Talk:Arlington Senior High School/GA

Good Article Review April 9 2008

I have just reviewed this article for status of GA. Here is my review:

1. Is it well written? In this respect, it:

• The introductory section I feel needs a little bit of work to make it more succinct. It is probably too long for the article and I feel it is very repetitious of information that is found later in the article. Some information, like the first sentence of the second paragraph, probably doesn’t even belong in this section and would be better suited to remain in the “history” section of the article.

• I have gone throughout the article and made a few grammar and prose changes that I felt made the article flow more smoothly. I believe that other editors should also repeat this as there were several typos and basic lapses in grammar that I corrected. I might have missed some.

• I have some issues with the section headings. For example, isn’t a sport a type of extracurricular activity? If so, what is the reason for the separate sections? I’m not sure if this is standard practice for school articles or not. If it is normal to keep these sections separate, then disregard this comment.

2. Is factually accurate and verifiable? In this respect, it:

• The majority of facts are correct and well-cited.

• There are some contradictions of facts in the article. For example, the last paragraph of the intro sounds as though the entire “Bio-SMART” program has already begun, while later sections (Education) make it sound as though the program will not officially begin until the 2008-2009 school year.

• Also, in one section (History) the article says that the district planned to add 2 new high schools but in the “Naming” section the article states that the district was not expecting to build another high school for 40 years.

3. Is it broad in its coverage? In this respect, it:

• The article seems to be fairly broad in its coverage, ranging from initial discussion of construction up to the new grants they have received and the proposed use of those funds. If there are any notable instructors or alumni from the school (and make sure they are verifiable please with sources) I’d think that would probably be a good section to add.

4. Does the article maintain Neutrality?

• The first sentence of the “Construction” sub-section needs to be re-worded. I don’t like the phrase “needed so badly.” I think a better wording for this needs to be found to make the article sound more neutral.

5. Is it stable?

• The article is stable, but has really only been in existence for over a month. It has only had contributions made by one editor (excluding myself) during that time frame.

:• I’d personally prefer to see an article be in existence for more than a couple of months before promotion to GA status, and also contributions from more than one editor.

6. Is it illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.? In this respect:

• The article currently includes two images, one of which is the logo for the schools. One free image has been released by the author for use on Wikipedia and the other image (school Logo) has made what I think to be valid fair use claims. But I’m also no expert on the copyright of school logos so I would want to double check that its inclusion is allowed under fair use.

• The main contributor has stated that they hope to include additional photographs by summer. I don’t think the article needs to become over-run with photographs. We can only have so many photos of the buildings before things get ridiculous, and images need to have a purpose and not just be inserted into articles for their own sake. Make sure additional images prove or illustrate a point.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the article as it stands I think is very good for having only been created a little over a month ago. However, whether or not it is a GA right now, I am a little bit unsure of this and I would probably say that as of right now I would fail this article. With full-disclosure, this is my first GA review so I am going to ask for a second opinion. But I think that the article needs more time and more editors in order to allow it to mature a bit more before it is granted GA status. I think some formatting issues need to be corrected and a bit more time spent on correcting grammar and prose and making the article easy to read. will381796 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION The article has been in existence well over a year. I accidentally was looking at the talk page history and not the article's history. Hence the strike thrus. Sorry for the confusion. will381796 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You've done a lot of good work, but I thought I read recently that Wikipedia did not want articles on high schools, that basically they were not notable enough. - sorry not to remember where the guideline was. --Parkwells (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see that. Because ever since first started on Wikipedia and nominated my first school for AfD, I was basically told that all schools are notable. Are you talking about Wikipedia not wanting articles on high schools as Good Articles, or not wanting articles on high schools in general? will381796 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review. I'll begin to address the concerns as soon as possible. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have completed all of your suggestions appropriately. Does the lead look better now? I tried to copy edit the article as best I could. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It does look better. I'm actually going to go ahead and promote this to GA and remove my request for a second opinion. I think this article now meets all of the requirements and I'm confident enough to no longer need the second opinion.