![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
very well done ...tell us a bit more ... alumni - any more.... more pics welcome Victuallers 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This section needs work but it's going to be expanded upon. Since it meets the criteria for verifiability and NOR (or is flagged appropriately) please leave it here for the time being or help improve it. Thanks.
-- Ryan Utt 16:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yah, I agree. None of the awards you listed are specifically cited. This is done immediately or Wikipedia is risking potential liability. P-unit 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm nearing completion of the article. Only a few things left I want to take care of:
1) Funding -- Los Alamos Public Schools formerly recieved funds directly from DOE. Now they recieve funds from some federal intermediary that also provides some support to the surrounding communities such as Espanola. I wish I could get the facts regarding this situation, but they are hard to find.
2) Extra-curricular activities -- in particular I would like to get a photo of the landscaping work done by X-scape.
3) Campus -- just a few basic facts about the campus including the most key biographical details of the people buildings are named after: Duane W. Smith, Griffith, etc. -- Ryan Utt 06:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
From Wiki fair use policy section 1: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available". Since no alternative photos showing the same material are available, then this specific photo does not fail the specific criteria cited by the person who removed it. -- Ryan Utt 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
re: person who replaced "white" w/ "European American" and "black" w/ "African American"
I reversed the changes so that the lahs page reflects the wording of the source material. If you feel really strongly about it then we can talk about how to reconcile the wording of the source with what is an arguably more politically correct wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Utt ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The source included in the article describing LA as rich is not meant to be authoritative, but merely describe the perception of LAHS by some of its peers. I think this perception is shared by many. It is not true that Los Alamos is the richest county in America. In the most recent census results, Los Alamos wasn't even in the top 25 counties for median income: [1]. However, in terms of per capita income and median income, it is the wealthiest county in the state of new mexico, even though none of the most wealthy new mexicans live in Los Alamos [2].
I'm not sure how much of this information should be discussed in the LAHS article versus what should be moved to the article on LA County. Maybe the best thing to do would be to just state the numbers and leave it at that? Greg Comlish ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This article has got a lot of strengths. For instance, it's got loads of references which is great. But it's missing a clearly organized cohesive framework. It feels like a loosely organized list of facts where distinct items have little connection to each other. We need to reorganize everything for the sake of the reader. New sections should be added to make information easier to find. Summaries should be added to existing sections which are little more than lists (athletics, awards). There is now plenty of material here, but the article cannot improve unless it becomes more readable. Greg Comlish ( talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am assessing this article, per a request left at the Schools Project page.
Prior to assessment, I have done a major cleaning. There was a great deal of unencyclopedic information. I hope I got it all.
This article, upon my arrival was classified as "B Class". I am starting this assessment against the B-Class criteria:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
One particular strength of this article is that, while there is considerable referencing, and it is diverse, there is still a great deal that needs to be referenced. The alumni section, even after being gutted, still largely unreferenced. The future plans for seniors is not only out of date, but poorly referenced to the school itself (that really needs to be independently referenced or deleted). This is hardly a major weakness of this article, but still needs to be worked on. To reach my consideration of "suitably referenced" there shouldn't be any unreferenced sections, and this article has a couple of those. There is also a minor concern regarding the use of references from the school/district to support some important claims that should be independently verified.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
I don't see any sections that appear to be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure.
There may be minor tweaks needed, but there is nothing close to a major problem here.
4. The article is reasonably well-written.
I don't see any major issues here, especially with the more
peacocky language has been deleted. It is hardly perfect, but not too bad.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
No problems here.
The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
Again, no problems here ... I don't think there was any inside language or material that the average person wouldn't understand.
The three big things I would caution on:
1. Keep out non-notable alumni, students, and staff. They should generally only be noted if they meet the general notability guideline. 2. Avoid the colorful language that is too self-promotional of the school. See WP:PRESTIGE. 3. Not only does there need to be a little more referencing, but make sure not too much of it is from the school itself. If the article claims that over 85% of the student go to 4 year colleges, that needs an independent verification. State championships need referencing the alumni need references which support that this person actually attended the school. The music stuff needs referencing (not sure if that should even stay ... it should really only be state championship level achievements. 4. Be careful about not adding external links that don't belong.
