Talk:British International School Ho Chi Minh City

British International School Ho Chi Minh City 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 16, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 18, 2009	Good article reassessment	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British International School Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include:

Insufficient references – only the lead has references
"Mission Statement" – should be longer; perhaps explain the origins?
Format references per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access date

Once these issues have been resolved, please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my third point, I suggest using {{cite web}} to format web references and to use the publisher= and accessdate= fields. Documentation can be found on the template's page. Gary King (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have completed these points --Sauronjim (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still no publishers and access dates. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that as I have no idea what to put in these, I will have to just leave it as is, without Good Article. But thank's for your help. --Sauronjim (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added the {{cite web}} template, with title= url= publisher= and accessdate= fields, which I believe was the final point in your criteria. And I believe that unless you have another point, that it is now of good article quality, or at least able to be promoted to A-Class --Sauronjim (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, feel free to renominate the article then. Gary King (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox missing information

The source code for the infobox includes a number of fields which are not displayed in the article. These include:

Full time teachers
Accreditation

Is there any ~~simple~~ way to get these included in the infobox on the actual article? --Sauronjim (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:British International School Vietnam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am quick failing this - it is an advertisement with no independent verifiable sources jimfbleak (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not an advertisement, as it at no point makes any hint that the school is better then any other, and there are no independent sources available. Further more, the article has been failed before, and has met the criteria stated at that time, and surely if it did not meet the requirements for a quick fail the first time, it does not meet them before. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states that you should not be quick-failed "just because you are not willing to review an article in-depth". Wikipedia prefers that you give a set of things which need to be improved, rather then failing it without even trying. --Sauronjim (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the article failing the review, but not for a reason as bad, and utterly incorrect as this one is. Especially as you obviously planned on failing it, and then just ignoring it. The article's last reviewer was clearly interested in the improvement of the article --Sauronjim (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view it is arguable whether the article is even acceptable for Wikipedia, since it is clearly advertising. It contains completely unsourced spammy claims like A British education and qualifications are recognized, valued and respected around the world and is a thorough preparation for students to progress to colleges and universities of their choice in any country. and the only sources given are those of the school itself, with no independent references for any of the content. The history section is also a blatant copyright violation of the school website.

The mission statement is also pure spam - the actual mission statement says To prepare students for the future and futures for our students - the rest is pure spam.

Even if I ignored the spam, how can it be a potential GA if it has no wikilinks in the entire article, and the headings ignore MOS? I am sorely tempted to delete this article, but I'll give you some time to at least remove the spam jimfbleak (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure you are tempted to deleate it. That seems to be all you do around here. I've had a look at your talk page, and there seem to be a lot of articles you have deleated. I will grant you the wikilinks comment, I thought I had put them in, but apparently not, thanks for that one. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the actual mission statement says To prepare students for the future and futures for our students", because that is what I've put in the article. I will also grant you that the rest of the mission statement does sound a bit like an advertisement. I will hopefully get round to fixing it during the week, but cannot at this time. I'm afraid I don't understand how it ignores MOS, as I checked for that before nominating the second time, and I couldn't see anything wrong with it. The title is the name of the school, how can that change? The claim isn't unsourced, I have taken it, and referenced it, from the school's website. I would very much like to have other sources, but this isn't the kind of article that will have many other sources available. If I could find more, I would. And it is not copyright violation, I have the permission of the copyright holder, and if necessary, I will obtain it in writing. I have found a third-party source for the spammy claim that you quoted above, but as I said, I don't have time to insert it now, but I will do as soon as possible. --Sauronjim (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.

A source is useless for verification if it is not independent. Advertising-type claims such as the value of a British degree need a reputable independent source. The mission statement on the school's website is the single sentence I have quoted - the rest of your paragraph is just advertising.

The MoS issues are fairly minor, mainly incorrect capitalisation, I'd fix those if they were the only problem. Some statements do not seem to have any ref at all eg The students at BIS are mostly Korean, Vietnamese, Taiwanese or English. The teachers are mostly British or Australian. Is this WP:OR? Before you nominate again, please ensure that the article meets all these criteria jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?????

Do you guys actually go to this school? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.166.211 (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on British International School Ho Chi Minh City. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]