Talk:Aaron Titus

January 2026 page improvements

@David Eppstein: I know your both an admin and have been on the encyclopedia far longer than I have, but I'm not new either. I seriously appreciate a lot of the work you did on the page, and as you see I only reverted very little of it, but your most recent revert is really a my-way-or-the-highway type action, and I said I wanted to discuss. Some of the information you removed made sentences start very abruptly, so I added back some wording that would lead into it better. Besides that, the only changes I made to the article were 1. Adding back that he has a doctorate in the first sentence because that's some of the most need to know info to have about a professor, and 2. The three physics societies he was a part of (You mentioned something about those being only honorary memberships which I don't quite understand, but I want to discuss with you if I'm misunderstanding the source). We're both ultimately trying to improve the article, so please look at the work that I did before reverting. I believe these specific transition words help the article flow better, but if you believe they are non-neutral, puffery, etc, please let's talk about it first because I want this article, like any article, to be the best it can be. Respectfully, Johnson524 20:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is heavily larded with bullshit prose like "These ventures in physics helped Titus create" (verging on WP:SYN), redundant writing like "Titus then began to teach physics, beginning", and non-accomplishments like joining societies (these societies have open membership: anyone can join). That is the sort of thing I removed. I am not wearing an admin hat in doing this, but rather using my experience as a regular at editing academic biographies and at nominating and reviewing Good Articles, which you have put this article up for. If I reviewed it instead of editing it, in the state before my edits, I would probably quickfail it for violating WP:GACR 1b (WP:WTW) and 3b ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), also noting problems with 2c (original research in the claimed connections between some of his activities). For that matter, it is unclear to me whether the subject even passes WP:PROF: any significant accomplishments that might count towards that criterion are buried in fluff making them difficult to discern. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The physics societies were never claimed to be an accomplishment, its just something he's a part of, but if you think it's unnecessary detail then done, I agree with you, I genuinely do believe you know better when it comes to policy. But conceding on nothing and threatening to delete the article? 😭 WP:DISENGAGE. Johnson524 20:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Bullshit. They were the first line of the "awards and recognition" section. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that WP:PROF is satisfied, either. For example, being one of four co-authors on the most recent edition of Matter and Interactions isn't enough for WP:PROF#C4, which asks for writing multiple widely-used textbooks. None of the awards look comparable to being elected an APS Fellow, being elevated to Distinguished Professor status, winning the Oersted Medal, etc. On a first reading, and trying to sift through the fluff, this looks like a respectable but overall unremarkable career. And certainly no Wikipedia article should contain puffery like Inspired by his parents' professions, Titus wanted to become a teacher since childhood, and developed a passion for physics after his first physics class in high school. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Likewise, language like this is problematic: The paper and its findings have been cited by multiple academic journals and universities.... Yes, that is the function of a paper, to be read and then cited. The fact of a paper having been written and then cited a few times is not remarkable. Look at some books that are standards in their fields and see how often they've been cited: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods over 5,000 times; Griffiths and Schroeter, over 11,000 times; Quantum Computation and Quantum Information almost 66,000 times; Jackson over 70,000. OK, maybe we should be more modest. What about individual papers, published in a journal oriented to physics education? Mermin's "Bringing home the atomic world" in the American Journal of Physics has still been cited over 200 times. By comparison, a conference proceeding that has been cited all of 10 times is just not influential. Moreover, the phrasing (The paper and its findings have been cited by multiple...) oversells how much emphasis those other publications put on it. They did not treat it as the definitive work in the field; they noted its existence and summarized the gist of it in a couple lines. That is entirely unremarkable for academic writing. The article reads like it is selling Titus hard, stringing together everything he did rather than starting with a clear-cut reason why he is notable and building the text from there. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction:  Done for both of your individual concerns. I completely agree, and truly thank you for taking the time to write out your reasoning. It is my joy to make articles on all kinds of topics, with this being the first and only one I've made about an academic 🙂 If you have any more ideas on how to reduce puffery or other issues you find in the article, I'm typically just as eager to implement the changes as you, I just preferably like to know the 'why' behind major changes before they're implemented so I know why they're necessary, and so I don't make the same mistakes in the future. Thank you again. Respectfully, Johnson524 05:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Removing a couple examples does not change the overall situation, i.e., that it's very hard to tell why the subject of this article merits an article by Wikipedia's standards. He did outreach work through science fairs, fine; he won a grant, fine; he ran a training workshop, fine. These are all run-of-the-mill things that people who work in physics departments do. It reads like a puff piece in local news, collecting a list of things that a person did without any sense of whether any of it makes them stand out among their fellow scientists. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Titus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Johnson524, I'll review this. I'm very interested in these automated learning systems so this'll be an enjoyable one for me! IAWW (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I started the review below, but I ran into issues with the source-text integrity of the WebAssign section. Please could you do a full source-text integrity check of that section, and fix any issues before I continue? IAWW (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking up this nomination! I’m away on a trip rn, but can start work on any/everything on Tuesday. Thank so much you again! 😄 Johnson524 09:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No worries! I look forward to continuing when you get back :) IAWW (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: I've caught up on all your recommendations as of now! Knowing very little about automated learning systems before writing this article: I love that someone with a pre-existing interest can review the page. Cheers! Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think these systems are a bit overly abused in the modern day (at least in the lower levels of education) to take the load off teachers. A student in my family lost a lot of motivation for maths when their school started to use Sparx. I think however they have the potential for students who have a lot of motivation, if they are used in combination with spaced repetition. (sry this went on longer than I intended...) IAWW (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Johnson524, the rest of the review is below. I found very few issues relating to the GA criteria with the text. Well done! Once the few GA-related issues are fixed, I shall pass. It was an interesting read, and inspiring considering I'm likely to go into maths teaching myself. IAWW (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: Okay we should be all set now! I have two comments but they shouldn't be anything major, and everything else should be addressed. Thank you so much again for this review! Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Johnson524 thanks again for your work on this article! I think it's in great shape, and all of my comments relating to the GA criteria have been resolved, so this is ready to pass. The only comment outstanding is a suggestion which goes beyond the GA criteria. I'll leave this nomination open in case you wish to reply there, but this can pass whenever you're ready.

