Talk:Marriott School of Management/Archive 1

Pictures

This article is in need of more pictures...any help appreciated! --Eustress (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I took two Marriott School-specific pictures today and posted them...enjoy! --Eustress (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review for this article

The requirements for a Good Article are as follows:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

• I found no major grammar issues in the article.
• I would create some type of introductory paragraph for the “Academics” section and rather than just listing off the programs, would try to integrate it into some sort of descriptive paragraph. It’s just that the jump from well-written paragraphs in other sections to a simple list in this section is rather abrupt and I feel detracts from how well the article flows. Try to reduce lists throughout the article.
• Please provide some type of description as to what these “Research centers” are, because from the simple list and w/o clicking on any of the external links, I have no clue. Again, please try and incorporate this into some type of paragraph and stay away from lists.
• The subsection on the “Student Profile” appears to be cut and paste from the BYU website (source 10). This is a copyright violation and needs to be reworded to remove this.
• Once again, the entire Alumni section discussing the “Management Society” is a copy-paste job (with a couple of words thrown in) from source 20. This is unacceptable. Re-word to remove copyright violations.
• Manual of style says that section and subsections should only have the first letter capitalized unless a word is a proper noun. “International Focus” should be “International focus”, etc., etc. Please make this correction throughout the article.
• I’m not a fan of the section organization for this article. The first section is one discussing the building that the school is located in? Usually you begin with a History section and then move on to discuss other things related to the school.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

• The “Emphasis on Ethics” subsections lack citations. Please add sources to support the statements made in this subsection.
• The section that has the tables listing the rankings needs to include citations to sources so that we can verify the claims made. These seem to be available in source 10. Cite this source in an introductory sentence before these tables should satisfy citation requirements.
• Subsection “faculty” lacks citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

• Some mention needs to be made earlier in the article saying that it was previously named “BYU College of Business.” There is also no discussion of when the college itself was created. The infobox states that it was established in 1975, but there is no “History” section within the article itself.

4. Does the article maintain Neutrality?

• For the most part, the article maintains neutrality.

5. It is stable. In this respect, it:

• The article is stable with no recent edit wars.

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.[4] In this respect:

• The article has two images incorporated and both have been released into the public domain by their authors.
• The second image showing the interior of the building needs a new caption. Captions should relate to the image being illustrated. Discussing how the school has been highly ranked in the caption for a photograph of the inside of a school makes no sense. Caption should tell us what is in the picture.

In conclusion, with the article as it now stands, I will put it on hold for 1 week until the above issues are addressed. will381796 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough analysis, Will. I have made several changes to the article and believe I have addressed most of your concerns. I invite others to contribute as seen fit and would invite you, Will, to comment on any further-needed changes. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The changes look good. I'm going to go ahead and pass this to GA status. will381796 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Article does not meet the criteria

This article does not meet the current GA criteria, and should not have been passed. There are too many issues with it.

• The lead section is too short, and does not adequately summarize the article. Please see WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC) - I have expanded the Intro, and since the enitre article contains approximately 9,000 characters (21 KB), this Intro is sufficient according to lead guidelines.

• History section is too short; while it's well cited, I don't think it really tells the story of the school since it was founded. It almost reads like an advertisement, talking about accreditations near the end. There are also manual of style issues, with unnecessary bold text at the beginning, full dates that are not wikilinked, and the third paragraph is just a numbered list written as prose.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC) - I've expanded the history and fixed issues pointed out.

• 'Rankings and awards' is just two tables and very little text, which an article does not make. Indication of serious completeness issues.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - Table has been removed, section reorganized and expanded to mirror FA Tuck School of Business

• There are lots of external links within the people section. there's also a lot of subsections, with very little text in each. Section is basically a list and it reads like an advertising brochure.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) - Should be resolved.

• The alumni main section immediately goes to a single subsection, and doesn't really address the overall topic. This isn't anywhere near complete.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - Section completely overhauled and merged into People section, mirroring Tuck

• References section should come before the external links section, not after (external links should be the very last section, with nothing after it, except maybe some applicable templates and/or category listings).

