Talk:Creighton Preparatory School/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs) 07:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It definitely meets the GA requirements. Nothing bad about it.Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- Making a quick scan of short reviews, I would like some investigation into the scope, neutrality and sources. This is a 300k+ article on a high school, which sends red flags immediately. The school has a long and storied history, this is true, but the first issue is that the article is basically unreadable due to its length. I would recommend splitting off relevant sections, and also question the depth given to some topics. Next, is the management of promotional tone; it is not awful in this regard, but worth some attention. Of course, attempting to achieve neutrality in the (lengthy) controversies section is another issue - handling this with the possibilities that there are editors wanting to make the school look worse/better may even disqualify by stability. Also, relevance and depth. Use of primary sources needs more attention, too. Not GA. Kingsif (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
New reviewer needed
editI've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since the original reviewer has withdrawn after the premature passage was reverted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Second opinion by Femke
editI agree with Kingsif that this article does not meet the GA criteria, and I believe it needs to be developed quite a bit further before it meets the criteria, and advice the nominator User:Etriusus to seek further help of a peer review if they're interested in learning more. Just a few examples:
- Most importantly, there are NPOV violations as described by Kingsif, with too many primary sources. For instance, the company executing drug testing is used as a source to say it has "successfully" been implemented, whereas secondary sources would probably touch on why drug testing is problematic.
- It contains non-encyclopedic information such as " These include A, B, and C day schedules with their own designated classes"
- There are BLP violations, with a police report used as a reference
- The see also section has external links. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)