![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In defense against the advertisement claim - The article contains no references to how "great" this school is, it merely outlines the achievements they have gained over the years just like how one might put on a page referencing the achievements of a celebrity or politician. No one marks a celebrity's page for advertisement if they write that they won an Emmy or an election. The article also outlines clubs that are offered at this school because it is useful information to know, and makes no reference as to how these clubs make this school an excellent place to attend. You don't flag a college's page for saying that they offer Greek Life/Music Clubs/Political Clubs, so why mark this? The article is written in a neutral tone, and makes no statements in favor of the school that were not directly based on pure fact.
In defense against the peacock claim - The article does not say anything to make it seem like the best school ever. The claims are purely factual and are written in a neutral tone.
In concurrence to the primary source claim - Yes, I am aware that this article may rely a bit on primary sources, but it's quite hard to find secondary/tertiary sources in reference to this school that wouldn't be flagged as bias. If you have any, please, add them in.
Until there is valid argument to apply the first two claims, I am removing them.
Thanks, Yelpet ( talk) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the page to include more information and have fixed the problem of the overuse of primary sources. Since I believe it to be adequately fixed, I am removing the primary source tag. If you disagree with the tag removal, feel free to discuss or add more sources in!
Thanks, Yelpet ( talk) 05:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A request was made for reassessment at Wikiproject Schools recently. I have completed that reassessment. You are to be commended on incorporating secondary sources. However, the article is still sourced in majority to either the school itself, the district or web pages of school programs. Ideally, only the most basic info (think address) should be sourced to sources like that. I'm sorry to say, this is still a start article. Please don't be too disheartened. Very few schools have available sourcing to rise above a start-class article. Specific issues here:
It's obvious you are trying hard here. A tip: Take what you know, use that to find reliable independent sources, and then paraphrase what the sources say, forgetting about what you know. An encyclopedia article is not written about the title subject; it is written about what is written about the title subject. And please, leave the adjectives in English class. As I said it is obvious you are trying hard. And also as I've said, it is no shame to have a good start article for most schools. Lose the promo and the unencyclopedic content, improve further the independent sourcing and add detail to the history section and you probably have a C article. Higher quality ratings than that are generally only possible for much older schools, and generally, the larger the area the school is located in, the more media coverage it will get. Quality comes from sources. If I can be of any help, drop me a note on my talk. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reassessment. You pointed out issues I had no clue even existed, so that is much appreciated. Since I no longer live in the area this school is in, beyond making a few edits later to take your advice into account, I'm probably going to move on from making major edits to this article in the future to allow other editors to make their own contributions. Thank you again! Yelpet ( talk) 21:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Today, Parkway High has garnered a good deal of news coverage over the principal's stance that athletes who protest the national anthem will lose playing time or their spot on the team entirely. I understand the WP:NOTNEWS argument against including it. I agree that discussion is warranted to determine if it should be included or not. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that no one has made a case for inclusion here. If that's what you want, then you are going to need to posit some arguments based on sources and policies. What I want or what anyone else wants is really irrelevant. It's all about the strength of the arguments. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a good decision (or lack of decision). I came to this page 2 weeks after the current events hit. I was hoping to find a reference to the school's current policy and whether the policies changed after the publicity died down. Certainly, the change (or even non-change) of a school's policy as a result of national exposure is an event worthy of note in the history of this high school.
That's not to say that politically motivated speech is appropriate in this article, but the appropriate response would be to leave relevant facts only, not remove everything IMHO. Rob.the.batman ( talk) 02:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In defense against the advertisement claim - The article contains no references to how "great" this school is, it merely outlines the achievements they have gained over the years just like how one might put on a page referencing the achievements of a celebrity or politician. No one marks a celebrity's page for advertisement if they write that they won an Emmy or an election. The article also outlines clubs that are offered at this school because it is useful information to know, and makes no reference as to how these clubs make this school an excellent place to attend. You don't flag a college's page for saying that they offer Greek Life/Music Clubs/Political Clubs, so why mark this? The article is written in a neutral tone, and makes no statements in favor of the school that were not directly based on pure fact.
In defense against the peacock claim - The article does not say anything to make it seem like the best school ever. The claims are purely factual and are written in a neutral tone.
In concurrence to the primary source claim - Yes, I am aware that this article may rely a bit on primary sources, but it's quite hard to find secondary/tertiary sources in reference to this school that wouldn't be flagged as bias. If you have any, please, add them in.
Until there is valid argument to apply the first two claims, I am removing them.
Thanks, Yelpet ( talk) 05:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have updated the page to include more information and have fixed the problem of the overuse of primary sources. Since I believe it to be adequately fixed, I am removing the primary source tag. If you disagree with the tag removal, feel free to discuss or add more sources in!
Thanks, Yelpet ( talk) 05:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A request was made for reassessment at Wikiproject Schools recently. I have completed that reassessment. You are to be commended on incorporating secondary sources. However, the article is still sourced in majority to either the school itself, the district or web pages of school programs. Ideally, only the most basic info (think address) should be sourced to sources like that. I'm sorry to say, this is still a start article. Please don't be too disheartened. Very few schools have available sourcing to rise above a start-class article. Specific issues here:
It's obvious you are trying hard here. A tip: Take what you know, use that to find reliable independent sources, and then paraphrase what the sources say, forgetting about what you know. An encyclopedia article is not written about the title subject; it is written about what is written about the title subject. And please, leave the adjectives in English class. As I said it is obvious you are trying hard. And also as I've said, it is no shame to have a good start article for most schools. Lose the promo and the unencyclopedic content, improve further the independent sourcing and add detail to the history section and you probably have a C article. Higher quality ratings than that are generally only possible for much older schools, and generally, the larger the area the school is located in, the more media coverage it will get. Quality comes from sources. If I can be of any help, drop me a note on my talk. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reassessment. You pointed out issues I had no clue even existed, so that is much appreciated. Since I no longer live in the area this school is in, beyond making a few edits later to take your advice into account, I'm probably going to move on from making major edits to this article in the future to allow other editors to make their own contributions. Thank you again! Yelpet ( talk) 21:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Today, Parkway High has garnered a good deal of news coverage over the principal's stance that athletes who protest the national anthem will lose playing time or their spot on the team entirely. I understand the WP:NOTNEWS argument against including it. I agree that discussion is warranted to determine if it should be included or not. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that no one has made a case for inclusion here. If that's what you want, then you are going to need to posit some arguments based on sources and policies. What I want or what anyone else wants is really irrelevant. It's all about the strength of the arguments. John from Idegon ( talk) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not a good decision (or lack of decision). I came to this page 2 weeks after the current events hit. I was hoping to find a reference to the school's current policy and whether the policies changed after the publicity died down. Certainly, the change (or even non-change) of a school's policy as a result of national exposure is an event worthy of note in the history of this high school.
That's not to say that politically motivated speech is appropriate in this article, but the appropriate response would be to leave relevant facts only, not remove everything IMHO. Rob.the.batman ( talk) 02:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)