 Done Alanraywiki (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• References are not formatted properly. Full citation information should be included here, including author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of URL retrieval. This is actually very important, so that if a URL ever becomes inaccessible, the reference is not rendered obsolete. Please see WP:CITE for information on how to format citations and using citation templates.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) - (whew!)

Sorry folks, but this article isn't anywhere near meeting the GA criteria, and will be removed from the WP:GA listing page. I would assess this article on the assessment scale as start class. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think this article should have been demoted. WikiGuidelines state that "a good article is a satisfactory article that has not met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles. A good article must comply with only six style guidelines; featured articles must comply with all style standards." So while the suggestions are valid and can be improved upon, the article, according to the guidelines and the previous reviewer, should be a GA. --Eustress (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think that if others disagreed with my assessment then rather than completely demoting it it should have instead been put back on hold and given time for these issues to have been corrected. Eustress has done an excellent job of quickly responding to issues that are brought up regarding this article and they should have been allowed the time to make the corrections. Regarding the references, I agree that they are incomplete, but I think its really easy enough to correct those references. Personally, however, I would like to see more references that are independent of the School and BYU. But that's a separate issue. But, as I'm only beginning these GA reviews, I will concede to Cash's assessment and request that the above corrections be made and that the article is again nominated for GA review, at which time it will be reviewed again. will381796 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A GA delisting isn't the end all and be all of everything. The article can be renominated at any time once someone feels that it meets the Good Article criteria. I opted not to put it on hold because it was (and still is) not even close to meeting the criteria. The article is just a start, and mostly a list as well as a random assortment of bits and pieces (indicated by the presence of several very short sections). On hold status is generally for articles that are very close to meeting the criteria, and generally should not last longer than one week. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all concerns and more. I will therefore renominate the article for GA status. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think it sounds somewhat like an advertisement that is written in language to deter people from believing it is an advertisement. I guess you could say, it sounds like good marketing...--Excel2301 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Then re-word it in such a way that you think it is no longer an advert. I mean, if it really is a good school, you kind of have to mention the facts that show that's its a good school. Pointing out these facts doesn't make it an advert. But if you know of some controversies about the school and can cite the sources, then by all means include them so we can get all views. I do think a more diverse set of sources need to be used. It looks like 80-90% of sources cited are from BYU or the college itself. Sources should ideally be independent of the subject of the article. will381796 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Second review

Article has undergone 100% improvement, and is much, much better. I made a few minor copyedits to the article to clean up a few missing commas, and some grammatical changes. There's still a few issues that remain though, so it's on hold:

• The lead section still has issues. It reads a little too much like an advertisement, with some overly flowery language like, 'nationally renowned' and 'hallmark emphasis on ethics'. While it does overall summarize the article, it is heavily uses citations in the lead itself -- since a lot of this material is covered later on in the article, the citations should be placed on the material in the article itself, not in the lead.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are issues with the references. First, reference #3 is a circular reference to the University of Phoenix wikipedia page -- wikipedia should never cite itself. Second, most of the reference citations go to one source, the Marriott School website itself. As such, the article is a bit too heavily dependent on internal citations, and most of information cited should be from independent citations. The publisher and, where possible, the author, should also be listed in the citation listings themselves. This would make the source more evident, and boost the credibility of the article. Also, as a minor issue, try to place reference citations only at the end of sentences, immediately following the punctuation mark -- avoid placing citations in the middle of sentences unless you place them immediately after a comma.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC) - I replace three marriottschool.byu.edu references with external citation and added more text with external citations; I also fixed the circular reference.

• The 'alumni' section could possibly be expanded by including some information on specific alumni of the school, instead of focusing on more rankings. If it ranks so well, certainly some famous people went to the school that you could add to the page?

