Talk:Balboa High School (California)

Balboa High School (California) was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 18, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 29, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 13, 2010	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Schools High‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

All (potential) article editors should peruse Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:About, and especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Zedla 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Trial Section

The following IPs have consistently edited the mock trial section with weasel words in regards to a "controversial" mock trial season last year or "inevitably" losing: 69.85.188.175 and 69.85.188.91 Quixotic Rick 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be 'good faith' but otherwise unseemly unsubstantiated edits, I left a welcome message for both IP's but if it recurs again I'd slowly start ratcheting up the warning levels (see WP:UWT) and pointing to specific guidelines/policies before asking for admin intervention. Zedla 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA pass. I like this article, pretty good for a school with relatively few students. Good under [[WP:WIAGA}], but ensure non-notable information that people who are not associated with the area would not understand stays out of the article. Also, unless it's where it's at for a reason, the infobox should be moved ahead of the lead photograph. I'm also removing {{Talk header}} from this talk page per documentation for that template. PhoenixTwo 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix2, Thanks for the superquick GA review and for explaining the use of Talk header (I was wondering why it was removed on the initial "B" assessment). Zedla 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do List: Expansions

I'm a current student and can find anything in regards to academic resurgence to expand it seeing as it is on the to-do list. I was just wondering if there were any specifics that any regular editor and contributor of this page had in mind. Also, I'd like to let the regular contributors of this page know that I will be fixing up the JROTC section to meet NPOV. Quixotic Rick (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by regular you mean me ;) . It would be great if more could be said about the school academics before the 1990's. The nature of research by internet results in a bias towards events since the mid 90's. If you'd like to expand more on what has gone on recently, there has been discussion in the media about the effect of Williams v. California so that could be expanded. Just, please please please keep the wikipedia pillars on WP:Original Research, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability (aka it's not what you know is true, it's what you can prove is true) in mind. I've added a few other things to the list if anyone wants to take those up. – Zedla (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I mean you; I'll get to it. Thanks for all the work to this article. It's really improved from what it used to be. :) We've really made it incredible.

--Quixotic Rick (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Balboa High School (San Francisco, California)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 13, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The article is rather bitty containing many short paragraphs and some lists. The lead does not adequately summarise the article. Some sections, e.g. history appear to be unrelated lists of trivia.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Fixed some dead links but more remain, not retrievable at the Internet archive. I used this tool; The goecities site (a dead link) is not a RS.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The history section is sadly lacking in real history. Why is the United Playaz listed as a school organisation?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Why is a sports badge used in the infobox?
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This article needs a comprehensive re-write to bring it anyway near GA standard. I am de-listing it, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.examiner.com/a-693439~Although_grayer__Restani_still_has_game.html
Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Balboa High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927103501/http://balstaff.org/wp/ to http://balstaff.org/wp/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://balstaff.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Balboa High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williams v. California

The link to Williams v. California -- and a new page -- were added because of the case and settlement's increased significance in California education system policies.

See https://www.google.com/search?q=eliezer+williams+v+state+of+california LoneStarNot (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undue Personification

Citing the names of individuals is an an undue weighting. Citing "California", "Californians" or "the State of California", etc, adheres better to Wikipedia:DUE. It is only significant that the 40M citizens of California set a policy through their state government; who was in a particular office at the time is not significant. Those seeking info on an individual can go to that individual's page, where particular actions may or may not be catalogued, based on Wikipedia:DUE.

A state governor not vetoing a law is not noteworthy. An award grantor or recipient name may be noteworthy; but a nominator name is not. Public officials executing routine tasks, part of their jobs, is not noteworthy. For such usual, routine actions of public employees, citing individual names is inappropriate aggrandizement and distorting personification -- a tragedy of the reputation commons which diverts credit from the group to the individual, inappropriately narrows readers' focus from groups to individuals, and distracts from understanding the need for groups, not just individuals, to effect such actions. By shifting attention and esteem from groups to individuals, such distortions feed cult-of-personality trends.

For example, it would violate Wikipedia:DUE to cite Jimbo Wales regarding every action of our legion of editors. LoneStarNot (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]