Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tuck School of Business


 * 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 promoted 05:53, 4 December 2007.

Tuck School of Business
Hooray! I've been working on this for a while and believe that it now satisfies the FA criteria. I generally followed the structure/content guidelines at WikiProject Universities#Structure (although I had to adapt it differently because that format is designed for a university, not a graduate school). Everything is verifiable to reliable sources, neutral, illustrated with mostly free images, and all the rest.

I intend to address all suggestions, so if you make objections, please stick around so you can see how they are addressed. Thanks! Kane5187 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Better. I don't like this sentence "According to the Tuck School itself, Tuck places first when these six rankings are averaged..." Also, I don't like the references in the middle of sentences. In the past I have always put them at the end of the sentence after the period. I am not sure if it is a requirement (you could check WP:CIT), but I have found that it flows better. I also suggest you find a copyeditor to take a look. I think there are some mistakes but I am not great with punctuation so I don't want to make changes. Make a request at WP:LOCE or you could contact Unimaginative Username and ask him/her to take a look. They helped me greatly in getting FAU to FA. KnightLago 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article looks good and is informative. But, has there ever been any criticism of the school? Any controversy? There is nothing even vaguely negative about the school in the entire article. Being founded so long ago, there has to be something. KnightLago 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm really glad you asked me that, because balance/inclusion of criticism is something I would otherwise have remained totally blind to. There were indeed some relevant criticisms which I've added (from a WSJ article and the Princeton Review). Skimming some other independent sources, these seem like the only criticisms really worth mentioning (other stuff was things like remote location being undesirable, crowded dining hall, etc. The WSJ article mentioned that only 75% of students had job offers leaving the MBA program, but it was written in 2003, and the more recent ranking citations list employment rate at 3 months around 97-99% ).
 * Regarding historical controversies: I've poked around online, and haven't really come up with anything. The closest thing I found was a review of a short book about Tuck's founding, which mentions some friction between Edward Tuck and William Jewett Tucker. Other than that, there doesn't really seem to be anything very major in the history (I've LexisNexis-ed for "'tuck school of business' controversy," "'tuck school of business' criticism," "'tuck school of business' criticized," "'tuck school of business,'" etc. without success. Mentions of those sorts of things don't appear in other sources like the Princeton Review or in other quick historical synposes). What kinds of institutional controversies were you thinking of? Kane5187 03:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to expand on the criticisms you added. The following sections seem short, under explained, and just kind of thrown in. "The school stresses a cooperative and teamwork-based approach to learning,[19] which has been criticized by some as too "touchy-feely" and detrimental to independent decision-making.[29] The school's academic programs have also been criticized for not offering their students a broader international perspective.[29]" How is it too touchy-feely and detrimental? What does the school say about this? Do they offer an explanation? The same with this: "The school's disproportionately low percentages of women and minorities has been some cause for concern for students." What does the school say or how do they explain this? What do the students actually say? Expand on these thoughts. KnightLago 15:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, the stuff you added was what I was looking for. Especially the minority enrollment. 15% seemed low to me, and with no criticism or explanation I new there was something missing. Good work, just expand on it and smooth it out. KnightLago 15:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this? Kane5187 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Unimaginative Username to copyedit the article, lets see if he is busy, if he is, you will have to go the long route and make a request at WP:LOCE. KnightLago 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For the citations (per Footnotes), end of the sentence is ultimately preferable, although after punctuation like commas and semicolons is okay, too. Sometimes when a sentence has distinct facts that come from different sources, I've tried to place the citations in a way that indicates which fact comes from where (e.g. "Tuck has tried to address these shortcomings by offering additional scholarships to minority applicants (fact 1) and promoting such programs as the annual Tuck Diversity Conference (fact 2) and participation in the Forté Foundation for women in business (fact 3)." I'm fine with altering that form, though.
 * Is your problem with "According to the Tuck School itself, Tuck places first when these six rankings are averaged" with the wording or the inclusion of that information itself? I think it's a claim that merits mentioning, but it also needs to be qualified by the fact that Tuck itself is the one making the claim. (I couldn't find the claim made elsewhere.) Kane5187 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand about the facts and then citation, but it can be distracting to the reader. I would just try and do it only where absolutely necessary then. The meaning of the sentence is fine, its how it is worded that I don't like. I agree that you need to qualify that the info comes from Tuck but "According to the Tuck School itself, Tuck places" just doesn't sound great IMHO. KnightLago 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was a bit awkward. I've rephrased it (as part of a full copyedit, although I certainly don't oppose having someone else's eyes on the article) to a much simpler "Tuck claims that it places first when these six rankings are averaged." I'll go through and starting moving citations. Kane5187 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved the citations to the end of the sentences. Two exceptions: the citations for different rankings (e.g. BusinessWeek, Financial Times when it's a good idea IMO to give a cite after each individual ranker, so it's easier to follow up on it) and alumni/faculty when citing different individuals as alums/faculty (same idea). Kane5187 16:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like everything has been addressed. KnightLago 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful suggestions! Kane5187 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing oppose, provided POV issues are resolved satisfactorily. Tony   (talk)  13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, well done. The only thing you need now is more people to comment on it. KnightLago (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally lead sections are larger, I suggest making including a summary of the article as part of the lead. I also suggest including what the main (text)books used to teach have been over the years. --Keer lls ton 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello there, nice article.
