Talk:University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
|WikiProject Tambayan Philippines||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
The tag is not meant to demean the article but improve the substance of its coverage. Articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be encyclopedic, neutral, and relevant. In the case at hand, it is my observation that the way it is written, the article appears more of like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic composition. Allow me to elaborate.
(1) Starting with the lead section, lack of neutrality and relevance is immediately apparent. The opening sentence cites "The University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Medicine and Surgery (simply "UST-Medicine" or "UST-Med") is the medical school of the University of Santo Tomas, the oldest and largest Catholic university in Manila, Philippines." While there may be no problem in making such a claim as it may be factually correct, the problem lies in its relevance. The article talks about the Faculty as an autonomous entity, as such it would be unnecessary to deviate from that point of focus and move towards information that does not talk about the faculty itself. If there is any purpose for which such irrelevant statement was inserted, it is to give undue positive weight to the Faculty which does no useful purpose than to deviate the attention of the reader from the main subject.
(2) Still on the lead, it states thus: "Established in 1871, the faculty is the first medical school in the Philippines. It is proclaimed to be a Center of Excellence by the Commission on Higher Education and a consistent Top Performing Medical School in the Philippine Physician Licensure Examination." The claim of being the first medical school and being a consistently top performing medical school are hyperbolic statements and must therefore have a third-party citations to avoid neutrality and factual issues. Furthermore, given that third-party citations are provided, it must be rephrased from a neutral standpoint.
(3) In the "history" section, Rizal's further studies in Europe is clearly irrelevant. The section is supposed to be talking about the history of the Faculty, and not Rizal's academic biography.
(4) In the "Program design and delivery section", the statement "The move was highly controversial" is a contentious statement and must therefore be substantiated with a third-party citation.
(5) Still in the same section, the term "revalida" must be avoided as it is a term internal to the university and one which would have no practical use to non-UST readers.
(6) The "Performance" section is fraught with weasel statements, such as the use of the word "proclaimed" instead of "recognized" or "designated." There are also weasel and dubious statements that do not give concrete quantification such as the repeated use of "several" or "numerous." These words must be avoided as it does not give the reader of any idea of as to how many exactly. In short, the expression is sweeping.
(7) In the "Reputation" section, the statement "The Faculty is widely regarded in medical, educational, and social circles as the top private medical school in the country" is a highly hyperbolic weasel statement and must therefore be clarified in more concrete terms. Otherwise, it should be removed.
(8) In the "Facilities" section, the phrase "popularly known" is another weasel statement.
(9) Still in the "Facilities" section, the statement, "The hospital is one of the largest fully-equipped medical facilities in the country." must be qualified and supported by a third-party source. The source currently being cited non-neutral.
(10) Finally, the "Prominent Alumni" section must have additional third-party citations for purposes of verification. Otherwise, the whole list may simply be treated as original research. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)