chinese were actual majors but I couldn't find any source therefore any time an editor would put it on the article I would revert it because there was no source. I think that source you have would be good enough to change the number of majors.--] 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Promoted to GA== |
|
|
I have reviewed this and passed it for GA as the concerns of the last review have been addressed. That WW2-present section is a choppy 'lawyers list' and will not stand up to FA-scrutiny. To approach FA, there must be '''full compliance with style standards''', the '''writing must be compelling or brilliant''', and the '''coverage must be comprehensive'''. Meditate upon this. Image content is excellent. You may now toss your hats in the air.] 01:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
Opened in 2020, Hopper Hall is the Academy’s newest and most state-of-the-art academic building on the Yard. The building is named for Rear Adm. Grace Hopper, an accomplished mathematician who joined the U.S. Navy Reserve during World War II. In her legacy, the Hopper Hall building will be home to midshipmen in the Cyber Operations; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Information Technology; and Robotics and Control Engineering majors, as well as to laboratories for Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering and Physics majors. 136.160.90.31 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met.jpg)