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I can expand the lead -- which aspects of the article as a whole do you feel are not adequately summarized?
 * Regarding the inclusion of what textbooks professors use, I don't think that's relevant, important, or common for Wikipedia articles on educational institutions (I've never seen it any of the 10+ FAs on universities I've read). Why does it make a difference in terms of the encyclopedic viewpoint of this institution? It seems to me as a minor detail, like talking about parking at the school or what kind of day-to-day schedule classes are laid out on. Also, I don't think that kind of information is accessible in reliable sources, unless I were to go in and steal some syllabi. Kane5187 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, don't include textbooks. KnightLago 15:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose —Mostly MOS things. Buzz me when all fixed.
 * "The new school's tuition was only $100"—that might have been a huge amount back then. Can you revisit this, and the slant that is put on it? And do you mean "tuition fees were"? Per semester? Per year?
 * Addressed: . Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for an equivalent in 2007 dollars, using a recognised deflator. Tony  (talk)  13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean, I could find one, but it's not really important, is it? It's just a throwaway bit of trivia to lead into the main content of the history section, which is the same as how it was used in the source it comes from. How much the school cost 100 years ago isn't not very pertinent to the content; maybe if there was a section on tuition and how it's changed over time, but that's not here. I figure this could just as easily be removed. Kane5187 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and was dubbed the "Tuck Pattern."—No, read MOS on quotations and punctuation.
 * Addressed: . Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read MOS on en dashes.
 * I read WP:DASH; I changed the hyphen between dates (e.g. 1973-1980) to en dashes as the page says, but beyond that, I don't know what you're referring to specifically. Where was I misuing/overusing/underusing them, and what part of that MOS guideline should I follow to rectify it? Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Underusing, but I can't remember exactly what it was. Probably a range. Tony   (talk)  13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I went back through the article; I couldn't find anything. The only range I saw was "ranging from 25 to 32 years," which appears to be acceptable usage per WP:DASH. Let me know if you remember what the problem was. Kane5187 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "For the class of 2009, 2,276"—Try to separate these two quite different numbers in the sentence. Tony   (talk)  13:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Addressed: Kane5187 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid &.
 * Addressed: Kane5187 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read MOS on periods at the end of captions: this one, and others, not full sentences "The forthcoming Tuck Living and Learning Complex (LLC), expected to be completed in December 2008."
 * Addressed: . Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the last 20 years"—past, unless you mean the last 20 years before the end of the world, or of the century.
 * Addressed: . I rephrased is to "Since the late 1980s," because I realized that there shouldn't be a voice that takes a particular stance in time on Wikipedia -- "Today," "Recently," "Soon," etc. are discouraged. Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * which it touts as one of its assets for "building the interpersonal skills required for business leadership."—I hope the original source did place a period there; otherwise, put it after the closing quotation marks.
 * Yes, it does, although the period is not important to quote; should it go outside anyway? Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Query the reliability of ref 66: who is the web manager? Is he the author too? Can you poke around a little to find out? Tony   (talk)  13:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the reliability; I had just dragged the citation over from List of Dartmouth College faculty. Since it only supports the inclusion of one name, not any fundamental claim or element of the article, I've just removed it and replaced his name with a different one. Kane5187 16:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OpposeI have concerns about verifiability, style & tone. Support Madcoverboy 08:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The publisher of the majority of the citations (44/68) is Dartmouth which raises some self-published sources flags for me, especially given university article's natural tendency to boost themselves. Obviously Tuck is not some extremist POV-warrior blog somewhere and one would expect it to cite the school web pages for information on its campus or history, but this is excessive. Likewise, although the Princeton Review is commonly cited, I believe it neither meets the bar for for scholarly/peer-reviewed research nor widely-circulated journalistic coverage.
