Wikipedia:Peer review/Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania/archive1

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see where to go from here.

Thanks,

• You need to be clear about the purpose of the article. It should be to provide information about an important centre of medical education for the benefit of the general reader, not for a potential student. At present, in places it reads like the school's brochure; for example, it isn't necessary in an article of this sort to spell out the MD programme in terms of individual semesters and modules; a general summary of the programme will suffice.
• The article is very list-heavy. There are six or seven different list within the article. In some cases lists are unavoidable, for example a list of notable alumni, or a list of departments. In other cases, the need for a formal list is not evident. The two very short tables in the "Rankings" section are unjustified; the meagre information they contain could just as easily be expressed in a couple of prose sentences.
• There seems to be basic information missing from the article: on the institution's sources of funding, fees paid by students, criteria for admission to the various programs, etc. We are told somewhere that "Each graduate group has its own admission policy", and that "All students receive a stipend in addition to a full fellowship", but neither of these statements is at all informative to the general reader.
• The organisation of material in the article seems a little ad hoc, with information included as and when. Some of the sections have very little content and probably do not justify being independent sections. If you are really concerned to develop this article to a high standard, you should look at some of the existing featured articles on colleges and universities, for example School for Creative and Performing Arts (TFA on 1 December), Michigan State University or Georgetown University.
• The lead does not meet
  WP:LEAD
  requirements as a concise summary of the article's content. The specific information about Penn Med's ranking among research-based medical schools should be in the body of the article, not the lead.
• There are uncited statements in the article, particularly in the Medical advancements section
• There are unformatted references: 17 is a bare url, 26 is incomplete
• It's not clear what the criteria were for inclusion in the alumni list. Is this your personal selection? These lists are often problematic and for that reason don't usually appear in featured-standard articles.

These points are all areas in which work is necessary, if you intend to develop this article towards GA or FA levels. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]