I wish you the best of luck ... this seems to be a fairly important school, and it seems very close to moving up to "B" and then beyond. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of claims that have had {{fact}} tags for too long. These need to be separately from the article to maintain quality. The claims are:
These claims can stay here until somebody can source them. Greg Comlish ( talk) 02:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Los Alamos has the highest number of Ph.D.s per capita. This is a "fact" that I have seen in several places, but have never seen any reliable demographic support for it. The first time I saw this in print was on a postcard in the 1980's, but I had heard the claim before. I have tried and tried to locate a source for this claim, but have reached the conclusion that it is just a bit of local folklore. Note that the Wikipedia article for Madison, WI makes the same claim for that city. You cite a source, but it is just a newspaper article that makes the statement without any citation. 7minus1 ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The following information has been relocated to the talk page until we can find an independent source to verify
2004 Survey<ref name="grad plans">{{cite news|url=http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |title=Class of 2004 Statistical Overview|publisher= Los Alamos High School|year=2004|accessdate=2006-01-01|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060117225533/http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |archivedate = 2006-01-17}}</ref>
Greg Comlish ( talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The main question to ask when reviewing information and deciding what to include is "does this really help a reader get a good understanding of the subject?" Most of the finer details don't and in school articles, it's always tempting to include a plethora of awards and accomplishments that may seem important to the school, but in reality aren't that significant. For instance, getting a good rating for the choirs at a district competition really isn't that significant since most schools accomplish that. Same with the mention of the bands; most of those competitions mean absolutely nothing to the average reader. Even as a music educator I haven't heard of them, plus I know that there are tons of music competitions that schools can enter all over the country.
Check the "faculty" number. Faculty means actual teachers, so unless there are 256 teachers for 1,200 students, I'm guessing that should be "Staff", which can mean everyone who works at the school. You can also use both Faculty and Staff with Faculty being full-time teachers ("Teaching staff" is also an available parameter on the infobox) and "Staff" being for support staff like janitors, aides, secretaries, and administration.
There is still lots of promotional language and several one-sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should have at least 3 sentences. I'd also recommend removing the "Recent awards" section and including the most notable awards in the history section. "Recent" will be dated pretty quickly. Along with that, removing the huge list of clubs would be a good idea too. I don't think it's bad to list some of them in prose, but a huge list that simply duplicates what one could find on the school's website doesn't really help is much. Lastly, remove the images section and move all public domain images to Wikimedia Commons in a "Los Alamos High School" category. That way the images can be stored in a gallery that is linked through a template on the page. Images that are stored on Wikipedia and then are orphaned will eventually get deleted; this is not true on the Commons. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Another thing I thought of is be sure to read WP:SYN. I've seen a few instances where statements are sourced, but the source only confirms half of the statement. I already pointed out one (regarding "exemplary public schools") that you took out, but even the idea that the school's strong academic record (again, "strong" is a POV term because it is opinion) is connected to the sourced fact that Los Alamos County has the highest number of PhDs per capita. That is a form of synthesis that since A is true (Los Alamos county has the highest number of PhDs per capita) and B is true (the school has been recognized multiple times academically), therefore C must be true (B is the result of A). I think the info about the PhDs would be better served as part of a demographics section rather than making an unsourced assumption that the school's academic honors are directly caused by the per capita total of PhDs in the county. While I don't think the general assumption is out of line or incorrect, rather than make an unsourced statement, let the reader make the assumptions from the sourced data provided. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The "educational success is attributed to PHDs" again, but I really don't think it deserves inclusion in the lede. The lede is very paltry and covers odd parts of the article. tedder ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
References
If you aren't sure what to put, I think you can easily just remove that sentence. Keep the median income and other key statistics from the county and, as I've said for other things, let the reader make the decision about middle class. Middle class doesn't have a clear definition (there isn't a government definition like we have for poverty). Remember too, if you have "is considered" or "can be considered" that needs a source that actually uses that terminology ("middle class"). You could (and should) also put the racial and gender statistics into prose with the rest of the paragraph. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I eliminated the section designating Espanola Valley High School as a "rival" school. In my opinion, it's just not a clear and meaningful designation, and I don't think it's even symmetric relationship. LAHS has several rival schools depending on which sport/activity you are talking about. Most of LAHS's state titles are in Swimming and XC, and in those sports the big rival would be Albuquerque Academy. And competition with Academy might be bolstered by some sort of populist/ anti-private school sentiment. But does Academy see LAHS as the big rival? On their article, all they talk about is St. Pious. So beyond issues of verifiability and NOR, I'm just thinking that it's a problematic classification since LAHS and so many other school have so many rivals. And there's no LAHS traditions to institutionalize a rivalry with EVHS. It's not like they have the annual "big game" with EVHS or floats in the Homecoming parade with a besieged Sundevil or anything. Greg Comlish ( talk) 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the cross country rivalry with Albuquerque Academy is worth mentioning, particularly the boys. The state meet has been a battle between LA and AA for years, with no other schools taking the #1 or 2 spot since 1998. Both teams have had their share of national attention, indicating that this rivalry is far more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.29.174 ( talk) 05:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It has been asked that I re-assess this article; I think the ratings are fine as they are, but I can provide give some tips for GA.
