Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive2


 * 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 by SandyGeorgia 20:10, 30 January 2010.

Marriott School of Management

 * Nominator(s): —Eustress talk 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was a FAC a year and a half ago (May 2008) and has since gone through a rigorous peer review and a copy edit by two experienced editors. Pursuant to these efforts, the history section has been expanded 3X, a criticism section added, and several minor issues resolved. Thank you in advance for your consideration. —Eustress talk 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Images need alt text.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. That's my first time being asked to do that... has that always been an MOS guideline? It's a great idea. Thanks —Eustress talk 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text is a relatively new addition to the MOS. Thanks for getting to it so fast! Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed Support Pending resolution of comments below. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The dedicated criticism section should be merged into the history section lest it be a construed as POV (WP:STRUCTURE) or recentist
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "...at Brigham Young University (BYU), the largest religious and second-largest private university in the United States." The size of the larger university is not a particularly notable distinction and is unduly emphasized in the first sentence of the lead relative to the rest of the article MOS:INTRO. Only the relative size of the business school should be emphasized in the lead, if at all. The size of the university may be appropriate in the body of the article, however.
 * I took this part out. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " offers several undergraduate and graduate programs of study with a heavy emphasis on ethics." How many is several? How thorough is heavy? Use precise language with substantiable facts. The emphasis on ethics also seems undue given the negligible relative weight given to it in the body relative to other programs like undergrad, master's, accounting, etc.
 * I fixed the "several" bit, but I do not agree that it is undue weight to mention ethics. Ethics is mentioned in several different sections of the article and is a very, very big deal at the school. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I expanded the bit about ethics in the lead in hopes of making its relevance there more obvious. —Eustress talk 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * " programs consistently rank in the top 10 in national rankings" How consistent is consistent? Whose rankings? Per WP:PEACOCK and WP:BOOSTER, I'd prefer that rankings are not mentioned at all in the lead of any article as it is self-evidently unencyclopedic. ("George Washington is ranked as the best president", "Denmark is ranked as the best county", etc.).
 * Well those articles just disproved my point, but I will continue to refuse to support any university article that includes references to rankings in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree and cut all mention of ranking out of the lead. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Catering to its 75 percent bilingual (30 percent trilingual) student body by sponsoring high-proficiency business language courses in 11 languages (more than any other business school in the world), the Marriott School claims over 44,000 alumni." Simply an awfully-phrased sentence. It also fails to acknowledge the fact that the majority of its students are LDS and many of those LDS students received language training in relation to their church-sponsored missions (as is mentioned later). A notable distinction worthy of mention, but provide the full context.
 * How about this: "Many MSM students obtain a level of foreign language proficiency while serving as LDS missionaries. (Seventy-five percent of the student body is bilingual, while 30 percent is trilingual.) Consequently, the Marriott School sponsors high-proficiency business language courses in 11 languages. The school claims over 44,000 alumni and is accredited...." —Eustress talk 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. I think the article as a whole dances a bit around the issue of the school being so closely-affiliated with the LDS church. For instance, there's no mention of what percentage of the student body is LDS. This is also a circular way of saying that "Many MSM students...[serve] as LDS missionaries" should be substantiated in some way. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the lead text per above. Regarding the other concerns, the MSM has not published what percentage of its student body or faculty is LDS; however, there are statistics available at the university level if that helps (see here). I think the article dedicates ample attention to the matter of religion: affiliation with the church in the infobox, references to missionary service, pic of church president in alumni, multiple references to church leaders throughout, discussion of honor code, etc. And the Marriott School doesn't experience any effects unique to those experienced by other colleges at BYU. But to help make the relationship more salient, I've linked Brigham_Young_University in the student section and elaborated a bit on the culture. —Eustress talk 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The history section omits any mention of the historical context that motivated the creation of masters or MBA degrees, the School's response to or role in supplying officers and training during WWII, growing enrollments in the post-war era, gender or racial integration, liberalization of policies in response to social liberalization in the 1960s and 1970s, etc.