 * I can see why this may be a concern, but as you point out, Tuck is a great source for information on Tuck, and nothing that I've cited to tuck.edu is contentious or dubious. I'm citing basic information like facts about the history, what programs are offered, and how the school is administered -- elements that really provide no opportunity for POV-injection, nor any reason to suspect that the information given is untrue. Given that schools tend to be among the few or only sources with detailed information about their own operations (I've tried to go beyond this when possible by citing, for example, a third-party book on Tuck's history), this seems to me as an aspect of WP:RS on which editors tend to look the other way when nominating for FA (e.g. today's FA, Georgetown University, as well as Duke University, Cornell University, etc. tend to have self-published sources dominating). I realize saying "Let's just ignore this rule" is a poor argument for an FA nomination, but when it comes down to it, the self-published information in this context is easily considered reliable and authoritative and there is no reason to doubt its accuracy, and since it's not being used to push contentious information, I don't think it should count against the article's nomination. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding The Princeton Review, I agree that's it's not "scholarly" or peer-reviewed, but it's not meant to be -- it's reviews of universities based on what students say in surveys . The Princeton Review is also one of the foremost college-preparatory companies (alongside Kaplan, Inc. and Peterson's), and The Best 366 Colleges (the online adaptation of which is cited in this article) is its flagship publication. Point is, this is a popular and established company publishing research data that is vetted through standard editorial reviews; we're not talking about studentsreview.com. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Tuck offers only one degree program" - this seems to be misleading given the preponderence of executive programs and dual-degree programs described later in the article. Maybe it's more accurate to characterize it as "Tuck only grants the MBA degree" or something to that effect.
 * Addressed: Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Applicants to the Tuck School are evaluated holistically," - this absolutely has to go: are applicants at other schools not evaluated holistically?
 * "based on undergraduate academic performance, Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) standardized test scores, essays, recommendations, written applications, and interviews, if applicable." - Perhaps this is an artifact of my own myopia, but it seems that all business schools use exactly the same or very similar admissions methods, so this seems obvious and redundant to me. I could be persuaded either way though.
 * Regarding both this and the comment above about "holistically": I realize that these may seem like self-evident practices, particularly among the more competitive schools, but these are certainly not uniform standards for admissions. Some schools don't offer or consider interviews; some have minimum standards for GPA/GMAT/recommendations (thus, not holistic); some run your stats through a computer and it spits out an accept/deny calculation. Some schools consider extracurricular activities while in college, leadership positions, etc. (but Tuck apparently doesn't); some schools consider state residency, if the business school is part of a public university. And these are all just variations I know of in the United States; I have no idea how admissions processes work for European or Asian business schools, and keep in mind we're writing for an international audience with no presumed knowledge of these practices. I know that this sounds like obvious information, but I've written here precisely what Tuck says it considers and nothing that it says it doesn't; what it chooses to include and what it chooses to omit can say a lot. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but you may have a hard time finding sources to back up your (entirely possible) suggestions that other schools do not evaluate holistically. The term seems redundant in the context of a sentence describing all the metrics by which an applicant is evaluated. Madcoverboy 18:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I understand now - "holistically" is redundant if you're going to go on and list all the factors that together imply holistic treatment. I agree -- I've removed it. Kane5187 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the most common criticisms levied against Dartmouth is its remote location (I suppose I could dredge up some substantiated cites to back this up if need be, but it seems to be a widespread perspective), but little to no mention is made of how this is a handicap (removed from major financial & business centers) nor how it addresses it (e.g., emphasis on residential living & international programs). It is implied in the one-word "rural" modifier in the campus section and the international perspective & programs in the academics section, but might deserve to be more explicit.
 * Addressed: . Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Without getting too "ra ra ra", I would be interested in hearing more about what each of the 5 research centers do.
 * Addressed: I began to follow each name of the research center with a description of what it does, but I found very quickly that in such a short space, all I was doing was rephrasing the center's name (e.g. "William F. Achtmeyer Center for Global Leadership, which examines international business administration practices..."). Rather than expand it that way (i.e. in a way that doesn't really enhance the reader's understanding), I added an introductory note as to what the centers do collectively. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "and touts "one of the lowest student-to-faculty ratios of any graduate school of business"," -- unencyclopedic tone, blatant boosterism
 * I don't think this is really boosterism; it certainly would be if it weren't in quotations, but it's a cited quote from the school (ergo "touts"); it's properly set up as "This is an opinion" rather than "This is hard fact." And it's followed up by a third-party citation giving the ratio. I think that in a section about the faculty, it's worth including what the school says about itself. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm more concerned with the weasel worded "one of the lowest" qualifier. Is it the lowest? Top 5? Top 25? Obviously schools have different methods for accounting the numbers of faculty and students. Moreover, (and this is my own POV) I think student-to-faculty ratio is a poor metric or predictor of education quality and I generally don't like seeing it splashed around since it's so easy to fudge to get under whatever the "magic" number is that year. I would recommend stating the student-faculty ratio and if you wanted to get the prestige/quality angle, compare how it ranks to other b-schools or ivy b-schools.Madcoverboy 18:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although again, WP:WEASEL applies to the editorial voice, not cited quotations. At any rate, I've removed that quotation. Kane5187 22:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the faculty section, I don't believe the full faculty chair names should be given except on the professor's biographical page
 * Addressed: I cut out the full title names and their positions on other committees and such, but I left what their basic role is (e.g. "Professor of Economics") to give some idea of who these people are to the reader. Kane5187 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.