Talk:Sylvan Hills High School

Assessment

This article has been reassessed following this assessment, the result of this was this article remaining Start / Mid class. The feedback given was: A reasonable article with some references and a few sections. However, for this article to really reach "B" class it would need many of these section expanded and fully referenced. Also some pictures would help. Camaron1 | Chris 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• August 2012. Article now contains expanded sections particularly new History and Clubs and traditions sub-section; articles includes fully referenced sections and infobox and generally leaves the reader not wanting; article contains both a balanced approach to curriculum with both positive (awards) and negative (NCLB school improvement rating). Pictures are still being requested but not required for B rating. Djharrity (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  Given the request for re-assessment, I will give the article more detailed feedback shortly unless someone beats me to it. CT Cooper · talk 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback

A request for re-assessment was made for this article, and the article has been re-assessed, however no actual feedback has been given. I unfortunately didn't get round to doing so before going on holiday.

This article is generally well written and well maintained and the potential is certainly there for the article to reach good article status, although presently there are a number of issues which need resolving. I have reviewed the article and put some comments and suggestions below. They are not exhaustive, but they should point things in the write direction.

• Lead: The lead should introduce and summarize the article. The first sentence does the former well, but the article isn't well summarized here - there seems to be a lot about Sylvan Hills Middle School when this section should summarize what the article says about Sylvan Hills High School. WP:LEAD will provide guidance, but I will suggest that the lead be bigger with much more in it from the rest of the article.
  •  Done Re: Revised lead based on WP:LEAD analysis and interpretation to provide intro into academic and sports history and notability. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Infobox: Good, although some Wikipedians are against having references there as like with the lead, the content should be covered elsewhere in the article.
• History: Covers all decades, but seems to brief and could do with a lot more detail if existing or new sources, such as old books/newspaper cuttings, have this information. Something as significant as a Supreme Court ruling really ought to justify an entire paragraph and answer questions such as, on what grounds did the court uphold the school's position? The school name should only be in bold in the lead and the article should stick to a single format with the references - after punctuation, no spaces, is the norm.
  •  Done Re: Provided separate subsection on AR Supreme Court ruling; removed bold of school names in this section; standardized dates in references to DD Month YYYY format per template guidance. Djharrity (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Academics: Be careful with what is included and note WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, for instance, stating the schools opening/closing times is generally not necessary. The enrolment information would be more helpful with some context (is 43% high?), including what this indicates and how any implications are dealt with by the school. Some parts of this section are boarding on promotional, particularly the EAST initiative section. Stick to plain facts, and avoid vague praise and peacock terms. On the formatting, I would recommend putting references at the end of sentences and don't include external links within the article content.
  •  Done Re: Revised entry regarding EAST program (removed section, included some elements in main 'curriculum' paragraphs. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Extracurricular activities: The national and state championship seasons sub-section reads like something one would find in a school leaflet and needs re-writing. I would suggest just giving the numbers rather than putting them in brackets, and write formally ("the student-athletes won..." not "its student-athletes grabbing"). The list should be converted to prose if this is practical, but if isn't the years shouldn't be bolded and it should be in chronological order going down the list. For the remaining sub-sections, this information needs to be summarized better, as tables detailing individual games are not needed. The clubs and traditions section has no sourcing, which would be grounds to demote the article from B-class if I was harsh, and the first paragraph again reads as promotional.
  •  Done Re: Added sourcing to 'clubs and traditions' section. Removed listing of state championships and created prose related to each activity; revised statements to write more formally. 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awards and recognition: More detail would be helpful here. Why were these awards given?
  •  Done added some reasons and placed in chrono order. Djharrity (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• School statistics: Such a section shouldn't be necessary and probably falls foul of WP:NOTSTATS. In general pure statistics are not helpful to readers as they give too much information to digest and lack any context. Information in this section should either be removed entirely or converted to prose and placed in another section. School performance reports should go into academics or history and be explained in prose; demographics would go well in enrolment.
  •  Done removed section, moved some elements into prose. Djharrity (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Notable alumni: The correct layout and normally well sourced, but a few gaps need to be filled. There should probably be an introductory sentence, and while the year of graduation is not normally mentioned, if it is, it needs to be explained and not be abbreviated.
  •  Done Re: Added introductory sentences (using GA-class rated 'Auburn High School (Alabama)' as a guide); explained and removed abbreviations when referencing years; changed title to 'Notable people' to account for notable educators. Added pictures and captions to two alumnus. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• References: Well organized with only one dead link, but as much information as possible should be filled in with the citation templates e.g. publication dates. Also, stick to one style of dating in the references - see WP:DATEFORMAT.
  •  Done Re: Modified all references to DD Month YYYY format
• External links: Excessive. Only the school website should be there by default, and others should have a good reason to be there - see WP:EL. The link to Facebook doesn't appear to work and isn't appropriate anyway.
  •  Done Re: Removed all external links except for 'official website' and the district's website that offers meta-tags for each school, which acts as a form of official news related to SHHS. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Pictures: There aren't any, which makes the article rather bland. Unfortunatly the school doesn't appear to have a logo/emblem, which is what is normally present in the infobox. However, if anyone with a camera, point-and-shoot is fine, could visit the school and take some photos and upload them to Wikimedia Commons, it would really enhance the article.
  • Re: Using GA-class rated 'Auburn High School (Alabama)' as a guide, added pictures and captions to two alumnus. Completely agree that pictures of school would go far to improve article. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done Re: Added multiple photos of the school and placed photos in Wikimedia Commons. Djharrity (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend contributors have a detailed look at WP:WPSCH/AG, particularity the part on sections, to help structure the article better and determine what content is missing and what isn't appropriate. WP:WPSCH also has lists of featured and good articles which are worth a look at. I hope that helps. CT Cooper · talk 18:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Re: Inserted updates to article; summarized key points within well-structured assessment. Djharrity (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Good work. I didn't put this article on my watchlist so I wasn't aware that my assessment resulted in action - I'm very pleased find out that it has. I will try and post a response to some of the changes when I have a spare moment. CT Cooper · talk 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Added multiple photos of the school and placed photos in Wikimedia Commons. Djharrity (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Update

This article slipped off the radar with all the academic work I had to do, so apologies. Overall while the article is not faultless, it is certainly within shooting distance of GA, and could do with wider feedback - I would suggest opening a peer review. I will add this article to the list of potential GA candidates at WP:WPSCH. CT Cooper · talk 17:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)