 * I have added in some context that touches on wars, recessions, etc. I can't find anything to indicate that racial integration was ever an issue--Utah is 95% white and most students (75%) come from Utah or other states in the West. -- Hope moves towards what you're thinking of. This section is much more substantial than that for Tuck School of Business (the only business school FA), and it is difficult isolate business school history from that of its parent university. —Eustress talk 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The business school rankings infobox is misleading: WSJ ranked the School first among regional schools. The ranking section writeup also conveniently omits non-top-twenty rankings from notable publishers (USNWR, BusinessWeek). Granted, they're in the infobox, but it's disingenuous to only write up "good" rankings.
 * I fixed the Wall Street thing but didn't get to the other bit. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I finished out this bullet, adding in the omitted rankings, grouping them thematically and arranging them alphabetically. —Eustress talk 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there more specific demographics (gender, ethnicity, geographic origin) that can be expanded in the student section?
 * I added statistics on each. —Eustress talk 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Applicants to the MBA program are evaluated based on commitment to the mission of BYU and the LDS Church..." The extent of the business schools involvement in the church (or vice versa) seems to be a notable distinction from most other business programs, and something that should be mentioned in the lead. Emphasizing this might also provide a better context through which to understand the school's distinctions vis-a-vis language and ethics, as well.
 * I agree this might be a better way to mention ethics in the lead. Wrad (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it a shot and modified the lead to try to address these issues. —Eustress talk 06:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither the students nor the organization sections provide a sense for the relative sizes of these programs. Additionally, admissions information omits any mention of number of applications, admission rate, or matriculation rate for the MBA program, at a minimum.
 * Fixed. —Eustress talk 06:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "graduates from the Marriott School receive competitive salaries and are solicited by some of the best companies in the world." What is the average starting salary? What percentage of students work for Fortune 500, major investment banking or accounting firms, etc.? Another empty sentence that needs to be substantiated and referenced.
 * I just went ahead and removed the empty sentence. I also added in salary data. —Eustress talk 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some rankings creeping into non-ranking areas: "Recruiters of BYU students have recognized the Marriott School as one of the best places to hire graduates with high ethical standards—The Wall Street Journal ranked the Marriott School as #2 among the best schools for graduates with strong ethical standards in 2003."
 * Good eye...fixed. —Eustress talk 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Undergraduate students must also take 14 credit hours of religion courses in order to fulfill the university's religious education requirement for graduation." Is this more appropriate under the curriculum section?
 * Religion courses are not part of the MSM curriculum, per se. They're offered by the BYU School of Religious Education, which is why I felt mentioning them in the Students section when discussing culture was sufficient. —Eustress talk 05:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The school experienced a political scandal of sorts when..." Editorializing. Also link to Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
 * Great idea...I gave it a shot. —Eustress talk 05:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update 3 year old endowment numbers, provide more background on the Finance and Recreation & Youth Leadership departments
 * Done —Eustress talk 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand on affiliation between LDS Church and BYU given mention in lead. No mention of accreditation in either history or organization (either would work in IMHO).
 * The History explains how the LDS Church bought BYU, so I think that covers the ownership bit in the lead. Regarding accreditation, I added a blurb in the Organization section and moved the citations there. —Eustress talk 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize there is a mention of the church owning it in the lead as well as buying out BYU in history, but in terms of the modern organization; how does the Church interact with the school. If it's simply by virtue of the Church deciding who sits on the BYU board of trustees rather than anything more immediate to the School itself, that would still merit mention, but if it's more extensive than that, that should also deserve more explanation. The fact that the admissions are apparently influenced by commitment to the Church's mission would lead me to believe the latter is the case. I only keep harping on this because it seems to be such a major and notable distinction from other competitive business schools. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a direct admissions quote that I think helps explicate this relationship, but anything more about it in this article would probably introduce undue weight since the church's influence (at least, the top-down influence I think you're referring to) is distal for the MSM. I think the church's involvement may be more pronounced at the university level (the BoT, which is comprised explicitly of church leadership, appoints the president), but from there on down, I think church involvement is more grassroots; i.e., people's decisions reflect personal beliefs and adherence to the honor code. It would be beneficial to have more about the top-down relationship in the main BYU article. —Eustress talk 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Due to overcapacity, business classes are also held..." Wouldn't overcapacity imply that they didn't need to hold classes off site?
