After many problems with previous revisions were addressed, I would like to resubmit this article for featured status - it is definitely up-to-par.--
Zxcvbnm03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object. 1) Lacks an explicit references section, and the embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per
WP:CITE. 2) The article has multiple single sentence paragraphs that need to be combined with each other or other adjacent paragraphs. 3) A single paragraph lead is too short.
WP:LEAD recommends three paragraphs for an article over 30K in size. 4) The list of alumni killed during the
September 11, 2001 attacks needs to be reworked to comply with
Wikipedia is not a memorial. 5) The external links not being used inplace of footnotes need to be thinned as per
Wikipedia:External links. --Allen3talk03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
2)
Zxcvbnm has cleaned up several of these. The others appear to be standalone thoughts that probably bear expanding rather than coalescing with other paragraphs.
RossPatterson01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object, per Allen3. RyanG
erbil10 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't want to offer a vote either way, but regardless how the nomination goes (and, if the last two are any indication, it may not go so well) I think the Stuyvesant article is the best high school article on Wikipedia, and, perhaps with some work, will definitely become a FA. --
DanielNuyu06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Stax: Caulfield's article is indeed impressive; I was not aware of that article (or school for that matter). Thanks for the info. --
DanielNuyu05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I've just finished reading
Caulfield Grammar School and the
comments from its successful FAC nomination and
the previous failed attempt. Frankly, I don't get it. Both articles look pretty good to me, and I'm at a loss to see why CGS succeeded and Stuyvesant appears to be failing. I do see that the advocate (
Harro5) was pretty agressive at pressing commentors to make their objections actionable, but that doesn't seem very
WP:CIVIL to me. For my own education, and for the next time this article goes up on the ballot, can someone give me the short version of why CGS works for you and Stuy doesn't?
RossPatterson04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'll take that as constructive criticism shall I? Water off a duck's back. But the article does look very good; people are surprisingly fickle when it comes to passing schools at FAC. See
Hopkins School for the prime examples.
Harro511:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Most of my issues are dealt with, now this is just a matter of citation, I'm guessing. I'm happy to support this, as its promotion would be a good sign for Hopkins' eventual FAC. Some examples of things requiring citation:
"Stuyvesant High School is named after Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch governor of New Netherland before the ownership of the colony was transferred to England in 1664. The school is also commonly referred to as "Stuy," an abbreviation of Stuyvesant."
"The school was established in 1904 as a manual training school for boys, hosting 155 students and 12 faculty. In 1907, it moved from its original location at 225 East 23rd Street to 345 East 15th Street, where it remained for the following 85 years. Its reputation for excellence in math and science continued to grow, and the school had to be put on a double session in the early 1920s to accommodate the rising number of students. In the 1930s, admission tests were implemented, making it even more competitive. During the 1950s, a $2 million renovation was done on the building to update its classrooms, shops, libraries and cafeterias."
"In 1972, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts were chosen by the New York State Legislature as specialized high schools of New York City. The act called for an uniform exam to be administered for admission to Brooklyn Technical High School, Bronx High School of Science, and Stuyvesant High School. The exam would become known as the Specialized Science High Schools Admission Test (SSHSAT) and tested students in math and science."
"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Stuyvesant was stricken by the AIDS epidemic, with at least four teachers dying from that disease."
The facility and basic class information don't need a lot of citation, as they are things observed and known simply by being on campus (like not needing to cite the sentence "
Jesus Christ is a key figure in
Christianity"), but things like all these history quotes definetly need sourcing. Also, if you're keeping
Stuyvesant High School student body as a split-off, it could use a clean-up.
Staxringold00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Some formatting is required with the positioning of images especially the centenary and maths survey images which are positioned past the actual section and into the following. Aside from that I read the Caulfield Grammer School article and the Scotch College article currently nominated. Of the three this one reads better, more informative and well laid out(except as stated) Gnangarra15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support This article should be considered the standard for any school wanting to get FAC. It should also be noted as How to operate when nominating for FAC well done.
