Talk:Yale School of Management/Archives/2015

Yale SOM shield

The old shield has been replaced with an updated shield from the current Yale Brand guide <www.yale.edu/licensing/pdf/TheYaleBrand.pdf>. The two shields are genuinely different in terms of resolution, color (e.g. explicitly the book now has color) and compositional arrangement (i.e. previous motto ribbon is no longer associated with the shield in the current Brand guide). Also the previous file was JPG, which has been replaced with a PNG (with transparency) file, which is more commonly used to avoid white backgrounds in infoboxes. Please discuss here before making further changes. Thank you. Handsdown.1 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept your argument that the images are slightly different. But I do not accept that the newer image should display larger. Accordingly, I have reduced the size approximately to that of the previous image. That should put this dispute to rest. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am updating the shield to the current shield that is the official shield of SOM. --Rrdkent (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Disputed

This article, especially its most recent version, seems to contain a lot of unverifiable information and contains advertorial language throughout. Well below par in the Yale universe of articles, and weak vis-a-vis its peer schools. Some documentation:

Lead-- Weasel phrases like "school is known for..." and "most acclaimed programs" without later citation. Advertorial link to Executive MBA program.

History--Advertorial issues, e.g. "flagship full-time MBA," "robust PhD," and "offering the distinctive advantages of the Yale MBA integrated core along with advanced study in asset management, healthcare, or sustainability."

Campus--recent contributions offer possibly excessive detail, use words like "renowned" and "state-of-the-art" without citation. Edits come from an anonymous Yale IP address; possibly re-written from this press release.

Rankings--unnecessary detail, poor information display. I suggest a format similar to the one used by Wharton.

In general, the article needs improved citation, more neutral language, and a clean-up of the aforementioned sections in particular. I have no expertise about the school but hope other editors can offer substantial revisions. Nickknack00 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Have made edits - would like to know your feedback to remove the Neutrality Point of View Disputed Tag. Rrdkent (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Heard no comments so removing the tag. Rrdkent (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)