Firstly, I took the liberty of cleaning-up the images on Commons and deleting the duplicate uploads left behind here. These images are an asset to the article and go beyond what would be needed to pass the WP:GAC. The image quality is good too, though a colour version of File:JFK Memorial.jpg would be great. Given the amount of images, a gallery on Commons might be appropriate at commons:Los Alamos High School to in order to supplement the category, see commons:COM:GALLERY.
Both non-free images used have rationales, though what is the purpose of File:TheTopperman.jpg? It doesn't seem to be supporting any content, and on my resolution it creeps into the references section resulting in ugly white space to the right of the references, which should be avoided if possible. If this image is to be kept, it should probably be moved to a more appropriate section of the article, with such a section created if needed. Note that GA reviewers will check non-free images against the WP:NFCC, and I could hence see this image being an issue in a GA review due to criterion eight of this policy ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") - a criterion that, while open to interpretation, can catch a lot of non-free uploads out.
The current lead is good but it is a little short for an article of this size, and will need expanding. A finished FA article would have a lead of two to three paragraphs, see
Amador Valley High School as an example (this school also has a Commons gallery example) and
WP:LEAD for guidance. The history section is detailed and well written. While this is trivial, when using
piped links make it clear to the reader where they will end up when they click on the link per
WP:EGG. So in this case, if Cold War is going to be linked, then Cold War should probably be stated in the link (e.g. in order to counter a
rising Soviet threat -> due to the
Cold War). There appear to be some gaps in the referencing still, such as in the curriculum section. Really for GA everything needs a citation except the absolutely obvious per
WP:V, even if this means citing the school website.
Finally, I would suggest looking at WP:WPSCH/AG for further guidance, in particular WP:WPSCH/AG#S for suggestions on possible missing sections and the standard article layout. CT Cooper · talk 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Along with the above (all great suggestions), I tagged the sentence about the "newly remodeled" R-wing for clarification. Be careful to avoid statements that can quickly become dated. How recently was "newly"? Best thing to do here is state when it was remodeled "...the R-wing (previously the cafeteria), which was remodeled in (insert year or years here)." That way the sentence will always be true no matter how much time asses. Also I removed one instance, but watch out for using seasons to identify dates, like "the work will be done in fall 2011". "Fall" is first a mostly American term, but even more so, it is a POV term. Autumn in New Mexico isn't Autumn everywhere in the world. Use the month (or even date) wherever possible. If that's not available, simply using a phrase like "late 2011" is appropriate. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The source for Lynn Bjorklund doesn't establish that she went to LAHS, it just states she was from Los Alamos. "The 3,000m record of 9:08.6, held by Lynn Bjorklund of Los Alamos, N.M., was set back in 1975..." While that's my first concern (living in Los Alamos does not guarantee she attended the school), the second is notability itself. Setting a high school track record is cool and all, but unless there are some other sources and notable achievements, I really don't see how this person will ever meet the notability guidelines as setting one record (particularly at the high school level) does not automatically make the person notable. The point of these notable alumni lists is mainly to connect articles that wouldn't otherwise be connected. The lists really aren't a good place to try and establish notability; that should be done in an actual article and then added to the list. Too often, especially high school articles, "notable alumni" is translated into "successful alumni" and people who have done well, regardless of notability, are included even though notable is different than successful. Remember, having a source does not establish notability. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Los Alamos High School. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lcni5.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?075%20article%20News%2020091219185059075075004When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Los Alamos High School. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
very well done ...tell us a bit more ... alumni - any more.... more pics welcome Victuallers 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This section needs work but it's going to be expanded upon. Since it meets the criteria for verifiability and NOR (or is flagged appropriately) please leave it here for the time being or help improve it. Thanks.