Gnangarra06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object, due to the references only. Add <ref></ref> around the bare URLs, then add a <references/> tag in a separate References section to get them all in one place. Afterwards, convert them to {{cite web}}.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a malformed nomination: it was created by erasing and overwriting the previous nom, as can be seen in the History. Please read the project page instructions for how to renominate while preserving the old nom as an archive, and fix this. It's quite important for the archive to exist. Reviewers need to be able to read the previous nomination, and preferably not by digging into the history of this one. I, for instance, made major objections which were ignored, and I'd be interested to see if they've been fixed now. Also, please put back the recently erased facfailed template for the old nom on the talkpage (and make it link to the archive, when you've created that).
Bishonen |
ノート02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC).reply
Thanks, Ross. Those were just examples, so I'll take a look a bit later. I've put a link to previous nom up top for ease of location.
Bishonen |
ノート08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC).reply
I should have pointed out last night that the changes I mentioned above weren't made just now - the article has been cleaned up a lot since the last nomination, and all I did was check to see if the items you mentioned were still present. Anyway, thanks for the critique - it's a tighter article today than it was then, and criticism helped make it better.
RossPatterson14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
About the "nickname in the first sentence" thing...the thing is, it's not just a nickname, even the administration refer to it as "Stuy," and the website is stuy.edu. So it should remain in the article. Also, a reference section was added, so there should be no objections due to lack of references.--
Zxcvbnm00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd like to acknowledge that the article is a whole lot better than last time. However. You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. By "speaking to", I mean things like assuming US practices to be default, or failing to explain or link American cultural specifics ("varsity") or, say, acronyms for government bodies (EPA). For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog). Altogether it's very easy in a school article to fall into the trap of excluding readers by assuming they'll know what an American student knows; I'm not really blaming the authors, but it should be fixed. What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found
FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful). These are nits to pick, and I'm certainly not opposing over them, but here's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you. Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia. There is such a lot about this school that is of general interest, after all.
Bishonen |
ノート11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC). (P.S., the movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.)reply
Support - This article is an exemplary piece of wikipedia's collaboratory efforts and a model for other school pages
abulanov13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As much as I love to support high school articles on Wikipedia, I have to support what Bishonen is saying. He did great work to help get
Caulfield Grammar School up to scratch, and should be listened to here as well.
Harro521:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
After many problems with previous revisions were addressed, I would like to resubmit this article for featured status - it is definitely up-to-par.--
Zxcvbnm03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object. 1) Lacks an explicit references section, and the embedded HTML links need to be converted into full citations as per
WP:CITE. 2) The article has multiple single sentence paragraphs that need to be combined with each other or other adjacent paragraphs. 3) A single paragraph lead is too short.
WP:LEAD recommends three paragraphs for an article over 30K in size. 4) The list of alumni killed during the
September 11, 2001 attacks needs to be reworked to comply with
Wikipedia is not a memorial. 5) The external links not being used inplace of footnotes need to be thinned as per
Wikipedia:External links. --Allen3talk03:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
2)
Zxcvbnm has cleaned up several of these. The others appear to be standalone thoughts that probably bear expanding rather than coalescing with other paragraphs.
RossPatterson01:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object, per Allen3. RyanG
erbil10 04:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't want to offer a vote either way, but regardless how the nomination goes (and, if the last two are any indication, it may not go so well) I think the Stuyvesant article is the best high school article on Wikipedia, and, perhaps with some work, will definitely become a FA. --
DanielNuyu06:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Stax: Caulfield's article is indeed impressive; I was not aware of that article (or school for that matter). Thanks for the info. --
DanielNuyu05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I've just finished reading
Caulfield Grammar School and the
comments from its successful FAC nomination and
the previous failed attempt. Frankly, I don't get it. Both articles look pretty good to me, and I'm at a loss to see why CGS succeeded and Stuyvesant appears to be failing. I do see that the advocate (
Harro5) was pretty agressive at pressing commentors to make their objections actionable, but that doesn't seem very
WP:CIVIL to me. For my own education, and for the next time this article goes up on the ballot, can someone give me the short version of why CGS works for you and Stuy doesn't?
RossPatterson04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'll take that as constructive criticism shall I? Water off a duck's back. But the article does look very good; people are surprisingly fickle when it comes to passing schools at FAC. See
Hopkins School for the prime examples.
