This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cinco Ranch High School was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | ||||||||||
|
The stuff about Cinco being "college" is unverifiable and irresponsible. I took many AP classes at Cinco and I find college to be quite a challenge indeed.
Attention to whoever initially wrote this page: PLEASE STOP AND RETAKE ENGLISH! "Wikipedia is used by many students for reference purposes, so there is much criticism of this blockage. The Websense internet site lists Wikipedia under the heading "reference"; however, the program can block any material which it deems unfit. i.e. ("tasteless", "sex", "racism and hate", "games")." - That is a reflection of 6th grade writing skills, not "college" level skills. Your article was filled with tasteless, offensive, immature statements, reflecting the poor education you received from this high school and an overall insensitivity to other social classes. These problems have been mostly corrected; in the future, please refrain from making egotistical comments without objective proof.
Sorry for being bigoted and biased but I was pissed and still am. Instead of stripping my two-cents off the page you could maybe make it less biased and more factual. And calling my writing skills "a reflection of 6th grade writing skills" is mean and unfounded seeing I have written many articles on Wikipedia without removal or reproach. EX. Bully (film)
ACtually, for me, it's not your "writing skills" that bother me (and I'm not the one who posted the "retake english" stuff, but still-- it's the content. Whoever you are, you have to realize that a lot of the things you typed in here were not the stuff of encyclopedias. For instance: a student refuted a calculus theory and was "quieted?" Rumors have no place in an encyclopedia entry. And frankly, neither do issues that only relate to a select few. Saying that "students said Cinco made college seem easy" is taking the words of a few and extending it into a general discription. I could go on. Lastly, you might want to look more closely at your "Bully" page, where I saw a few grammatical mistakes on a glance. Anyway, thanks for the effort, and try not to let people get you angry or upset; I think they usually mean well. --Unsolvedmre 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with those paragraphs is that they're unverifiable, biased, and irresponsible.
I think your mixing up people. The only thing I added to the CRHS article was about Wikipedia being banned - and in hindsight it wasn't very wikiesque. Crucify the guy that actually is writing crap (i.e. rumors)! thanks Andman8 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
How about you take a look at Taylor High's page and add stuff to ours that they have. Accolades? Famous alumni?
most particularly, i would like to see pictures on this page. There are incredible numbers of pics of the exterior of the school, the interior, and students in action online, accessible via the school's website. Could even just do a google image search for cinco ranch high. Surely some of these are useable within wiki terms of use. The bottom line is, i do not feel qualified to add images to wikipedia due to a lack of experience with compyrights, and will not undertake to do so until i am ready, but I feel like someone like Whisper could do a great service to this article with some pics. Thanks
Some people on this page seem to be asking for guidance on copyright and images. Wikipedia is (as seen under the logo graphic) "The Free Encyclopedia". "Free" means that other people should be able to reuse our stuff without having to worry about its copyright status. Grabbing pictures off somebody else's website and then reusing them on ours isn't going to help that. It's not a tragedy if an article doesn't have pictures; they can always be added later by somebody who does have the opportunity to take them. But if anybody editing this article attends or otherwise has access to this school, it would be great if they could take some pictures of their own! An alternative is to ask the school to provide their own and license them so that they can be used. Because we want content to be reusable, that means licensing it freely (i.e. to anybody, including commercial sources), not just giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If you do want to use pictures for which somebody else holds copyright and want to persuade them to license it, the best place to look is WP:COPYREQ. If it's necessary to make use of the much more limited "fair use" provision, which is probably irrelevant so long as some free use pictures can be found instead (unless the fair use pictures really say something special about the school, there's no point of having them in if there are free use ones too) the best place to look is WP:FU. Something to note is that fair use images must be informative, not just decorative, and so consensus seems to be that they shouldn't really be used in galleries. Fair use pictures may well be lost in printed or CD-released editions of Wikipedia or in WikiReaders so are worth avoiding if possible for that reason too. Why bother clogging up a "free" encyclopedia with copyright issues, if there are enough freely licensed images to show the average reader anything that's really important (remembering that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure)? TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I went up to cinco the other day and took all the pictures myself. I freely give them to public domain but maybe I used the wrong copyright. The only pic I took off another site was the main one but i'll change that in a sec. Andman8 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting this on hold at the moment; there's a lot of stuff that's good but many of the images currently lack copyright info and are in line for deletion. That needs to be sorted before this can be properly reviewed. TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the cougar thing. Like I said, took all the pics myself but screwed up on some of the lincenses, It looks good now though Andman8 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly enough material here to make a good article. There is no real reason this can't grow into a featured article. But at the moment the inclusion and exclusion of material seems poorly thought through and uncharacteristic of an encyclopedia (at one stage, a mice prank and the name of the yearbook compiler were relevant enough to put in, but the decision-making that went into the founding of the school - something which is always controversial and for which lots of published material would be available - isn't explained at all?) and the article suffers from a really big structural flaw. Please remember that this isn't an article about a row between a School administration and its critics. It's not an article about a struggle between a school and its pupils. It's not an article about a battle between a school and some pervs. At the moment, the article is writen like an argument between two sides. It's meant to be an article about a school. The featured school articles I listed above do not leave the feeling that they're about an argument. That doesn't mean they aren't written from a neutral point of view. TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have had to decline this GA nomination now it's no longer on hold. There's a couple of stylistic things to sort out - newspaper and magazine title should be in italics - but that's not my prime concern. My opinion's gone a long way down since I checked out all the references. I have still got concerns about the dialectic structure of the article (it's meant to be a factual entry about a school, not a summary of claims and counterclaims in a theoretical argument between the school administration and its critics). I also have very serious concerns about some of the material in this article but I suspect that that will mostly get cleared up if what I am about to explain gets heeded. I also think it's worth reiterating that it's a very bad idea to mention anybody by name if they do not deserve an article of their own, unless they are pretty central to this article and there is a really, really good reason to. Other than that, there's now also a fair use image with a rather dodgy fair use claim.
