Talk:Preuss School/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Lead the lead should summarize all the topics brought up in the article. There is very little mentioned on the school's history and nothing about the controversies. There's nothing on the facilities and graduation requirements/schedule/faculty. In short the lead needs to be overhauled to meet the MOS requirements and the current GA Criteria.
The image has a poor fair use rationale. Please see other Fair-use images and put in the Fair-use template and do a more comprehensive work of justifying its use for this article. No question it's applicable, we just need to make sure we're covering the copyright bases.
I like that you added a sizeable section on controversies that the school has been involved in. Usually these school articles end up being shameless advertisements for the school with little or no negative aspects.
Question, does cite 37 in the Faculty sub section apply to the entire section? If so put it at the end of the section. The final sentence about not granting tenure to its teachers is unreferenced and is a significant departure from most schools in California.
There's a bit too much detail in the Clubs sub section. Readers don't really need to know at what time the clubs end and how many students take the late-activity bus home. Also how accurate is that information? The reference has an effective date of November 2007, any changes since then? Probably.
No references after the first paragraph in the Clubs sub section. This should be remedied.
The amount raised in the Events sub section for the classic car fundraiser is outdated. There should be a more up to date figure than 2004. If not then remove that information.
On that note it appears as though the article needs to be updated across the board. There are references to inclusion on Newsweek's top US High schools in 2007, anything since then? If it has not made the list since 2007 then this should be noted. There are many other references to acheivements in the mid 2000's, anything more current? All these allusions to 2005, 2006, and 2007 give the feel that the article hasn't really been updated in the last few years. Some of it is unavoidable but wherever possible please try to update with current information using recent dates.
Regarding references, the following links in the References section are dead: 11, 18, 29, 31 and 40. My link check tool may be a little off so if those numbers aren't correct please let me know and I'll investigate.
A couple of your references are missing a publisher, this along with accessdate and title are a bare minimum for references. The following refs needs a publisher: 4, 7, 31, and 37. Other than that your refs look great.

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)[reply]

The hold time is up but I feel as though the article would not take a lot of work to keep at GA standards. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the work. I will hold the article a little longer in the hopes that the work can be done. H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no work has been undertaken on this article I will delist. Please consider fixing and renominating. H1nkles (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]