Harro511:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Most of my issues are dealt with, now this is just a matter of citation, I'm guessing. I'm happy to support this, as its promotion would be a good sign for Hopkins' eventual FAC. Some examples of things requiring citation:
"Stuyvesant High School is named after Peter Stuyvesant, the last Dutch governor of New Netherland before the ownership of the colony was transferred to England in 1664. The school is also commonly referred to as "Stuy," an abbreviation of Stuyvesant."
"The school was established in 1904 as a manual training school for boys, hosting 155 students and 12 faculty. In 1907, it moved from its original location at 225 East 23rd Street to 345 East 15th Street, where it remained for the following 85 years. Its reputation for excellence in math and science continued to grow, and the school had to be put on a double session in the early 1920s to accommodate the rising number of students. In the 1930s, admission tests were implemented, making it even more competitive. During the 1950s, a $2 million renovation was done on the building to update its classrooms, shops, libraries and cafeterias."
"In 1972, Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, Stuyvesant High School, and Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts were chosen by the New York State Legislature as specialized high schools of New York City. The act called for an uniform exam to be administered for admission to Brooklyn Technical High School, Bronx High School of Science, and Stuyvesant High School. The exam would become known as the Specialized Science High Schools Admission Test (SSHSAT) and tested students in math and science."
"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Stuyvesant was stricken by the AIDS epidemic, with at least four teachers dying from that disease."
The facility and basic class information don't need a lot of citation, as they are things observed and known simply by being on campus (like not needing to cite the sentence "
Jesus Christ is a key figure in
Christianity"), but things like all these history quotes definetly need sourcing. Also, if you're keeping
Stuyvesant High School student body as a split-off, it could use a clean-up.
Staxringold00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Some formatting is required with the positioning of images especially the centenary and maths survey images which are positioned past the actual section and into the following. Aside from that I read the Caulfield Grammer School article and the Scotch College article currently nominated. Of the three this one reads better, more informative and well laid out(except as stated) Gnangarra15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support This article should be considered the standard for any school wanting to get FAC. It should also be noted as How to operate when nominating for FAC well done.
Gnangarra06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Object, due to the references only. Add <ref></ref> around the bare URLs, then add a <references/> tag in a separate References section to get them all in one place. Afterwards, convert them to {{cite web}}.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)02:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a malformed nomination: it was created by erasing and overwriting the previous nom, as can be seen in the History. Please read the project page instructions for how to renominate while preserving the old nom as an archive, and fix this. It's quite important for the archive to exist. Reviewers need to be able to read the previous nomination, and preferably not by digging into the history of this one. I, for instance, made major objections which were ignored, and I'd be interested to see if they've been fixed now. Also, please put back the recently erased facfailed template for the old nom on the talkpage (and make it link to the archive, when you've created that).
Bishonen |
ノート02:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC).reply
Thanks, Ross. Those were just examples, so I'll take a look a bit later. I've put a link to previous nom up top for ease of location.
Bishonen |
ノート08:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC).reply
I should have pointed out last night that the changes I mentioned above weren't made just now - the article has been cleaned up a lot since the last nomination, and all I did was check to see if the items you mentioned were still present. Anyway, thanks for the critique - it's a tighter article today than it was then, and criticism helped make it better.
RossPatterson14:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)reply
About the "nickname in the first sentence" thing...the thing is, it's not just a nickname, even the administration refer to it as "Stuy," and the website is stuy.edu. So it should remain in the article. Also, a reference section was added, so there should be no objections due to lack of references.--
Zxcvbnm00:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd like to acknowledge that the article is a whole lot better than last time. However. You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. By "speaking to", I mean things like assuming US practices to be default, or failing to explain or link American cultural specifics ("varsity") or, say, acronyms for government bodies (EPA). For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog). Altogether it's very easy in a school article to fall into the trap of excluding readers by assuming they'll know what an American student knows; I'm not really blaming the authors, but it should be fixed. What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found
FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful). These are nits to pick, and I'm certainly not opposing over them, but here's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you. Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia. There is such a lot about this school that is of general interest, after all.
Bishonen |
ノート11:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC). (P.S., the movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.)reply
Support - This article is an exemplary piece of wikipedia's collaboratory efforts and a model for other school pages
abulanov13:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As much as I love to support high school articles on Wikipedia, I have to support what Bishonen is saying. He did great work to help get
Caulfield Grammar School up to scratch, and should be listened to here as well.
Harro521:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)reply