-- Ryan Utt 16:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Yah, I agree. None of the awards you listed are specifically cited. This is done immediately or Wikipedia is risking potential liability. P-unit 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm nearing completion of the article. Only a few things left I want to take care of:
1) Funding -- Los Alamos Public Schools formerly recieved funds directly from DOE. Now they recieve funds from some federal intermediary that also provides some support to the surrounding communities such as Espanola. I wish I could get the facts regarding this situation, but they are hard to find.
2) Extra-curricular activities -- in particular I would like to get a photo of the landscaping work done by X-scape.
3) Campus -- just a few basic facts about the campus including the most key biographical details of the people buildings are named after: Duane W. Smith, Griffith, etc. -- Ryan Utt 06:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
From Wiki fair use policy section 1: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available". Since no alternative photos showing the same material are available, then this specific photo does not fail the specific criteria cited by the person who removed it. -- Ryan Utt 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
re: person who replaced "white" w/ "European American" and "black" w/ "African American"
I reversed the changes so that the lahs page reflects the wording of the source material. If you feel really strongly about it then we can talk about how to reconcile the wording of the source with what is an arguably more politically correct wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Utt ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The source included in the article describing LA as rich is not meant to be authoritative, but merely describe the perception of LAHS by some of its peers. I think this perception is shared by many. It is not true that Los Alamos is the richest county in America. In the most recent census results, Los Alamos wasn't even in the top 25 counties for median income: [1]. However, in terms of per capita income and median income, it is the wealthiest county in the state of new mexico, even though none of the most wealthy new mexicans live in Los Alamos [2].
I'm not sure how much of this information should be discussed in the LAHS article versus what should be moved to the article on LA County. Maybe the best thing to do would be to just state the numbers and leave it at that? Greg Comlish ( talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This article has got a lot of strengths. For instance, it's got loads of references which is great. But it's missing a clearly organized cohesive framework. It feels like a loosely organized list of facts where distinct items have little connection to each other. We need to reorganize everything for the sake of the reader. New sections should be added to make information easier to find. Summaries should be added to existing sections which are little more than lists (athletics, awards). There is now plenty of material here, but the article cannot improve unless it becomes more readable. Greg Comlish ( talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am assessing this article, per a request left at the Schools Project page.
Prior to assessment, I have done a major cleaning. There was a great deal of unencyclopedic information. I hope I got it all.
This article, upon my arrival was classified as "B Class". I am starting this assessment against the B-Class criteria:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
One particular strength of this article is that, while there is considerable referencing, and it is diverse, there is still a great deal that needs to be referenced. The alumni section, even after being gutted, still largely unreferenced. The future plans for seniors is not only out of date, but poorly referenced to the school itself (that really needs to be independently referenced or deleted). This is hardly a major weakness of this article, but still needs to be worked on. To reach my consideration of "suitably referenced" there shouldn't be any unreferenced sections, and this article has a couple of those. There is also a minor concern regarding the use of references from the school/district to support some important claims that should be independently verified.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
I don't see any sections that appear to be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure.
There may be minor tweaks needed, but there is nothing close to a major problem here.
4. The article is reasonably well-written.
I don't see any major issues here, especially with the more
peacocky language has been deleted. It is hardly perfect, but not too bad.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
No problems here.
The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
Again, no problems here ... I don't think there was any inside language or material that the average person wouldn't understand.
The three big things I would caution on:
1. Keep out non-notable alumni, students, and staff. They should generally only be noted if they meet the general notability guideline. 2. Avoid the colorful language that is too self-promotional of the school. See WP:PRESTIGE. 3. Not only does there need to be a little more referencing, but make sure not too much of it is from the school itself. If the article claims that over 85% of the student go to 4 year colleges, that needs an independent verification. State championships need referencing the alumni need references which support that this person actually attended the school. The music stuff needs referencing (not sure if that should even stay ... it should really only be state championship level achievements. 4. Be careful about not adding external links that don't belong.
