Talk:Preuss School

nice comment

nice comment Rewster Victuallers 14:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Preuss School student?

Welcome! If you are a Preuss School student, your contributions to this article are needed! Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal home page. More information can be found at Welcome, newcomers and What Wikipedia is not. Thanks! Rewster 02:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

GA review

1. Well Written Y

2. Factually accurate Y

3. Broad in its coverage Y

4. Neutral point of view Y

5. Stability Y Some persistent vandalism occured around 1 month ago, but this shouldn't be a problem.

6. Images Y

This article passes GA review. OhanaUnited 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The first image needs a fair use rationale for the article to keep its current status. Look to similar passed GA/FAs for examples of what to include in the detailed rationale. --Nehrams2020 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done OhanaUnited 13:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of WP:MOS attention needed

I left sample edits only, along with some inline queries; please read my edit summaries and check each edit, as they are samples of MOS work needed throughout. Also, citations are incomplete and often incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a large body of work to be done, but thanks a lot for going through. I will try and get to them, but it will likely have to wait until this weekend. This really is the sort of thing I needed though, I should be able to follow the samples from here. Thanks and cheers. SorryGuy 07:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I saw your note to Tony1 (don't ask me how I got there), and I wanted to apologize on behalf of the League of Copy-Editors for the lack of response. The League currently lists some 260+ members, but only a literal handful (single digits) are active now or at any other given time. With a 2600+ backlog -- well, you can see the problem. It looks like SandyGeorgia has given you good advice. When you have completed all of those suggested fixes, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try to do the copy-edit. Perhaps I can help you get this to FA as I did for Florida Atlantic University. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks, I really appreciate the offer. As I told SandyGeorgia, I hope to be able to get to those fixes this weekend. I'll make sure I let you know, though. SorryGuy 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Spell out abbreviations on first appearance

"The study did, however, find that the number of A-G courses and AP classes..." What do A-G and AP mean? Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. Regards from the LoCE, Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC),

I plunged in without reading the Talk page or looking at the page history. I, too, was stopped by A-G and AP. It appears that A-G is a California designation for college prep courses. I could not find any explanation of where the "A" and the "G" came from or what they might stand for. Finetooth (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, A-G are the courses that the UC asks for on applications. I also really have no idea what they stand for except that there are seven categories of necessary classes and that A-G is seven letters. SorryGuy 03:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, without my knowing the facts, I would suggest spelling that out for the reader: "The number of students taking the seven college preparatory courses (referred to as "courses A through G") required for admission to the University of California..." etc. Conciseness is a goal, but for items not likely to be understood by the average reader, explanations are in order (concise explanations, of course). Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
p. s. It might, or might not, be relevant to the article for you to research what these courses are and to list them. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two more that need to be spelled out in the Clubs section: M.E.D. Club and SWAP. Finetooth (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Airband also needs to be explained if it is to be included. It was wikilinked to an article on the radio spectrum used in aviation, which did not seem to me to fit with the idea of an Airband talent show. I deleted Airband and left in the talent show, but you might want to restore it. Finetooth (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing citation data

Many of the citations to newspapers are missing the publication date, and each one needs to be tracked down and added. This is a tedious job, and I'm going to hand it back to the main author(s) of the article. The "cite news" template is fine to use, but the newspaper or journal's name should go in the "publisher" space, and the "date" space and pipe symbol that you can generate by holding down the Shift key and pressing the backslash key on your keyboard to produce | can be inserted right after the publisher space. You can find the "cite news" template at WP:CIT in case you need to refer to it. I added the missing publication date to citation 32, which you can look at as a model as well. The publication date, as you insert it, should be autoformatted with the usual pair of square brackets. Finetooth (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was only three that needed them and I went ahead and added them. I also converted the work references to publisher references. Do the publishers now need to be italicized? SorryGuy  Talk  03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the names of newspapers and journals should appear in italics but should not be wikilinked in the citations. Thanks for fixing SWAP and the other naked acronyms. Meanwhile, I just re-wrote the paragraph about the controversy created by the CREATE report. The "boutique" charge didn't make sense to me until I checked the source and saw that the "reject" group consisted of those 150 kids who lost the lottery, not the much larger group that didn't qualify for other reasons. Thus, it was possible for people to say that Preuss was attracting highly-motivated kids, half of whom did well at Preuss and half of whom did equally well in mainstream schools. After understanding that, I could see how the number of AP courses mattered; even though the lottery losers had equally high test scores, they lost the opportunity offered by Preuss to get a leg up on the college courses. The headline writer for the cited newspaper article goofed. All the subtlety in the story was distorted in the headline, which was misleading. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that wording is probably better. I think we may have had an edit conflict of sorts, am I correct in assuming you did not mean to revert the corrections from work->publisher and the date additions? SorryGuy  Talk  04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't revert them on purpose. I have another question, though. I'm carefully reading the news stories about the second controversy because living people are involved. Caution here is in order. Everything in the article looks accurate and fair to me except for one thing that I can't verify. The claim that the "school changed between 65 and 100 failing grades to passing grades" doesn't seem to be supported by the cited story. I'm getting a bit weary, and it's certainly possible that it's there and that I'm just not seeing it. Would you please double-check and see if it's there and let me know. If it's not there, we can't use it unless you can find another reliable source. Finetooth (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will reinsert them then. I also see the BLP issues you did which is the reasoning behind rpetty much every sentence being referenced in that section. I can not find the original citation for the 65, although I think it was on the NBC San Diego website, it may be gone now as I can not find it. The article cited right after the article says 100, though, so I am just going to change it to that. SorryGuy  Talk  05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Not sure what you mean by BLP issues. The problem with just changing it to 100 is that the cited story says, "... focuses on about 100 grades, including some that were reportedly changed from F's into passing marks, a school official said yesterday." So, it appears to me that the auditors were looking at 100 initially but were vague about how many might be Fs changed to passing. I think I'll soften it to say, "... claimed that the school sometimes changed Fs to passing grades." If you disagree, we can discuss further. By the way, I'm almost done. I have one more little section to check, and then I can sign off on the copyedit. Finetooth (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More citation dates

