Talk:Geelong High School

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited some stuff

I have edited this article to try and keep a neutral point of view, such as the part about the houses where it stated that "Barwon win 95% of house competitions due to their questionable "Win at all costs" ethics..." -- I felt that this would be too controversial and thus, was not needed. I also removed the part about the school's redevelopment "not taking into consideration students studying VCE" as that would also be classed as contriversial and we don't know for a fact that this is the case - that goes for both of the points made.

In addition to this, I also edited out the part where it talked about the school taking a high focus on sports "dispite the fact that there is an abundance of acedemically gifted students..." as to also keep a neutral point of view. Joker264 (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

Per a request made at the schools project, I am assessing this article. I am not currently changing its class status (remaining as "Start") and am giving it an assessment of "Low" importance for the project.

While I am not an expert in the spelling preferences in Australia, I recommend double checking spellings. Being American, I cannot be 100% sure if particular words are misspelled, or are properly spelled based on local rules.

There was still considerable wording that was not neutral. I tried to remove what I could.

For a school opened in 1910, the school's history should be fascinating, but is not even mentioned.

Above all, information must be properly referenced with reliable sources and properly cited. This point cannot be emphasized enough. I wish the best of luck to all editors who will be editing this article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Found a page in regards to the history on the schools official website: http://www.geelonghigh.vic.edu.au/About/history.html -- I'll get around to adding some stuff later or someone else can do it. I don't mind. Joker264 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Per request, I am reassessing this article to C class. Since the last assessment, there has been some expansion, notably the addition of a history section. There has also been some increased referencing and citing. Editors interested in improving the article to B-Class are encouraged to consult the criteria for B Class articles. I wish the editors good luck in improving the article with the school's centennial approaching. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 assessment

Using the B-Class criteria for assessment:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.N

The history section is largely unreferenced. There are two alumni (one red linked) which are not referenced. The exchange program is not referenced. Editors take note: references need not be electronic, but to move the article along these things will need to be referenced

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.N

Per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, mission statements, etal should not be included. I am not sure the controversy section meets the threshold of being "encyclopedic" ... but I acknowledge that this is a personal uncertainty. In any event ... if it does stay, it should be moved up to the history section. "Notable alumni" is generally the last section.

3. The article has a defined structure.Y

The structure itself (except for the controversy section, as noted above) is not problematic. I strongly urge editors to work on improving the leadin, IMO, this needs some work. Given the history of the school, half of the leadin deals with the recent renovations. This is minor, but I think it needs to be addressed a bit before going beyond a B-class.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.Y

There is nothing glaring in terms of problems in writing. I would recommend getting rid of the opening sentence in the History section, as it looks like it is introducing a list .... but there is no list. I would also recommend that the alumni list be written in a bit more of a prosaic style.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.N

It looks like the pictures were recently deleted out. This needs to be addressed (add new pictures or at least remove the frames of the deleted pics). B articles should have at least a few pictures.

6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.Y

I didn't find anything that didn't appear easy to understand, especially as a Yank trying to read an article about an Aussie school. That is not an absolute guarantee, but it is a decent enough indicator.

The article is progressing, but I do not think that I can recommend that it be bumped to a "B" class article yet. Please continue your good work with the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Curriculum

I expanded the curriculum section of this article, adding some more additional information. Please feel free to edit it as you will if it is too controversial but all points are cited so it shouldn't really be that much of an issue. Joker264 (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Suicides.

Both articles refer to a Geelong high school, not Geelong High School. Geelong has many high schools, and the suicides were at one of the other ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.128.235 (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)