I wish you the best of luck ... this seems to be a fairly important school, and it seems very close to moving up to "B" and then beyond. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of claims that have had {{fact}} tags for too long. These need to be separately from the article to maintain quality. The claims are:
These claims can stay here until somebody can source them. Greg Comlish ( talk) 02:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The article states that Los Alamos has the highest number of Ph.D.s per capita. This is a "fact" that I have seen in several places, but have never seen any reliable demographic support for it. The first time I saw this in print was on a postcard in the 1980's, but I had heard the claim before. I have tried and tried to locate a source for this claim, but have reached the conclusion that it is just a bit of local folklore. Note that the Wikipedia article for Madison, WI makes the same claim for that city. You cite a source, but it is just a newspaper article that makes the statement without any citation. 7minus1 ( talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The following information has been relocated to the talk page until we can find an independent source to verify
2004 Survey<ref name="grad plans">{{cite news|url=http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |title=Class of 2004 Statistical Overview|publisher= Los Alamos High School|year=2004|accessdate=2006-01-01|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060117225533/http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |archivedate = 2006-01-17}}</ref>
Greg Comlish ( talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The main question to ask when reviewing information and deciding what to include is "does this really help a reader get a good understanding of the subject?" Most of the finer details don't and in school articles, it's always tempting to include a plethora of awards and accomplishments that may seem important to the school, but in reality aren't that significant. For instance, getting a good rating for the choirs at a district competition really isn't that significant since most schools accomplish that. Same with the mention of the bands; most of those competitions mean absolutely nothing to the average reader. Even as a music educator I haven't heard of them, plus I know that there are tons of music competitions that schools can enter all over the country.
Check the "faculty" number. Faculty means actual teachers, so unless there are 256 teachers for 1,200 students, I'm guessing that should be "Staff", which can mean everyone who works at the school. You can also use both Faculty and Staff with Faculty being full-time teachers ("Teaching staff" is also an available parameter on the infobox) and "Staff" being for support staff like janitors, aides, secretaries, and administration.
There is still lots of promotional language and several one-sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should have at least 3 sentences. I'd also recommend removing the "Recent awards" section and including the most notable awards in the history section. "Recent" will be dated pretty quickly. Along with that, removing the huge list of clubs would be a good idea too. I don't think it's bad to list some of them in prose, but a huge list that simply duplicates what one could find on the school's website doesn't really help is much. Lastly, remove the images section and move all public domain images to Wikimedia Commons in a "Los Alamos High School" category. That way the images can be stored in a gallery that is linked through a template on the page. Images that are stored on Wikipedia and then are orphaned will eventually get deleted; this is not true on the Commons. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Another thing I thought of is be sure to read WP:SYN. I've seen a few instances where statements are sourced, but the source only confirms half of the statement. I already pointed out one (regarding "exemplary public schools") that you took out, but even the idea that the school's strong academic record (again, "strong" is a POV term because it is opinion) is connected to the sourced fact that Los Alamos County has the highest number of PhDs per capita. That is a form of synthesis that since A is true (Los Alamos county has the highest number of PhDs per capita) and B is true (the school has been recognized multiple times academically), therefore C must be true (B is the result of A). I think the info about the PhDs would be better served as part of a demographics section rather than making an unsourced assumption that the school's academic honors are directly caused by the per capita total of PhDs in the county. While I don't think the general assumption is out of line or incorrect, rather than make an unsourced statement, let the reader make the assumptions from the sourced data provided. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The "educational success is attributed to PHDs" again, but I really don't think it deserves inclusion in the lede. The lede is very paltry and covers odd parts of the article. tedder ( talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
References
If you aren't sure what to put, I think you can easily just remove that sentence. Keep the median income and other key statistics from the county and, as I've said for other things, let the reader make the decision about middle class. Middle class doesn't have a clear definition (there isn't a government definition like we have for poverty). Remember too, if you have "is considered" or "can be considered" that needs a source that actually uses that terminology ("middle class"). You could (and should) also put the racial and gender statistics into prose with the rest of the paragraph. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I eliminated the section designating Espanola Valley High School as a "rival" school. In my opinion, it's just not a clear and meaningful designation, and I don't think it's even symmetric relationship. LAHS has several rival schools depending on which sport/activity you are talking about. Most of LAHS's state titles are in Swimming and XC, and in those sports the big rival would be Albuquerque Academy. And competition with Academy might be bolstered by some sort of populist/ anti-private school sentiment. But does Academy see LAHS as the big rival? On their article, all they talk about is St. Pious. So beyond issues of verifiability and NOR, I'm just thinking that it's a problematic classification since LAHS and so many other school have so many rivals. And there's no LAHS traditions to institutionalize a rivalry with EVHS. It's not like they have the annual "big game" with EVHS or floats in the Homecoming parade with a besieged Sundevil or anything. Greg Comlish ( talk) 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the cross country rivalry with Albuquerque Academy is worth mentioning, particularly the boys. The state meet has been a battle between LA and AA for years, with no other schools taking the #1 or 2 spot since 1998. Both teams have had their share of national attention, indicating that this rivalry is far more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.29.174 ( talk) 05:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It has been asked that I re-assess this article; I think the ratings are fine as they are, but I can provide give some tips for GA.