Please consider doing a review in return, as the backlog is high right now and the process cannot survive without people reviewing as well as nominating. If you need/want any help with reviewing, I'm here to help. IAWW (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Prose (criteria 1a, 1b and 4) clock

Resolved issues

His Halliday and Resnick Award is not included. IAWW (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Added. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Lead

I see no issues. You did a really good job of writing in summary style without editorialising.

Thank you! Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Early life and education

with his faith later being credited as a major part of his life: "major" goes a bit beyond beyond the sources. I think it would be more accurate to change it to describe how he was a "devout" (or paraphrase committed) Christian, or that he later wrote that he "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". IAWW (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: If possible, I actually would like to keep the "major" wording. In [3], Titus credits his relationship with Christ above all else, including his wife and kids: First, I recognize the peace, love, and faith that I've experienced through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Second, I thank my wife [...]. [1] is a little more WP:SYNTH-y for this claim, but the thought process was that including the line Aaron and his wife are devout Christians. Aaron committed his life to Jesus Christ [...] in a biography that otherwise reads entirely to-the-point and chorological stands out as important. What do you think though? If you still would like the wording changed I can of course do that. Cheers! Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think [3] is too synth, but [1] on reflection I can see both ways. I didn't interpret the "First... Second" structure as a priority list when first reading through the source, but I can see how he likely meant it like that. I'm happy for this to stay as is. IAWW (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done The agreed upon SYNTH-y citation is removed. Johnson524 12:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

"Will you mar²y me?": It took me way too long to realise the ^2 wasn't a mistake haha

I'm glad you liked it! 😄 Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

WebAssign

In relation to this, Titus created an online learning and homework service named "PhysWeb" in 1996; which included animated demonstrations for solving problems: The text after the semi-colon should always be an independent clause. IAWW (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Institutes such as the Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School have referred to the service as the "number one homework system used for calculus".: The words "Institutions such as" imply more than the one (or two?) institutions linked did this, but that's not supported by the source. IAWW (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Teaching and modern day

and was promoted to an assistant professor during the following 1999–00 school year: Another case of the text after a semi-colon not being an independent clause IAWW (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Per the bottom of the fourth bullet point in MOS:YEARRANGE, "1999–00" should be "1999–2000". IAWW (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Titus additionally created both the physics major and Department of Physics at HPU, both of which did not exist before his arrival: This is already implied as he "created" them. IAWW (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

(this is a suggestion, beyond the GA-criteria) The end of this section gets very choppy with many short sentences. To fix this and make the prose flow a bit better, related ideas can be combined rather than enforcing a strict chronology. E.g. the "matter and interactions" sentences can be combined. IAWW (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

