Talk:London Business School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Content
The content in this wiki is incomplete in a number of ways--Ktahawi 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The alumni part can be included in the UofL alumni page. Niaz bd
[edit] University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MiF
As far as I can tell, the MiF commentary is taken almost word-for-word from the prospectus. While I doubt the LBS would object to the current approach, Wikipedia exists to report cited or undisputed facts on important topics. Unless something independent has been written about the MiF somewhere (and I suspect it must have been), then the MiF isn't important enough to warrant discussion and this section should be removed. At the very least, the text should say "according to the MiF prospectus..." 195.10.3.194 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Forgot to log in. Kayman1uk 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. I will add that note to the MiF section and remove the tag. --Duncan 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peacock
I have removed the peacock tag from this article. A number of phrases were tagged in that way, and those terms have been edited recently to improve them. However, to flag the whole article seems mistaken, since the article is well referenced and factual. I suggest tagging particular statements is the way forward, nit the whole page. --Duncan 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rankings
This edit war is betting petty and boring. Participates should start using the Talk page to win consent. Ina recent edit, which I have reverted, information was take out of the article and a reference to a #15 ranking by the EIU was moved up the article, replacing references to other rankings. I see no reason to only use outliers. I suggest we remove the rankings from the opening section, since it is disputed, and start a new section where we can focus the energy. The, if we obtain agremment ther, we have add a summary into the intro. However, if no agreement can be found on a form of words, then we should not have a long list of rankins in the opening section. They are only rankings. --Duncan (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC).
[edit] About scholarship
I got scholarship from Bangladesh from this university and to know whether it is valid or not.
