Wikipedia:Peer review/McCombs School of Business/archive1

McCombs School of Business

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've just finished a rough outline of the campus section. It still needs work along with the rest of the article. I need help figuring out what to do next (approprite information in the History section, changing the the rankings to a subsection as part of a new academics section along with information about Admissions, Endowment and Organization.)

Thanks, NThomas76207 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:

I have the impression that this article is still being worked on. Here are a few more points to help you on your way. It might be an idea to bring the article back to PR when you are more satisfied that it is approaching its final form.

At present, the article reads more like promotional literature than a neutral encyclopedia article. Specific examples of non-encyclopedic language include:
- "...one of the most renowned business schools in [the] United States" (self-promotional)
- "It's the first building..." (It is...)
- "...some of the best companies in the world..." ("best" is not adequate as a description)
In general the prose has a bit of a "ra-ra" feel about it, as though you were selling the school in some way. It may be advisable to tone down the narrative a little, to make it seem less like a list of achievements (first this, biggest that, etc)
The lead section is at present inadequate. The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, not a couple of introductory sentences. See WP:LEAD for further information
The history section is sketchy, with vague statements such as "the next few decades" and "the school quickly grew". A fuller history should be given, with fewer lengthy gaps in the chronology and less emphasis on the very recent past.
There are numerous no-break space violations, e.g. 6,000 students, 25 years, 297 hotel rooms, etc. See WP:NBSP for further information
I think the layouts for the information in the Awards and distinction section could be made more interesting.
Many of the online references are not properly formatted. The minimum information for each is title, url, publisher and access date. If other information, e.g. author, is available, that should be included too. If in doubt, follow WP:citation template and look for the cite web format.

I hope you find these points helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NThomas76207 (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]