 * I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I've re-worded it so there is no issue. —Eustress talk 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Overcapacity = the building has more space than students and faculty. Over capacity = the building does not have enough space for students and faculty. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think that's why I was confused, because at least one source defines the former word differently. Anyway, I believe the current text is superior to what was there before, and it doesn't use the word. Thanks. —Eustress talk 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The school also published a book, Business with Integrity, with chapters written by several prominent business and government leaders, including Jon Huntsman, Kevin Rollins, Mitt Romney, and Sheri Dew." Doesn't seem particularly notable; schools publish scholarly and promotional material\compilations all the time.
 * Agreed. I removed the text. —Eustress talk 06:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some elaboration of faculty and student governing bodies needed under
 * Fixed: Discussed department-level org for faculty and MSM student council. —Eustress talk 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sense of the scale of research production: budget, citations, papers, employees, library holdings
 * Great suggestion. I was able to find management research rankings, and I included information about its library arrangement. The number of full-time profs is already in the article. I also mentioned how research is hampered since the MSM has no doctoral programs and, therefore, no doctoral students focused on research. —Eustress talk 01:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any more information on budget or staffing? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I contacted the MSM and was instructed that "staffing and research budgets [are] private." My own research only revealed that one of its centers provides grants (see here), but that doesn't seem very notable. Despite not conveying these proprietary figures, I think the article is comprehensive with regards to research and faculty as far as possible. —Eustress talk 22:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide context on other buildings or neighborhoods near the Tanner building
 * Done —Eustress talk 01:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Many of the faculty have served as president or chair of professional organizations." Empty sentence that needs to be substantiated -- or appears to be later on with just 3 examples = 3/130 isn't "many" :)
 * Good point. I just cut to the chase and said, "Faculty have included...," so there is no longer an issue. —Eustress talk 02:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What national honor societies have chapters or are affiliated with the school? Thresholds for latin honors? Some sense of honorary degrees or other honoraria awarded?
 * Add only national honor society, elaborated on university and Latin honors. —Eustress talk 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Academic calendar, typical course load, tuition, financial aid
 * Done —Eustress talk 04:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discrepancy between 13 and 14 required course hours
 * I just noticed that too. I double checked and it's 14 (fixed). —Eustress talk 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elaborate on Management Society mission and activities since it's not exactly an alumni association
 * I believe I fixed this. It really is just an alumni association, but it invites interested professionals to participate as well, which is inline with its stated mission (which I added). Thanks. —Eustress talk 04:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - ‘ "sizeable" donation ’, please clarify. The Ministry (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the sources only said only that it was a "sizeable" amount, but your comment prompted me to investigate another listed source (NY Times), which says it was $15 million...so thank you for your inquiry. I've updated this fact in the lead and in the body. —Eustress talk 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on (striking due to wikibreak) Image concerns: I note that similar issues (with different images) were in the previous FAC: copyrighted images of books and personalities were used simply for illustration (decoration), opposed, then removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:JWMarriott.jpg: Who is the copyright holder of this image? What rationales does it qualify for fair use?  What critical commentary requires this image?
