Wikipedia:Peer review/Hutchinson Central Technical High School/archive1

Hutchinson Central Technical High School[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have recently revamped this article and added references from the Official History, and news sources, as well as pictures of older buildings of the past. Thanks, Wolfnix • Talk • 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: At present the article looks in a very incomplete state. Some obvious areas of concern are:-

The lead is not a summary of the whole article, and needs to be expanded

Is there a specifc way I can improve this? This is one of the first articles I have revamps. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is very superficial, with lengthy gaps in the chronology. One example: no details of how the school grew from 64 pupils in 1904 to over 1,000 in 1918

An good explanation of this is the opening of the new building which is stated in the article. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In September 1905, the school's name was changed to Technical High School, pending the move to a new building to be built on Cedar Street and Clinton Ave; its corner stone was laid on November 14, 1912.[1] The Cedar Street building opened on July 14, 1918 with an enrollment of 1009 students, 863 boys and 146 girls. It offered evening classes, the first of its kind in Buffalo at the time.

The section carries very few citations to sources. Some paragraphs carry no citations at all, others hardly any. Every significant statement needs to be cited.

This can be fixed. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information is overdetailed, e.g. "This computer, with 20,000 BCD words of memory, was quite advanced for the time, and classes were taught in assembly language, symbolic programming, Fortran, Cobol, and numerical analysis."

How do you mean over-detailed? Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main source for the history appears to be an internal school history project, which does not constitute a reliable source.

How exactly does the internal school project not constitute a reliable source? The information is compiled from records from the school district, yearbooks, and other primary sources. A high school's history normally can not be reliable sourced elsewhere. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "In the news" section is mainly trivia and does not constitute encyclopedic content

This information can be merged into the history, but much of it constitutes recent history. If you can suggest a better name for the section, please do. I was just trying to separate, how do you say

There are style issues, e.g. inappropriate italicisation, use of abbreviatios ("Ave"), inconsistent formatting of larger numbers (sometimes written out, sometimes numerical), hyphens in number ranges etc

I will look into this one, thank you. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two wikilinks to disambiguation pages: Public school and Swimming. I'd say the latter link was unnecessary any way.

Both of these are fixed, the second link was to list the fact the school has a swimming time, a full listing of the sports time in {{infobox school}} is why it is there. Replaced with [Public_high_school|Public]] and Swimming respectively Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to ref 4 is broken.

Fixed, an extra m, after the link. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short, although your additional images and other work have improved it, I don't think the article is developed enough for the peer review process. You should use the points I have raised as a basis for improving it, and perhaps try again later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for your times and efforts in replying to the evaluation this article. I have replied inline, Thanks again. --Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} or {{Whisper Back}} message on my talk page.[reply]