Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive3


 * 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 Dabomb87 14:50, 2 February 2010.

Marriott School of Management

 * Nominator(s): —Eustress talk 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am (re)nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all FA criteria. Please take a moment to evaluate whether or not you agree. Thank you! [As of this timestamp, there are no issues with dabs, ELs, or alt text.] —Eustress talk 01:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe all comments from the last nomination were resolved, but no reviewers came by afterwards to support (or oppose). Wrad (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Alt text is present and seems reasonably good. Ucucha 13:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments I am new at reviewing so feel free to make suggestions on my user talk page.


 * Consider formatting the article so there is not a 10 cm white gap at the top before the article.
 * I don't believe this is an issue. Please look at other Featured Articles. —Eustress talk 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tweak the first sentence to reflect that the school is one of the schools and colleges of the university instead of being only "at BYU". The lead is not an accurate summary of the article nor does it thrill the reader.  Someone advised me to have the lead summarize the article when I was writing a GA.
 * The lead currently states that this is the business school at a university. Is that unclear or insufficient? I don't think so, but if you would prefer an alternate wording, can you please offer a suggested iteration of the first sentence that conveys the current content (university and church affiliations, location)? —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The history seems written organized by dean. I'm not sure this is the best way.  Also is changes in endowment important or not important?
 * This might just be personal preference. The endowments are listed because it helps signal the school's growth (and because it was requested in a previous FAC attempt). —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Help me answer the question, what is good prose? One random example (certainly not the best example) is the Tanner Building opened by George Hinckley.  Is the George part important to be in the article?
 * Guidelines for prose are outlined in the MoS. This article has undergone a peer review and copy edit in order to address any salient prose issues, but if you have any particular concerns, then let's address them here. You mentioned the Tanner Building and Gordon B. Hinckley. I feel it is important to note Hinckley at the groundbreaking, as he was President of the Board of Trustees of BYU at the time. This can be elaborated upon if desired, but going into too much detail could violate WP:UNDUE. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the business curriculum different from non-LDS schools?
 * The only difference appears to be that undergraduates are required to complete coursework in religion, which is noted in the article. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are sentences, like "However, research productivity is hampered by the fact that the MSM has no doctoral programs, and therefore, no doctoral students focused on research" which seem awkward to me and are puzzling as to what the author is trying to convey.
 * Doctoral students are integral to the research activities of most business schools, since they must publish in order to land a good job post-graduation. Since BYU does not have a doctoral program, its research program does not have that push. Perhaps you can suggest text that would make this more clear? —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of these suggestions may be impossible to meet but they are made in good faith and to stimulate thinking. I am not opposing FA. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating here. I hope you will see these comments through until they are resolved to a point where you feel comfortable either supporting or opposing the article. —Eustress talk 21:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The concerns that I've raised have been sufficiently answered. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support based on my comments from the 2nd nomination. Madcoverboy (talk)


 * Strong oppose. This article continues to exhibit fundamental problems indicating the need for something beyond a peer review or copyedit; it really needs a rewrite in many places from neutral, secondary sources. Every single source needs to be checked by an outside editor, because each source I've checked has either ambiguously supported the claim it's attached to, or not at all. Sample issues:
 * 2a (lead): "Consequently, the Marriott School sponsors high-proficiency business language courses in 11 languages." This statement is neither sourced nor reflected anywhere in the body.
 * 1c (research): "Nearly 75 percent of the students are bilingual and about 30 percent speak a third language, most having lived abroad while serving a mission for the LDS Church." Highly problematic. Your first source claims "nearly two-thirds" are bilingual, which is a far cry from 75%. Your second source states "Many students know how to speak a second or third language fluently" which tells us nothing. Where does anyone say 75%? Next, the trilingual statement is not supported by either source, other than the anecdotal and non-specifc mention in the second source. Additionally, you've used self-published, primary sources in both cases, whose claims should be considered marketing fluff unless they are sourced to a published student survey result representing hard data.
 * 1c (research): "However, research productivity is hampered by the fact that the MSM has no doctoral programs, and therefore, no doctoral students focused on research." This source is nothing more than a collection of comments from anonymous graduates. None of them even mention what you've used it to support, and even if they did, it is not a properly vetted article. I'm troubled. Ironically, one of them claims "70%" of students are bilingual.
 * 1d (neutral): The above issues actually illustrate the fundamental problem with using primary sources for anything but the most basic claims (ie, year established, name of president, location). These others stats and figures are all written in promotional materials by the school, and clearly many of them don't bother to fact check against each other, let alone against reality. Most of the sources need to be ripped out and replaced by secondary sources (meaning fact-checked articles, not profile sheets produced by the school and reprinted in magazines) while our own fact-checking is conducted.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose.The article suffers from fundamental problems of original research and the overuse of self-published sources. I selected a random paragraph for an example:
 * "There is also a strong contingency of Marriott School alumni who pursue a career in academia, with BYU being ranked #8 nationally for the number of students who go on to earn Ph.Ds.[87] This is due in part to the MAcc Ph.D. Prep Track and the BYU Honors Program.[88]"
 * What does footnote 88 say? It is a mis-link. It sems it should go to this page. Nothing on the page provides any support for the statement. In any case, a statement to the effec that "the School's success in x is due to the School's programs in y" can only be made on the basis of a reliable secondary source. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

→I agree with your objections and would like to withdraw this FAC. It's just frustrating to go through multiple FAC attempts and a copy edit and a peer review and still run into fundamental problems. C'est la vie...thank you guys. —Eustress talk 05:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good decision - I was about to oppose on the sourcing problem too. It's tough at FAC to put in so much work and still find problems with the sources you have used in good faith  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


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