![]() | Preuss School 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nice comment Rewster Victuallers 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome! If you are a Preuss School student, your contributions to this article are needed! Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal home page. More information can be found at Welcome, newcomers and What Wikipedia is not. Thanks! Rewster 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Well Written
2. Factually accurate
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral point of view
5. Stability
Some persistent vandalism occured around 1 month ago, but this shouldn't be a problem.
6. Images
This article passes GA review. OhanaUnited 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The first image needs a fair use rationale for the article to keep its current status. Look to similar passed GA/FAs for examples of what to include in the detailed rationale. -- Nehrams2020 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I left sample edits only, along with some inline queries; please read my edit summaries and check each edit, as they are samples of MOS work needed throughout. Also, citations are incomplete and often incorrect. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The study did, however, find that the number of A-G courses and AP classes..." What do A-G and AP mean? Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. Regards from the LoCE, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC),
Many of the citations to newspapers are missing the publication date, and each one needs to be tracked down and added. This is a tedious job, and I'm going to hand it back to the main author(s) of the article. The "cite news" template is fine to use, but the newspaper or journal's name should go in the "publisher" space, and the "date" space and pipe symbol that you can generate by holding down the Shift key and pressing the backslash key on your keyboard to produce | can be inserted right after the publisher space. You can find the "cite news" template at WP:CIT in case you need to refer to it. I added the missing publication date to citation 32, which you can look at as a model as well. The publication date, as you insert it, should be autoformatted with the usual pair of square brackets. Finetooth ( talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Not sure what you mean by BLP issues. The problem with just changing it to 100 is that the cited story says, "... focuses on about 100 grades, including some that were reportedly changed from F's into passing marks, a school official said yesterday." So, it appears to me that the auditors were looking at 100 initially but were vague about how many might be Fs changed to passing. I think I'll soften it to say, "... claimed that the school sometimes changed Fs to passing grades." If you disagree, we can discuss further. By the way, I'm almost done. I have one more little section to check, and then I can sign off on the copyedit. Finetooth ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm done. I don't think it possible that I caught everything, but I tried to be thorough. The citation dates are still not as complete as they should be. For example, citation 33 probably has a date associated with the news story. Beyond that, most cited source documents on the web will have dates on them somewhere. Not all do, but if you poke about, you will often find them. I tracked down the one for citation 13 and added it. Since the date was a month and a year (not a complete date and not and day and a month), it did not get autoformatting. I think you can probably find dates for most of the rest of the documents. Anyway, that's it. I'll sign off, and perhaps a proofreader will come in after me, though, as you have seen, LoCE is under a big pile of stuff. If you have any questions, I'll be around. Just give me a holler on this page or my user talk page. Good luck with the FAC. Finetooth ( talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In closing I think that the article is close to the GA Criteria but there are a few issues that need to be addressed. I will put the article on hold for a week and will notify interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor keeps deleting the "Controversies" section. [1] [2] [3] In two edit summaries he says that the material is irrelevant. Since it is about the school I don't see how it isn't relevant. Unless there's a good reason not to, I'll restore it. Will Beback talk 04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It is good to see some former GAs become GA candidates again, but while I am not a GA reviewer, here are a few observations:
{{
PD-textlogo}}
, since text can't be copyrighted and the rest is just simple shapes. It should probably be re-tagged and moved to Commons.{{
Commons category}}
.Best of luck with the GA nomination. CT Cooper · talk 14:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I picked this one to review because it is the longest-listed one where no review has been started.
My first comment is that the lead seems to have been treated as just another place to write about the school in general instead of being a summary of what is in the article. I spot checked 3 items and none of them were in the article. Could you review / work on the and then discuss.
After my first two reads and checking some sources I have some concerns about sourcing in general but chose one as an example to take a close look at. The is current reference #2. This is used 14 times to support some pretty specific and assertive statements about the school, just cited in general (no page numbers) to a 84 page document which seems to be on a much more general topic with not much about this school in it. Could you provide page numbers for the cites which use this reference?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I started the review on November 3 and on that date raised some questions in areas that would need work in order to pass. Did not receive any response. I pinged the nominator on November 5 to see if they had any interest in being that person and received no response. So it is now November 18th and I have not received any response from anyone. I have no alternative than to non-pass the article at this time. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I explained why it was non-passed in the edit summary. I normally also note it here but must have forgotten. In short, the article would need work by someone involved with it in order to pass, and there is nobody involved with it. North8000 ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | Preuss School 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nice comment Rewster Victuallers 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome! If you are a Preuss School student, your contributions to this article are needed! Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal home page. More information can be found at Welcome, newcomers and What Wikipedia is not. Thanks! Rewster 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Well Written
2. Factually accurate
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral point of view
5. Stability
Some persistent vandalism occured around 1 month ago, but this shouldn't be a problem.
