Wikipedia:Peer review/Tepper School of Business/archive1

Tepper School of Business

Any advice on improvements would be appreciated in order to move forward as a featured articlePadreNuestro 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DO11.10

I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article, especially since it was just recently rewritten (in late February). Here are a few suggestions that I think might help this article get to a GA, but I would recommend a second peer review before going to FAC.

Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Link directly to Nobel Prize in Economics, also the descriptions of the prizes are full of jargon and buzz words, the section seems like filler, I would just take it out except for the last sentence, which shows that that the school still produces Nobel prize winners.
Missing a lot of needed wikilinks: “MBA”, “Pittsburgh”, semester, Master of Science, Ph.D, Pirate games, whitewater rafting, resume, …
Some jargon: “flex-time”, capstone course, derivative trading, stipend, best practices, … etc…
“At the time of its creation, MBAs were perceived to have too little math skills, while the Ph.Ds traditionally hired as quantitative analysts were deemed to have too little experience in finance.” - Who thinks this?
“…in one (or more) of the remaining functional areas of business”. Remaining from what? What is a functional area?
Student life - this section reads like a school recruitment brochure. How about including some statistical data on the students who attend (gender, race, age), especially because the text later states that it is the #9 Top School - For Recruiting Minorities. Image:DodgeCMU.jpg feels like fluff. “irreverent”, weekly student newspaper - this is POV. Also this article fails to mention anything about the cost of attending the school, this information seems really important.
Career development needs an introduction that sets up and leads into the graphs. “Top-employers” is vague, what do you mean by “Top”.
“Research Centers[44]”- I don’t know if it is strictly forbidden but I don’t usually see footnotes in section headings.
Rankings: Requires non school-sponsored citations for all rankings listed. “Average MBA GMAT Score Progression from 1998”- I find these graphs highly misleading, to mean anything they would have to include the average GMAT score around the country, as all scores may very well have gone up by a similar margin. The Y-axis is very small, and the numbers are difficult to read. Same situation with: Average MBA Salary Progression from 1998, needs a comparison to other MBA grads around the country.--DO11.10 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments on this page! Its nice to get a second set of eyes on it, and I think you gave me some good ideas. Check back in a little while and you'll definately see some of your recommendations implemented. PadreNuestro 05:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I will check in every now and then. Please don't hesitate to contact me.--DO11.10 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]