But the big problem has a lot to do with the references. This article is definitely salvagable but you need to strip large parts of it down and reconstruct it, based on the six key principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Look at some of the featured articles on schools: Caulfield Grammar School, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School. Taste the quality. Work out what kind of information those articles are including. Observe how they handle areas of controversy (those articles aren't split into "For" and "Against" sections, which this one seems to be tending towards). Look at the sort of facts that are included, the way they are referenced, then check out the references to see how the reference matches the fact.
In short, this article needs to consist of a series of neutrally reported facts. Every single part of those facts should appear in one of the references, and after every couple of facts one should expect to see a reference. When the reader checks out that reference, the facts for which it has been cited should all be clearly stated in the reference. In effect, the reference should be the source material that the fact, at least in the form stated, came from.
This article currently contains a lot of anecdotes and generalizations. The reason I am so strongly opposed to this getting GA status is that in fact many of the "references" are often just tangentially related weblinks, sometimes clearly not from a reliable source, and which often just add another anecdote to the issue. The references need to state the facts that they are being cited for. Any fact that can not be referenced in this way should be removed from the article. I can honestly say that I've never seen a referenced article so badly referenced. I find this quite troubling - as a Wikipedian, I was very glad when the new Footnotes system was introduced (the previous footnotes system was very hard to use), because I believed that it would make our articles trustworthy and verifiable. This article is abusing them very seriously: the provision of extensive footnotes makes this article appear to be well referenced and supported, but in fact it is a long way from either. Consider:
The "reference" link being claimed for this entire paragraph pretty much confirms that there is a newspaper called the Gator Gazette. And that's it. The rest of the paragraph - which reads like an anecdote, not an encyclopedia entry, anyway - is completely unsupported. It's the same throughout the text, but gets really bad towards the last few sections. There's also some things that are crying out for additional citations: Houston Chronicle apparently says the school runs a "tight ship" on discipline, but is completely uncited.
As an exercise, I strongly suggest taking a copy of this article to a subpage of your user page. Then delete everything that isn't footnoted. After that, check the references provided in the footnotes, one by one. Ask yourself whether it satisfies WP:RS: if not, delete it and the text it is supposedly referencing. If the source is fine, then go back to the text that it footnotes, and delete anything that isn't explicitly stated in the reference. Facts that can only be found by browsing around within a website should be referenced using the particular page that the fact comes from. Don't let in weasel words: scrub out anything that looks like "some people considered" and make it clear who said or did what, and (if necessary) who reported it. If there was anything so important you couldn't bear to delete it, you need to find and cite a reliable source for it. Chances are, if you can't, it wasn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia in the first place. After that, fix up the formatting issues (e.g. italicize newspaper titles) and privacy issues (scrub out instances of naming people unless it is clearly necessary) and sort out the image licensing ... and by the end of all that, you'll probably be left with a pretty decent article. To improve it, you could move stuff around and restructure it, so that it no longer looks so much like a dispute but more like an article. You could add more material (e.g. from past exam results or inspection reports).
By the end of that I think that you'd have a really decent article on your hands. Following the letter and spirit of WP:V will help you strip out from this article the rubbish that doesn't belong and encourage you to build on some of its stronger foundations.