6. Images
This article passes GA review. OhanaUnited 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The first image needs a fair use rationale for the article to keep its current status. Look to similar passed GA/FAs for examples of what to include in the detailed rationale. -- Nehrams2020 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I left sample edits only, along with some inline queries; please read my edit summaries and check each edit, as they are samples of MOS work needed throughout. Also, citations are incomplete and often incorrect. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The study did, however, find that the number of A-G courses and AP classes..." What do A-G and AP mean? Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. Regards from the LoCE, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC),
Many of the citations to newspapers are missing the publication date, and each one needs to be tracked down and added. This is a tedious job, and I'm going to hand it back to the main author(s) of the article. The "cite news" template is fine to use, but the newspaper or journal's name should go in the "publisher" space, and the "date" space and pipe symbol that you can generate by holding down the Shift key and pressing the backslash key on your keyboard to produce | can be inserted right after the publisher space. You can find the "cite news" template at WP:CIT in case you need to refer to it. I added the missing publication date to citation 32, which you can look at as a model as well. The publication date, as you insert it, should be autoformatted with the usual pair of square brackets. Finetooth ( talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Not sure what you mean by BLP issues. The problem with just changing it to 100 is that the cited story says, "... focuses on about 100 grades, including some that were reportedly changed from F's into passing marks, a school official said yesterday." So, it appears to me that the auditors were looking at 100 initially but were vague about how many might be Fs changed to passing. I think I'll soften it to say, "... claimed that the school sometimes changed Fs to passing grades." If you disagree, we can discuss further. By the way, I'm almost done. I have one more little section to check, and then I can sign off on the copyedit. Finetooth ( talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm done. I don't think it possible that I caught everything, but I tried to be thorough. The citation dates are still not as complete as they should be. For example, citation 33 probably has a date associated with the news story. Beyond that, most cited source documents on the web will have dates on them somewhere. Not all do, but if you poke about, you will often find them. I tracked down the one for citation 13 and added it. Since the date was a month and a year (not a complete date and not and day and a month), it did not get autoformatting. I think you can probably find dates for most of the rest of the documents. Anyway, that's it. I'll sign off, and perhaps a proofreader will come in after me, though, as you have seen, LoCE is under a big pile of stuff. If you have any questions, I'll be around. Just give me a holler on this page or my user talk page. Good luck with the FAC. Finetooth ( talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles ( talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In closing I think that the article is close to the GA Criteria but there are a few issues that need to be addressed. I will put the article on hold for a week and will notify interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles ( talk) 18:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor keeps deleting the "Controversies" section. [1] [2] [3] In two edit summaries he says that the material is irrelevant. Since it is about the school I don't see how it isn't relevant. Unless there's a good reason not to, I'll restore it. Will Beback talk 04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It is good to see some former GAs become GA candidates again, but while I am not a GA reviewer, here are a few observations:
{{
PD-textlogo}}
, since text can't be copyrighted and the rest is just simple shapes. It should probably be re-tagged and moved to Commons.{{
Commons category}}
.Best of luck with the GA nomination. CT Cooper · talk 14:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I picked this one to review because it is the longest-listed one where no review has been started.
My first comment is that the lead seems to have been treated as just another place to write about the school in general instead of being a summary of what is in the article. I spot checked 3 items and none of them were in the article. Could you review / work on the and then discuss.
After my first two reads and checking some sources I have some concerns about sourcing in general but chose one as an example to take a close look at. The is current reference #2. This is used 14 times to support some pretty specific and assertive statements about the school, just cited in general (no page numbers) to a 84 page document which seems to be on a much more general topic with not much about this school in it. Could you provide page numbers for the cites which use this reference?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I started the review on November 3 and on that date raised some questions in areas that would need work in order to pass. Did not receive any response. I pinged the nominator on November 5 to see if they had any interest in being that person and received no response. So it is now November 18th and I have not received any response from anyone. I have no alternative than to non-pass the article at this time. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I explained why it was non-passed in the edit summary. I normally also note it here but must have forgotten. In short, the article would need work by someone involved with it in order to pass, and there is nobody involved with it. North8000 ( talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)