 * This is an image of the school's namesake, a fact which is mentioned in the article, but it does need a fair use rationale. Wrad (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That (simple illustration aka decoration) does not warrant a copyrighted image. Nobody needs to see an image of him to understand his contributions to the school (see WP:NFCC 8).  Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's dumb. I hate fair use. (No offense to you personally, this just isn't the first problem I've had with this garbage.) Wrad (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll seek out OTRS with Marriott, but I've removed the pic in the meantime so that FAC is not held back. —Eustress talk 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:8th-habit-covey.jpg: This illustrates my distaste of boilerplate FURs when incorrectly used; first off, this is not an album cover (it is a DVD cover); secondly most FUR boilerplates for images of "covers" are for identifying shots (used in the lede or infobox). "It illustrates one of the most notable professors at the Marriott School." does not satisfy WP:NFCC. What part of the text requires the reader to see Covey to understand the subject (BYU) better?
 * I think this image probably isn't really needed and should be removed. Wrad (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Eustress talk 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:KRollins.jpg: The image is copyrighted on Flickr at http://flickr.com/photos/ivanomak/407370503/. With the project's users allowed to use whatever names they want (most of the time), is User:Ivanmakarov Flickr's Ivan Makarov?  Linking back to his Wikipedia account in either his blog or Flickr profile if so (easiest verification) would reduce much confusion.  User informed. (removed)
 * Thank you for requesting clarification from the uploader. I've hidden the image until its license can be verified. —Eustress talk 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Thomas S Monson.jpg: This file was transfered from Wikipedia without an attached history log; as such I requested an admin with OTRS access to check its veracity. (OTRS cleared)
 * Thank you for investigating. I believe all bullets have been addressed. —Eustress talk 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that my oppose was stricken not because I believe there are no issues left to resolve, but that I cannot come to Wikipedia often to give this FAC due diligence. I leave these concerns for others to resolve. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (new image) File:BYU Commercial College Graduation and Sketch.png: as http://www.lib.byu.edu/sc_copyright.html states that their images might be copyrighted, research (and its results given on the image page) should be carried out to ensure that this 1908 photo was published before 1922 per its PD claim here. Creation does not equate to publication.  The photographer might have taken several versions of the group and this could be one of the unpublished (until now) shots.  If unpublished till now, the photographer enjoys a 70-year pma copyright of his work, which might still make this photo copyrighted.  Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Image removed. —Eustress talk 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (new image) File:BYU Commerce College Track Team.png: same issue as the graduation photo. Jappalang (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Image removed. —Eustress talk 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feared as much about those images. Wrad (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, but I'm glad someone is covering all copyright scenarios. Pursuant to these recent suggestions, I've removed the two problematic images. With that done, the article should be good to go with regards to WP:WIAFA criterion #3 (images). Thanks. —Eustress talk 04:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * The Interational Dictionary of University Histories, needs a page number as it's a book. that way, if the link ever goes dead, etc. it's still verifiable.
 * Fixed —Eustress talk 20:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
 * Fixed —Eustress talk 23:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a stlyistic thing, but is it REALLY necessary to link to the school website every time you list it as the publisher in the references? I know you need to link to the page you're citing, but TWO blue links aren't really necessary, are they? This goes for any of the links, actually, such as "take Charge america" or the others.
 * I agree and have opted for less blue :) —Eustress talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BYU or Brigham Young University in the footnotes? Pick one and stick to it.
 * Fixed —Eustress talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A concern is the large number of sources that are from the school itself, thus being primary sources. This is a concern because of possible bias by using mostly sources tracing to the subject itself.
 * I understand your concern and believe the article uses primary sources appropriately, per WP:PSTS; i.e., the highest concentration of sources affiliated with the school are where the article communicates facts. If any specific NPOV violations exist, please advise. —Eustress talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I brought this up mainly for other reviewers to be aware of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking an eagle eye to the citations! I've tried to resolve the issues you brought up above. —Eustress talk 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Source details Some cites, 6 and 31 among others, the date of the newspiece is not written down. In other places, different date formats are used  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice catch! There were actually several citations that needed dates, which I have provided. Thank you! —Eustress talk 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.