At the moment, what at first sight looks like a well-referenced article, essentially consists of a large amount of utterly unsupported rumor, innuendo, anecdotes and generalizations. The footnotes make it look like there are reliable sources to back them up, but there generally aren't. This isn't just bad form, it's positively dangerous, especially when dealing with recent issues and controversies.
On the other hand, this article has definitely come a long long way in a relatively short matter of time. It has a relatively good core to build from, it's just buried in quite a bit of unencylopedic baggage at the moment, and needs to be cut free. There seems to be enough material on this school to bring this up to featured article status. Bear in mind that for lengthier articles, GA status is meant for articles that are almost at FA level. If this got brought to WP:FAC it would be torn to shreds mercilessly. But there's no reason it can't get there - it will take strong editorial judgment and some ruthless, dispassionate editing.
One more thing - anything mentioned in the lead, should appear later in the article body (see WP:LEAD). The Wikipedia claim does not. Only verified information should be in this article. The Wikipedia claim is not. Completely trivial things should not really appear in an article. The Wikipedia claim probably is. Wikipedia has a strong editorial consensus to avoid self references. Basically, the Wikipedia blocking thing has just got to go.
Apart from that, I would strongly recommend just sitting down and having a breather, then before editing this article again, read thoroughly through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Even the six taken together are surprisingly short. If you understand these thoroughly, the quality of this article will increase even faster. Good luck with it! TheGrappler 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a few things from the article that were either inappropriate content about a living person, or used sources that didn't support the controversial content. Finally, there was something about the Katy Independent School District policy for random drug testing starting in the 2004-2005 school year. This seems like it should be in the KISD article. The Houston Chronicle page is still available. [1] Gimmetrow 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I have made numerous edits to this article in the past couple days and a newly registered account keeps reverting them without discussion. In most cases the edits were to bring the article in line with the school article guidelines, but there was some removal of WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY. All edits were explained completely in the edit summaries. I invite any interested editor here to discuss what makes for a quality school article, and I will be happy to re-explain my actions to any interested party. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Cinco Ranch 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cinco Ranch 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This states the attendance zone when the school first opened
http://web.archive.org/web/19990424010319/http://www.katy.isd.tenet.edu/kisd/releases/crhszones.htm
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cinco Ranch High School was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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. | ||||||||||
|
The stuff about Cinco being "college" is unverifiable and irresponsible. I took many AP classes at Cinco and I find college to be quite a challenge indeed.
Attention to whoever initially wrote this page: PLEASE STOP AND RETAKE ENGLISH! "Wikipedia is used by many students for reference purposes, so there is much criticism of this blockage. The Websense internet site lists Wikipedia under the heading "reference"; however, the program can block any material which it deems unfit. i.e. ("tasteless", "sex", "racism and hate", "games")." - That is a reflection of 6th grade writing skills, not "college" level skills. Your article was filled with tasteless, offensive, immature statements, reflecting the poor education you received from this high school and an overall insensitivity to other social classes. These problems have been mostly corrected; in the future, please refrain from making egotistical comments without objective proof.
Sorry for being bigoted and biased but I was pissed and still am. Instead of stripping my two-cents off the page you could maybe make it less biased and more factual. And calling my writing skills "a reflection of 6th grade writing skills" is mean and unfounded seeing I have written many articles on Wikipedia without removal or reproach. EX. Bully (film)
ACtually, for me, it's not your "writing skills" that bother me (and I'm not the one who posted the "retake english" stuff, but still-- it's the content. Whoever you are, you have to realize that a lot of the things you typed in here were not the stuff of encyclopedias. For instance: a student refuted a calculus theory and was "quieted?" Rumors have no place in an encyclopedia entry. And frankly, neither do issues that only relate to a select few. Saying that "students said Cinco made college seem easy" is taking the words of a few and extending it into a general discription. I could go on. Lastly, you might want to look more closely at your "Bully" page, where I saw a few grammatical mistakes on a glance. Anyway, thanks for the effort, and try not to let people get you angry or upset; I think they usually mean well. --Unsolvedmre 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with those paragraphs is that they're unverifiable, biased, and irresponsible.
