Talk:Newfound Regional High School/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SuperHamster (talk · contribs) 03:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look at this. Will update in due time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

1. Well-written:

   • Clear and concise:
     • Some information isn't clear, as detailed in comments.
   • No copyright problems:
   • Spelling and grammar are correct:
     • Nothing major, but small errors and wording problems throughout.
   • Complies with the manual of style guidelines (lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation):
     • Lead is fine, but can be improved (especially as the article is hopefully improved). Biggest issue is that the motto should be taken out (see comments).

1. Verifiable with no original research:

   • Contains a list of all references, in accordance with the styling guidelines:
   • All in-line citations are from reliable sources:
     • No major reliability issues, but as covered in the comments below, there are other sourcing problems.
   • Citations done correctly for living persons or science-based articles (when applicable):
     • Not particularly applicable, but there is information about living persons that is unreferenced.
   • Contains no original research:
     • Everything seems to have come from a source of some sort - however, a lot of information isn't verified.

1. Broad in its coverage:

   • Addresses the main aspects of the topic:
     • More information should be provided, particularly with on the school's history.
   • Stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
     • Excess details on the school district, school board, athletics, classes, and grading, among other things (see comments).

1. Neutral:

   • Represents viewpoints fairly with due weight and without bias:
     • Nothing sticks out as a major NPOV problem. But I'm not seeing many independent or varied sources in the first place, so I'm leaving this unmarked. Make sure to representatively cover all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the high school, and as stated above, coverage is excess in some areas and lacking in others.

1. Stable:

   • Does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

1. Illustrations:

   • Images are adequate and relevant to represent the topic, and have suitable captions:
   • Images are appropriately tagged with their copyright status and, if applicable, fair use rationales for non-free content:

1. Overall:

   • Pass/Fail:

Comments

The article is a great start, but there are a variety of problems. WikiProject Schools' Article Guidelines are definitely worth a look at. Here are the biggest issues I noticed while reading through the article, following Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and the previously mentioned WikiProject guidelines. These issues will also expand on why I failed several criteria in the checklist above:

• A lot of the article isn't verified through sources. I'm looking for in-line citations that verify all information provided in the article. Some sources, namely TTCC, don't really verify the sentence that cites it.
• Of the references provided, a lot of them are from the school itself. If possible, identify independent reliable sources to both verify and add new content to the article.
• I see there's an unfinished to-do item left in the to-do list above; for future reference, I recommend nominating an article as good only after you've finished up your plans.
• I'd take the motto out of the lead; it's already in the infobox, and having it in the prose isn't significant (if anything, promotional).
• If information is available, there should be a history section, detailing the founding of the school and its following history.
• An entire section devoted to the school district is excessive, especially the list of other schools within the district. You should mention what school district the high school is in, but going into details about the school district itself is off topic.
  • Likewise, the school board section is excessive, as it has less to do with the high school and more to do with the district.
• "#SAU 4" - it's not clear what this is. If anything, looks like another Twitter #hashtag to me :)
• For athletics, I'd expect to see information on teams that win state or national championships. Runner-ups aren't particularly significant enough to be included, along with individual names and champions (unless particularly worth noting through extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources). This would mean cutting down or completely removing many of the tables provided for the athletics section.
• Avoid information that is useful only for people attending or working at the school. In this case, detailing grade weighting and scale is excessive.
• The 'Academics' section (which, based on its content, may be better titled 'Curriculum') shouldn't list all the courses offered. Instead, it should provide a broad overview (is the curriculum following state or national standards, or its own gig?). Anything particular about its curriculum that makes it unique, especially in the area?
• A lot of the article can be worded or organized better. Some particular examples:
  • "The other nominee was Christopher Lord. He was nominated to become the principal." → The second sentence is unnecessary; in context, it's clear that he was nominated for principal. In the end, a failed nominee isn't particularly worth noting anyway.
  • The 'Student activities' section is a bit of a run-on, with grammar/wording errors. It could be better organized, such as listing generic clubs first, then discussing athletics in a separate paragraph.
• Regarding images:
  • The current image of the school appears to be a copyright violation and is up for deletion.
  • If there is a school logo, crest, or emblem, it can be added to the article (most likely under our non-free image policy).

I know I've written a lot of stuff - I don't mean to be discouraging, but rather, I hope it serves as a good starting point for continuing to improve the article! I like to point towards Arlington Senior High School or duPont Manual High School as good examples to work towards. I know good article reviewers sometimes let the article be improved during the duration of the nomination, but in this case, I think an extensive re-look at the article is in order, and a new nomination in the distant future would be better. Thanks, and good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)