Not much to critique here as it's all short factual sentences. I see no issues for GA. It could however be copyedited to fix the choppyness, as above. IAWW (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not really sure how to fix the choppiness for this section. I wrote the section as prose, but do you think it'd maybe read better as a table/list? Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine as prose, but I think more listy prose would be appropriate rather than the short sentences. Here is an example beginning which you could continue from (of course also feel free to alter or entirely as you please – this is beyond GA):

Titus has received awards from the AAPT, HPU, and NCSU. The AAPT awarded him the "Best Pedagogical Paper" twice, in 2001 and 2011, the "Homer L. Dodge Citation for Distinguished Service" in 2019, for exceptional contributions to the association, and the "David Halliday and Robert Resnick Award" for exceptional teaching of undergraduate physics. IAWW (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: I believe I understand what you're going for, how does this look in my most recent edit? Feel free to copyedit yourself if needed! Johnson524 12:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes that reads so much better! Passing now. IAWW (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sources Y

Resolved issues

The citation numbers are based on this version.

[3] is not loading for me. Is it loading for you? IAWW (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done No, the link had died, good catch! Luckily I found an archived version and added it to the article. I've also added archived versions of every other archive-able source to prevent future link rot. Cheers! Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It's so important to future proof web references with the volatility of the web. IAWW (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The following issues were found using this automated tool and then manually checked:

[4a]: "Around this time, Titus decided he wanted to be a teacher" goes a little beyond the source. The source doesn't mention the time period he decided to become a teacher. In fact, it doesn't mention that he "decided" at all – perhaps he just always knew since he was young.

 Done Removed. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[9a]: "explaining one of his motivations for creating WebAssign" is an interpretation of the source. It's also not necessary so I suggest cutting it.

 Done Removed. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[5b]: "which in addition to accepting and grading homework submissions": The source doesn't specifically say it did this

 Done Removed. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[9d]: "Titus showcased the service at an American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) meeting": The source doesn't mention that he showcased anything, just that he attended the meeting.

 Done Cited in [4], don't know why [9] was being used. Corrected. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[9f]: It doesn't mention that each system had features the other lacked. I think that was mentioned in source [5].

 Done Corrected. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[5d]: Doesn't mention the season "Autumn" or the database being combined with Martin's code. I think the latter was mentioned in [9].

 Done The former is also in [9] in the sentence When it initially rolled out in the fall of 1997, WebAssign [...]. Corrected. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

[9k, 10b]: The sources don't really say that the launch as an independent company caused it to reach a wider audience.

 Done Reworded. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems there are quite a lot of TSI issues in the section "WebAssign". The text has a tendency to go slightly beyond the source in most the cases I checked in this section. I think this section needs a full TSI check (everything in the section needs to be fully verified by the following citation(s)) before we can be sure these issues are resolved. On some cursory checks on the other sections, they don't seem to have the same issue, at least to the same extent. IAWW (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Hmm, sorry about this 😕 I must've gone overboard on trying to not plagiarize any source. Whatever you find I'll be happy to fix/implement. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I empathise it's hard to rewrite without editorialising or plagiarising when the topic is small and not many sources are available. I'm definitely guilty of it. IAWW (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Citation numbers based on this version.

Health/formatting (criterion 2a) Y

No issues for GA

Reliability (criterion 2b) Y

Almost all University- and research-related pages, with a few Newspapers sprinkled in, none of which raise any alarms

Spot check (criteria 2b, 2c and 2d) Y

Here are the results of the spot check:

[1a]: Y

[4d, 5c, 10a]: Y

[9h]: Y

[5f]: Y

[32, 33]: Y

[5k]: Y

[9k]: The source doesn't support "The service continued to grow under NCSU", and the word "much" (of the code) is a bit stronger than the source's "some". IAWW (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyvio (criterion 2d) Y

Earwig finds nothing. I found no issues on the spot check.

Scope (criteria 3a and 3b) Y

Appears quite detailed for the amount of sourcing available. I don't see any major omitted areas. I'll highlight any overdetail in the prose review.

Media Y

I noticed you uploaded the picture of Titus as your own work. Is he your professor or something? IAWW (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I was able to attend a few of his lectures– during one of which I took the picture, but no, I never received any credits from any of his classes. Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh nice, what a great opportunity! I'm continuing with my review now. IAWW (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Tags (criterion 6a) Y

No issues with tags

Captions (criterion 6b) Y

The caption of the HPU physics logo should not have a full stop at the end as it is not a full sentence IAWW (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 02:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.