Talk:Challenger School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Challenger School was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 12, 2006
WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools.
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

[edit] GA failure

I'm sorry, but I feel that there are a number of issues with this article that keep it from being a Good Article. Some problems, as per WP:WIAGA:

  • 1(a): Part of "compelling prose" is limiting the number of very short paragraphs; half of the article consists of two-sentence paragraphs.
  • 1(b): The lead needs to be considerably longer.
  • 2(b): There are inline citations, but there's also one external jump to a page that does not even exist.
  • 2(c): Perhaps the biggest issue is that every citation is from the school's web site. This is unacceptable. References must come from third-party sources, as it is impossible to verify facts that are given by the subject of an article (for example, if the school's site states that it's the greatest place on earth, it would be highly inappropriate to put this statement in the article and support it by referencing the school itself).
  • 3(b): Nine sentences about the school's dress code are unneeded. This topic could and should be summed up in, at most, two or three sentences. In particular, the reader does not need to know exactly what a student must wear, nor does one need to know what company makes the uniforms.
  • 4(a): The viewpoints represented are completely biased, as statements such as the entire second paragraph of the "Educative philosophy" section comes directly from the school.

There's no reason this article could not, someday, be a Good Article. However, this will never happen until third-party sources are referenced, and after that, there is still much work to be done. Best of luck, and happy editing. -- Kicking222 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

for this article to rate even B, there s a lot of work to be done to achieve breadth and usability of a "B" class article. the most basic facts of breadth are missing:
  • total no. of students
  • demographics of students
  • tuition structure
  • academic curricula
  • activities and sports
  • profiles, statistics and credentials of teachers
  • more timelines on evolution of school

good luck. Anlace 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I have a problem with a company using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. The IP address: 207.225.212.52 that shows up in several of the change history entries was confirmed at ARIN as belonging to Challenger School. Can a potential GA ever be composed of so many entries by a corporate entity? The article in my opinion lacks neutrality. TheEAngel 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It does read like advertising, but it is a large enough company that it would probably pass WP:N. I'm tagging it as advertising and hoping for some editing. I hope that the school does not think that reverting the tag is the way to fix this.--Hjal 19:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of over 50% of the material

On 30 July 2007, user Astuto removed over half the material in the article. He (she?) called it "NPOVifying" but the removed material included much of a straight factual nature. Do people agree or disagree that the material should be brought back?

I disagree with that assessment. The article is no longer an advertisement, which is better than the article as you would like it could say. I daresay it is much closer to a GA than before, even if it is still far from it. I hope you agree with me that a short, NPOV article is better than a long advertisement. That seems to be contrary to what you were pointing out in your comment. Best wishes, Astuto 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsession with uniforms

Why is it that those who so vigilantly remove uncomplimentary material from this article tolerate the fact that description of the school uniform and policies related to it take up over half of the running text? If the vigilant ones are working to burnish this school's image, why aren't they bothered that an impression goes out that this is not a school but the educational subsidiary of a clothing company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uldin (talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)