 Done --Eustress (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)s

• Following the guideline followed by the Tuck School of Business article, it would also be good for the article to have a section on the 'campus'.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Once these issues are addressed, I think the article can be promoted. Again, I do have to commend you on your work -- the article has clearly been improved drastically. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Dr. Cash. I believe I have resolved the issues. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Publishers really should be added to the citations, so I just went ahead and did that for you. I also copied the citation for the quote in the lead, which really needs to be there since it's a direct quote. I'm still a little troubled that so many of the citations are nonetheless from the Marriott School's own website, and I think this really needs to be addressed as the article moves forward. Some things, like rankings from US News & World Report, should cite the magazine's site instead of the school's site, so if specific things can be found there that would be preferable. Other things, like information about the school's programs and faculty itself, are fine to be cited on the school's site. I'll let it pass for GA this time around, but moving forward, if you're interested in a potential WP:FAC, you'll need more citations from independent and reliable sources.

There is one more little thing to fix before GA. Please address the 'dubious' tag that I added. The citation link goes to the main page of the website there; please link it to the specific document in question.

Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on the dubious tag. I couldn't find the exact subpage so I just removed the citation since there is another one there that will suffice for now. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article looks good! Congrats! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Expansion

It would be nice to have a picture of the new building that they are adding on. It is a significant addition and I think would enhance the article. Daw44 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I thought it would be best to wait until it is completed. If you enlarge the current Tanner building picture, you can see the extension already going up. --Eustress (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions

This article received a good peer review (per link above; thanks to User:Ruhrfisch), and I'd like to post some of its suggestions below as a sort of check list to improve the article. A model article is useful for style, refs, structure, etc. There are 20 FAs at Category:FA-Class Universities articles, many of which would be useful articles. --Eustress (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.

 Done Tried to expand best I can. Perhaps copy edit will catch and further issues. —Eustress ^talk 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Give the full name and follow it with the abbreviation the first time, so Brigham Young University (BYU). Watch overlinking - BYU is linked in the lead and then at least the next two sections, of the LDS Church is linked multiple times.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• History - I was a bit confused by the whole middle paragraph on Accounting and Information Systems - why is this important? Also the history chronology skips around a bit - 1975 to 1988 and then back to 1976. I also note the four hubs have no dates, which seems odd for a history.

 Done Expanded 3X —Eustress ^talk 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Campus as a section heading makes it seem it has its own campus, but it is just a couple of buildings on the main BYU campus, right? I have also not seen the coordinates in the body of the article - especially since they are already there on the top right of the article.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Units need to be in both English and metric - the {{convert}} template may be useful here.

 Done --Eustress (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Where was the school before the Tanner building opened in 1982?

 Done --Eustress (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid "currently" and "now" - use as of May 2008, for example

 Done --Eustress (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• These also need better cites: The MBA program is ranked #1 among regional schools (The Wall Street Journal, 2007) as well as for the amount of time to payback (BusinessWeek, 2006), at #2 for its emphasis on ethics (The Wall Street Journal, 2007), and #18 overall (Forbes, 2007).

 Done --Eustress (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article is fairly well written but needs a copyedit to smooth over a few rough / awkward places.

 Done CE conducted by User:Wrad (see below). —Eustress ^talk 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As for POV, the article is very gowing about the school - sounds like it is a very good school, but are there any criticisms / complaints / scandals / problems? What do guides to business schools say about it?

 Done Good idea! --Eustress (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Copy-edit is complete, although I left a few in-text comments that need addressing. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I believe I've addressed the comments. —Eustress ^talk 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Old pics

Here are some old pics that probably don't fit in the article but might be good to house in Commons. —Eustress ^talk 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/BYUPhotos&CISOPTR=122&CISOBOX=1&REC=17
• http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/BYUPhotos&CISOPTR=129&CISOBOX=1&REC=2
  • Done —Eustress ^talk 06:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/BYUPhotos&CISOPTR=126&CISOBOX=1&REC=12
• http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/BYUPhotos&CISOPTR=168&CISOBOX=1&REC=17

FA

Apparently it wasn't promoted, mostly because nobody came by to review it for awhile. Just put it on FAC again. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do...thanks. —Eustress ^talk 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)