I'm done. I don't think it possible that I caught everything, but I tried to be thorough. The citation dates are still not as complete as they should be. For example, citation 33 probably has a date associated with the news story. Beyond that, most cited source documents on the web will have dates on them somewhere. Not all do, but if you poke about, you will often find them. I tracked down the one for citation 13 and added it. Since the date was a month and a year (not a complete date and not and day and a month), it did not get autoformatting. I think you can probably find dates for most of the rest of the documents. Anyway, that's it. I'll sign off, and perhaps a proofreader will come in after me, though, as you have seen, LoCE is under a big pile of stuff. If you have any questions, I'll be around. Just give me a holler on this page or my user talk page. Good luck with the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the work. You did some great stuff. I think several of the dates got reverted per the above discussion, but I will go ahead and add them back in. Thanks again, though. SorryGuy  Talk  05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Good luck with the continuing process. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Preuss School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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

• 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)

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)

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)

Controversies section

An editor keeps deleting the "Controversies" section.[1][2][3] In two edit summaries he says that the material is irrelevant. Since it is about the school I don't see how it isn't relevant. Unless there's a good reason not to, I'll restore it.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A few suggestions

It is good to see some former GAs become GA candidates again, but while I am not a GA reviewer, here are a few observations:

• File:Preuss Logo1.png appears to be simple enough to be {{PD-textlogo}}, since text can't be copyrighted and the rest is just simple shapes. It should probably be re-tagged and moved to Commons.
• A category for the school should probably be created on Commons' and linked to from the article using {{Commons category}}.
• The lead does seem a little short to me. Can it be made a little longer to fully summarize the article per WP:LEAD?
• In the facilities section, the second paragraph either needs to be fully sourced or the sourcing made more clear, as some of if it lacks references, and that needs to be near perfect for GA.

Best of luck with the GA nomination. CT Cooper · talk 14:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Preuss School/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I picked this one to review because it is the longest-listed one where no review has been started.

My first comment is that the lead seems to have been treated as just another place to write about the school in general instead of being a summary of what is in the article. I spot checked 3 items and none of them were in the article. Could you review / work on the and then discuss.

After my first two reads and checking some sources I have some concerns about sourcing in general but chose one as an example to take a close look at. The is current reference #2. This is used 14 times to support some pretty specific and assertive statements about the school, just cited in general (no page numbers) to a 84 page document which seems to be on a much more general topic with not much about this school in it. Could you provide page numbers for the cites which use this reference?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I started the review on November 3 and on that date raised some questions in areas that would need work in order to pass. Did not receive any response. I pinged the nominator on November 5 to see if they had any interest in being that person and received no response. So it is now November 18th and I have not received any response from anyone. I have no alternative than to non-pass the article at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is really a quite frustrating review and one of the reasons I stepped away from Wikipedia. An article languishes in review for half a year, then once it is reviewed there is two weeks given for a response. Beyond just that, the problems that you cite as easily resolved, with the second issue being especially frustrating because the information is in the DOE release, if it had been sought out. When I have some time this weekend I'll try to revise the content of the article based on the substance of this review, but it really is frustrating. 216.15.52.187 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Can't speak for the long delay to start a review, I recently got involved to help reduce that. I was just looking to see if there is even a live body involved here. Waited two weeks with zero response of any kind, that seemed like a reasonable amount of time to wait. The issues noted are just my first pass, there probably are a few others, but if you are going to be involved I'm pretty confident that they could be resolved during the review process. I'd also be happy to help some. If you are going to be involved, may I suggest re-nominating, ping me on my talk page, and I'll start a review right away. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, being under review is not needed to make those tweaks to the article, unless you disagree with them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Result

I explained why it was non-passed in the edit summary. I normally also note it here but must have forgotten. In short, the article would need work by someone involved with it in order to pass, and there is nobody involved with it. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)