I think your mixing up people. The only thing I added to the CRHS article was about Wikipedia being banned - and in hindsight it wasn't very wikiesque. Crucify the guy that actually is writing crap (i.e. rumors)! thanks Andman8 01:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
How about you take a look at Taylor High's page and add stuff to ours that they have. Accolades? Famous alumni?
most particularly, i would like to see pictures on this page. There are incredible numbers of pics of the exterior of the school, the interior, and students in action online, accessible via the school's website. Could even just do a google image search for cinco ranch high. Surely some of these are useable within wiki terms of use. The bottom line is, i do not feel qualified to add images to wikipedia due to a lack of experience with compyrights, and will not undertake to do so until i am ready, but I feel like someone like Whisper could do a great service to this article with some pics. Thanks
Some people on this page seem to be asking for guidance on copyright and images. Wikipedia is (as seen under the logo graphic) "The Free Encyclopedia". "Free" means that other people should be able to reuse our stuff without having to worry about its copyright status. Grabbing pictures off somebody else's website and then reusing them on ours isn't going to help that. It's not a tragedy if an article doesn't have pictures; they can always be added later by somebody who does have the opportunity to take them. But if anybody editing this article attends or otherwise has access to this school, it would be great if they could take some pictures of their own! An alternative is to ask the school to provide their own and license them so that they can be used. Because we want content to be reusable, that means licensing it freely (i.e. to anybody, including commercial sources), not just giving permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If you do want to use pictures for which somebody else holds copyright and want to persuade them to license it, the best place to look is WP:COPYREQ. If it's necessary to make use of the much more limited "fair use" provision, which is probably irrelevant so long as some free use pictures can be found instead (unless the fair use pictures really say something special about the school, there's no point of having them in if there are free use ones too) the best place to look is WP:FU. Something to note is that fair use images must be informative, not just decorative, and so consensus seems to be that they shouldn't really be used in galleries. Fair use pictures may well be lost in printed or CD-released editions of Wikipedia or in WikiReaders so are worth avoiding if possible for that reason too. Why bother clogging up a "free" encyclopedia with copyright issues, if there are enough freely licensed images to show the average reader anything that's really important (remembering that this is an encyclopedia entry, not a brochure)? TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I went up to cinco the other day and took all the pictures myself. I freely give them to public domain but maybe I used the wrong copyright. The only pic I took off another site was the main one but i'll change that in a sec. Andman8 16:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting this on hold at the moment; there's a lot of stuff that's good but many of the images currently lack copyright info and are in line for deletion. That needs to be sorted before this can be properly reviewed. TheGrappler 01:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the cougar thing. Like I said, took all the pics myself but screwed up on some of the lincenses, It looks good now though Andman8 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There's certainly enough material here to make a good article. There is no real reason this can't grow into a featured article. But at the moment the inclusion and exclusion of material seems poorly thought through and uncharacteristic of an encyclopedia (at one stage, a mice prank and the name of the yearbook compiler were relevant enough to put in, but the decision-making that went into the founding of the school - something which is always controversial and for which lots of published material would be available - isn't explained at all?) and the article suffers from a really big structural flaw. Please remember that this isn't an article about a row between a School administration and its critics. It's not an article about a struggle between a school and its pupils. It's not an article about a battle between a school and some pervs. At the moment, the article is writen like an argument between two sides. It's meant to be an article about a school. The featured school articles I listed above do not leave the feeling that they're about an argument. That doesn't mean they aren't written from a neutral point of view. TheGrappler 10:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have had to decline this GA nomination now it's no longer on hold. There's a couple of stylistic things to sort out - newspaper and magazine title should be in italics - but that's not my prime concern. My opinion's gone a long way down since I checked out all the references. I have still got concerns about the dialectic structure of the article (it's meant to be a factual entry about a school, not a summary of claims and counterclaims in a theoretical argument between the school administration and its critics). I also have very serious concerns about some of the material in this article but I suspect that that will mostly get cleared up if what I am about to explain gets heeded. I also think it's worth reiterating that it's a very bad idea to mention anybody by name if they do not deserve an article of their own, unless they are pretty central to this article and there is a really, really good reason to. Other than that, there's now also a fair use image with a rather dodgy fair use claim.
But the big problem has a lot to do with the references. This article is definitely salvagable but you need to strip large parts of it down and reconstruct it, based on the six key principles of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Look at some of the featured articles on schools: Caulfield Grammar School, Hopkins School and Plano Senior High School. Taste the quality. Work out what kind of information those articles are including. Observe how they handle areas of controversy (those articles aren't split into "For" and "Against" sections, which this one seems to be tending towards). Look at the sort of facts that are included, the way they are referenced, then check out the references to see how the reference matches the fact.
In short, this article needs to consist of a series of neutrally reported facts. Every single part of those facts should appear in one of the references, and after every couple of facts one should expect to see a reference. When the reader checks out that reference, the facts for which it has been cited should all be clearly stated in the reference. In effect, the reference should be the source material that the fact, at least in the form stated, came from.
