Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:30, 16 May 2008.

Marriott School of Management
Self-nominator

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the article underwent a few rigorous reviews in the GAN process, I feel it now meets the FA criteria, it is comparable to its FA counterpart Tuck School of Business, and it will add a lot of value to the FA portfolio. Thank you for your consideration! Eustress (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * This site is used three times in the references; merge them all using WP:REFNAME.
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Link reference publishers when they have an article, such as for Salt Lake Tribune.
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 04:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose, you have a good start here, but it is far from FA standard. I recommend, at the least, a thorough peer review (which will get you exposure to more editors) and a copyedit for prose and NPOV from an uninvolved editor.  Initial problems are a POV slant (the lead reads like a marketing brochure for the school, ex. "This emphasis, along with the consistent high rankings..."; "first among recruiters"), heavy reliance on primary sources (the BYU web sites), and comprehensiveness.  At a glance, the History section will need a major expansion after further research is done.  You have one sentence dedicated to how the school began, skipping from 1919 to 1957. -- Laser brain   (talk)  23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "First among recruiters" is a direct quote from a very reliable and applicable source (BusinessWeek). Other POV issues can be address if delineated. The MSM actually started in 1975, so history is scant, but I provided supplementary BYU-business information to add context. Thank you for your review. --Eustress (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FAC is not the proper venue for laundry lists of article problems. Peer review is the first step.  I'm not satisfied with your explanation of the "first among recruiters" language or the lack of comprehensiveness.  Yes BusinessWeek is a reliable source but you're not actually citing it.. you're citing a BYU press release that cites a BusinessWeek statistic.  Is "first among recruiters" backed by hard data in an objective article?  What does it mean?  That recruiters placing more students from here than anywhere else?  Or just that they like it?  What are the parameters and survey methods?
 * I added a second supporting citation for the "first among recruiters" part—info from BusinessWeek on how they compute this particular ranking. I don't think an extant discussion about the accuracy of BusinessWeek is required or even possible in this article; it's a reliable source and readers can read more into it if they want to draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately I can't provide the direct link to the former ranking, as it is a premium service that costs money; hence why I referenced the BYU site, but I think the second source should help the case. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is much more POV language:
 * You mention the "ethics" thing in the lead and elsewhere.. once again, it is ultimately linked to a poll of recruiters. Recruiters have a strong conflict of interest and POV and you should not be citing anything a recruiter said.
 * The ethics part is supported by the #2 ethics ranking by the WSJ and the book Business with Integrity, but the wording can tweaked if needed. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "... [T]he school stresses a collaborative and teamwork-based approach to learning ..." Marketing fluff sourced to a BYU web site.
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Many of the faculty are recognized experts ..." Sourced to a BYU web site.
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest withdrawing the nomination and opening a peer review where other editors can scour the article for POV language. Anything even slightly subjective cannot be sourced to a BYU web site.  Further legwork is also needed to flesh out the History. -- Laser brain   (talk)  00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be pressing my luck going back and forth with you more, but know that it's with the best intention, as I appreciate your review and truly want to make Wikipedia the best it can be—which includes getting a good article like this to FA status in a timely manner. Regarding fixing some apparent POV issues, when I conduct GAN reviews (btw, this is my first FAC process), I not only point out problems but will also help to fix minor issues to help the article along. Now, this is completely dependent upon your goodwill, but I can wait a month to go through Peer Review, or you could just reword or point out the issues (me preferring the latter). With respect to the History section, it is comparable in length and content to FAs Tuck School of Business and Cornell University (institutions founded almost a century before the MSM); I have scoured various resources for MSM history, but due to its relatively short period of history, I feel this is about it.
 * I have responded quickly to all concerns raised in this FAC and hope my request is reasonable. Thanks for your consideration! --Eustress (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The back and forth is no problem, trust me. I do understand where you're coming from but what you're requesting isn't possible at FAC.  Most reviewers here, myself included, work hard just to read each article and provide comments for the ones that are "almost there".  When I review an article that is "close", I will correct minor errors as I'm reading and then post a list of other fixes I'm requesting.
 * For the ones that need substantial work, as I believe this one does, I just post that there are major problems that need fixed before I will invest the time in a detailed review. I simply don't have the time to pull them up to standard while they're here. That's not a reviewer's job - that's the job of the collaborators and copyeditors before the article gets here.  If I did that for each article that is posted here without being near FA standard, I would never get even 1/4 way through the candidate list.  I hope that makes sense. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, how do I withdraw the nomination? I can't find any instructions on how to do so and don't want to mess things up. --Eustress (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I did notice a large number of the sources are from the school or BYU. Primary sources need to be used with care to make sure that NPOV is maintained. Well over half the article is sourced to BYU/MSM sources, which is a LOT.
 * 34/65 references come from MSM- or BYU-related sites...a LITTLE more than half. So, hypothetically, there might be good consensus in the article with a 50-50 relationship. If there are blatant NPOV issues, they can fixed quickly if presented. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 51 "2007 Faculty Pioneers" is lacking a publisher
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 52 "APPAM Awards" is lacking a publisher
 * Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: nominator requested withdrawal (here and here). ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.