Talk:Windham High School (Ohio)

Assessment request: (Start/low)

I have assessed this article as (Start/low). Good work on the "Tomahawk Conference" so far, but it still needs some more sources. If you want to get this to attain B-class status you are going to have to do a lot of work on the rest of the article. — Calebrw (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Calebrw. That's exactly where I figured the article is right now. I just knew it had progressed beyond stub-class. We're still working on it, of course. -- JeffBillman (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While the section on the Tomahawk Conference is well written and cited, I'm not sure much of its information is relevant to this specific article, since the article is about Windham High School, not the Tomahawk Conference. Since there is already an article about the Tomahawk Conference, Tomahawk Conference, Ohio, 1958-1960, most of the information should be there (and already is). Really, the section on athletics should certainly make mention of the school's current affiliation and mention past affiliations and state championships, but much of the details, particularly of a conference that only lasted 4 years, should be on the page about the conference. If I were writing this I would definitely mention Windham's role in establishing the conference, but it seems like a bit much right now especially in light of the fact that there is little else on the article, particularly dealing with their current status. I would likely include a brief mention of the school's role in establishing the Tomahawk Conference in the general history section of the article since it was part of the school's growth due to the Ravenna Arsenal. Check out WP:WPSCHOOLS for the guidelines and even more, look at the featured articles for examples of what constitutes an excellent article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, and you're much of the reason why it's well written and cited. ;-) Still, you have a point. I would argue that the information is relevant to the subject at hand, but my argument would be moot as the point remains that the article addresses this particular matter with undue emphasis. I'll work on summarizing that section straight away. -- JeffBillman (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)