This article currently contains a lot of anecdotes and generalizations. The reason I am so strongly opposed to this getting GA status is that in fact many of the "references" are often just tangentially related weblinks, sometimes clearly not from a reliable source, and which often just add another anecdote to the issue. The references need to state the facts that they are being cited for. Any fact that can not be referenced in this way should be removed from the article. I can honestly say that I've never seen a referenced article so badly referenced. I find this quite troubling - as a Wikipedian, I was very glad when the new Footnotes system was introduced (the previous footnotes system was very hard to use), because I believed that it would make our articles trustworthy and verifiable. This article is abusing them very seriously: the provision of extensive footnotes makes this article appear to be well referenced and supported, but in fact it is a long way from either. Consider:
The "reference" link being claimed for this entire paragraph pretty much confirms that there is a newspaper called the Gator Gazette. And that's it. The rest of the paragraph - which reads like an anecdote, not an encyclopedia entry, anyway - is completely unsupported. It's the same throughout the text, but gets really bad towards the last few sections. There's also some things that are crying out for additional citations: Houston Chronicle apparently says the school runs a "tight ship" on discipline, but is completely uncited.
As an exercise, I strongly suggest taking a copy of this article to a subpage of your user page. Then delete everything that isn't footnoted. After that, check the references provided in the footnotes, one by one. Ask yourself whether it satisfies WP:RS: if not, delete it and the text it is supposedly referencing. If the source is fine, then go back to the text that it footnotes, and delete anything that isn't explicitly stated in the reference. Facts that can only be found by browsing around within a website should be referenced using the particular page that the fact comes from. Don't let in weasel words: scrub out anything that looks like "some people considered" and make it clear who said or did what, and (if necessary) who reported it. If there was anything so important you couldn't bear to delete it, you need to find and cite a reliable source for it. Chances are, if you can't, it wasn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia in the first place. After that, fix up the formatting issues (e.g. italicize newspaper titles) and privacy issues (scrub out instances of naming people unless it is clearly necessary) and sort out the image licensing ... and by the end of all that, you'll probably be left with a pretty decent article. To improve it, you could move stuff around and restructure it, so that it no longer looks so much like a dispute but more like an article. You could add more material (e.g. from past exam results or inspection reports).
By the end of that I think that you'd have a really decent article on your hands. Following the letter and spirit of WP:V will help you strip out from this article the rubbish that doesn't belong and encourage you to build on some of its stronger foundations.
At the moment, what at first sight looks like a well-referenced article, essentially consists of a large amount of utterly unsupported rumor, innuendo, anecdotes and generalizations. The footnotes make it look like there are reliable sources to back them up, but there generally aren't. This isn't just bad form, it's positively dangerous, especially when dealing with recent issues and controversies.
On the other hand, this article has definitely come a long long way in a relatively short matter of time. It has a relatively good core to build from, it's just buried in quite a bit of unencylopedic baggage at the moment, and needs to be cut free. There seems to be enough material on this school to bring this up to featured article status. Bear in mind that for lengthier articles, GA status is meant for articles that are almost at FA level. If this got brought to WP:FAC it would be torn to shreds mercilessly. But there's no reason it can't get there - it will take strong editorial judgment and some ruthless, dispassionate editing.
One more thing - anything mentioned in the lead, should appear later in the article body (see WP:LEAD). The Wikipedia claim does not. Only verified information should be in this article. The Wikipedia claim is not. Completely trivial things should not really appear in an article. The Wikipedia claim probably is. Wikipedia has a strong editorial consensus to avoid self references. Basically, the Wikipedia blocking thing has just got to go.
Apart from that, I would strongly recommend just sitting down and having a breather, then before editing this article again, read thoroughly through WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:WEASEL and WP:NPOV. Even the six taken together are surprisingly short. If you understand these thoroughly, the quality of this article will increase even faster. Good luck with it! TheGrappler 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a few things from the article that were either inappropriate content about a living person, or used sources that didn't support the controversial content. Finally, there was something about the Katy Independent School District policy for random drug testing starting in the 2004-2005 school year. This seems like it should be in the KISD article. The Houston Chronicle page is still available. [1] Gimmetrow 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I have made numerous edits to this article in the past couple days and a newly registered account keeps reverting them without discussion. In most cases the edits were to bring the article in line with the school article guidelines, but there was some removal of WP:PEACOCK and WP:PUFFERY. All edits were explained completely in the edit summaries. I invite any interested editor here to discuss what makes for a quality school article, and I will be happy to re-explain my actions to any interested party. Gtwfan52 ( talk) 20:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Cinco Ranch 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cinco Ranch 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, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This states the attendance zone when the school first opened
http://web.archive.org/web/19990424010319/http://www.katy.isd.tenet.edu/kisd/releases/crhszones.htm
WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)