Talk:National Institutes of Technology (India)

---

Fact Check Required

Few days back I saw that an anonymous IP added a lot of content directly lifted from the Indian Institutes of Technology article. However, very little modifications were made to use it for NITs. At many places, the person even forgot to replace IIT with NIT, which shows clear failure on his part to verify what he has written. Can anyone copyedit and run a fact check on his edits. I didn't revert the edit as many things are indeed common, but I think this article deserves to be uique (and not shadow of IIT article). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

if one were to believe what was posted here, most faculty at the nits would be phd holders. the actual numbers are quite different. approximately 40% of nit faculty do not hold phd degree and some 5% have only a bachelors degree. as suggested in above paragraph, info cannot be just lifted from iit article without fact checking. Iitmsriram 16:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

this article is pov.. instead of writing such a long winding article, a better idea would be to edit this article into a shorter, concise, npov one.--Keynes.john.maynard 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

An open request to NIT Junta

i really pity the guy whoever lifted the text from IIT article.I tried my best to change most of the content(most from my local IP).If u can not contribute something creative,genuine facts which are relevant to NIT, pl stay away.Kundojjala 17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

yah absolutely true.This article should serve as information tool for those who do not know much about NITs and want to know more. i think the current version presents the true picture.Ankitjain.nitk 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edit

As far as I know NIT is not called National Institutes of Technology. Its just Institute. I will change that, but if u really feel that I am not right, please feel free to revert it back. Tomsshaji 22:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I edited a the contents as per what I mentioned above, but the article name is still not right nor are the categories that it belongs to. I am not so well versed with wikipedia to make changes to those.

You are partially correct. Individual NITs are National Institute of Technology, but collectively they are known as National Institutes of Technology. As a reference, you can read this, or even this (in official site). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian collaboration of the week

I do not see too many flaws in this article to prevent it from becoming a featured article. The information is well presented and, although slightly overwhelming at times, follows encyclopedic style. It seems to me that most of the stuff has been copied from official government webpages but the material lacks citations. The person who has contributed most of the material should take charge and cite the sources. Moreover, as common in any unrefined article, there are grammatical errors. I have already started fixing them section-by-section and I encourage other editors who are well-versed in English writing to contribute. On another note, the pictures are oddly scattered throughout the article and this layout does not suit my eyes, but that could be just me. I would like to hear other views about the pictures before making any changes. — Aksera 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have extensively copy-edited this article over the last two days and boy, was it boring! The article was riddled with sentence overflows (typical in layman Indian writings, IMHO) and grammatical errors. Anyway, I took the time and pain to go through all the sections and the final outcome looks good. I feel especially good about adding several authoritative references to the article. Once again, I invite all editors who are well-versed in English writing to proofread and fix errors that I may have missed.

• List of changes that i made, in Wikipedia revisions style
• Actual Before and After pages

— Aksera 21:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess English is not the mother tongue in India.Let's respect and avoid terms like typical Indian English. I don't know who wrote that stuff,but at least they contributed.Crux321 12:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Content is the king.Grammar and spellings can be fixed by bots.If content is authentic rest doesn't matter much.Mighty john 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean disrespect to anybody. In fact, I mentioned "typical in layman Indian writings" just to avoid hurting somebody personally. John, content is not "the king" in a formal encyclopedia! Moreover, grammar and structural errors like sentence overflows can not be fixed by bots. Guys, please don't take my comments personally. I do appreciate all the contributions that have been made so far. — Aksera 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)