Firstly, I took the liberty of cleaning-up the images on Commons and deleting the duplicate uploads left behind here. These images are an asset to the article and go beyond what would be needed to pass the WP:GAC. The image quality is good too, though a colour version of File:JFK Memorial.jpg would be great. Given the amount of images, a gallery on Commons might be appropriate at commons:Los Alamos High School to in order to supplement the category, see commons:COM:GALLERY.
Both non-free images used have rationales, though what is the purpose of File:TheTopperman.jpg? It doesn't seem to be supporting any content, and on my resolution it creeps into the references section resulting in ugly white space to the right of the references, which should be avoided if possible. If this image is to be kept, it should probably be moved to a more appropriate section of the article, with such a section created if needed. Note that GA reviewers will check non-free images against the WP:NFCC, and I could hence see this image being an issue in a GA review due to criterion eight of this policy ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") - a criterion that, while open to interpretation, can catch a lot of non-free uploads out.
The current lead is good but it is a little short for an article of this size, and will need expanding. A finished FA article would have a lead of two to three paragraphs, see
Amador Valley High School as an example (this school also has a Commons gallery example) and
WP:LEAD for guidance. The history section is detailed and well written. While this is trivial, when using
piped links make it clear to the reader where they will end up when they click on the link per
WP:EGG. So in this case, if Cold War is going to be linked, then Cold War should probably be stated in the link (e.g. in order to counter a
rising Soviet threat -> due to the
Cold War). There appear to be some gaps in the referencing still, such as in the curriculum section. Really for GA everything needs a citation except the absolutely obvious per
WP:V, even if this means citing the school website.
Finally, I would suggest looking at WP:WPSCH/AG for further guidance, in particular WP:WPSCH/AG#S for suggestions on possible missing sections and the standard article layout. CT Cooper · talk 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Along with the above (all great suggestions), I tagged the sentence about the "newly remodeled" R-wing for clarification. Be careful to avoid statements that can quickly become dated. How recently was "newly"? Best thing to do here is state when it was remodeled "...the R-wing (previously the cafeteria), which was remodeled in (insert year or years here)." That way the sentence will always be true no matter how much time asses. Also I removed one instance, but watch out for using seasons to identify dates, like "the work will be done in fall 2011". "Fall" is first a mostly American term, but even more so, it is a POV term. Autumn in New Mexico isn't Autumn everywhere in the world. Use the month (or even date) wherever possible. If that's not available, simply using a phrase like "late 2011" is appropriate. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The source for Lynn Bjorklund doesn't establish that she went to LAHS, it just states she was from Los Alamos. "The 3,000m record of 9:08.6, held by Lynn Bjorklund of Los Alamos, N.M., was set back in 1975..." While that's my first concern (living in Los Alamos does not guarantee she attended the school), the second is notability itself. Setting a high school track record is cool and all, but unless there are some other sources and notable achievements, I really don't see how this person will ever meet the notability guidelines as setting one record (particularly at the high school level) does not automatically make the person notable. The point of these notable alumni lists is mainly to connect articles that wouldn't otherwise be connected. The lists really aren't a good place to try and establish notability; that should be done in an actual article and then added to the list. Too often, especially high school articles, "notable alumni" is translated into "successful alumni" and people who have done well, regardless of notability, are included even though notable is different than successful. Remember, having a source does not establish notability. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Los Alamos High School. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lcni5.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?075%20article%20News%2020091219185059075075004When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Los Alamos High School. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)