Portal talk:Schools/Showcase articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GGS article contains considerably more text than Fettes, Winchester, and others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.252.190 (talk • contribs) 20:35, October 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • The amount of text doesn't show the quality of the article, of which the GGS article is almost all lists and not a good showcase of school articles. Also, I am trying to keep a balance of US, UK and Australian schools while looking for other nation articles to add too. Harro5 21:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The G.G.S. article is not merely lists, there are substantial sections on history and the Corio campus, where the vast majority of G.G.S. students are based. To argue that there are too many Australian schools is silly as there are some which have shorter, less detailed articles, but are included on the list. User:Vox latina

The GGS article is still dominated by lists (alumni, buildings) thus leaving only two paragraphs and a short intro in prose. Also, the images are of dubious copyrights (why not take some pics of your own under GDFL), and this article does not set itself aboive the rest in its current form. Harro5 08:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about the Phillips Exeter Academy page. I put up an {{NOPV}} tag, and its not been improved since (though admitedly, i've done little more than put up that tag). It seems to me incredibly POV, and i'm wondering if a.) it should still be a showcase or b.) if it is to remain a showcase, if others can take a look and work on fixing it. I will point out before i get accused of pushing my own agenda that i am an Andover grad, but regardless of my high school i feel that this article needs work if it is to remain a showcase article.jfg284 20:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Please come back and resumbit a nomination once the article is back up to scratch. Harro5 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: G.G.S. page extends to seperate pages for The Hermitage, Clyde School, and O.G.G.s.

Vote to add links[edit]

Proposal to add 2 links to Showcase:

Please vote below. If you are against this idea, please state why in your objection. Beyondcapricorn 08:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea Comradeash 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything properly cited? Because right now, the six "resources" deal with uniform, corporal punishment, and tuition...where, exactly, does the school song and school hymn get cited?jfg284 08:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retort Now there's two schools of thought on the citing of articles, theres what appears to be your opinion, which means everything that is stated as factual is referenced...then theres the issue of excessive referencing, which seems to pertain that only things that are somewhat dubious require referencing...do you really doubt the authenticity of the song/hymm? I COULD scan it out of the diary, but that would waste everyones time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comradeash (talk • contribs) .
      • Actually I believe that there's one: WP:V (and see WP:NOR). Now, this kind of non-citing is all of the wikipedia, and there's certainly too much to make a big deal out of, normally. However, when an article is up for any type of featured status, it has to follow the wikipedia guidelines (yes, including citation). Now, the scanning is probably unnecessary, but all im looking for is a reference of where you got it. That's where there's two sections: ==Resources== and ==External links==. Resources doesnt have to all online. Furthermore, due to WP:NOR, using the argument "i go to school there, take my word for it it's true" does not work.jfg284 08:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Against for saint mikes, at least. For both schools. Too much of the article is uncited, it seems like almost all of it was written from students of the school who don't realize that they need to seperate themselves from their school when writing about it. To name one thing in particular, this edit screams of hearsay. As noted on WP:NOR, "in most cases, Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth." Whether or not drama students overindulge is irrelevant if it can't be proved to those outside the St. Michaels community. Please look over this article as a whole and add references to sections that need it (more than one by one as i name them, do some critical thinking here and figure out what's cited and what's not.) Haven't had tim eto look at geelong yet, so i cant vote against it, but a vote against st. mikes for sure.jfg284 09:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) (Edited 9:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Reconsider? I think that most of what you have mentioned has been corrected. Comradeash 09:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please look over this article as a whole and add references to sections that need it (more than one by one as i name them, do some critical thinking here and figure out what's cited and what's not.) I still see a lot of uncited stuffjfg284 09:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I would agree with your contention regarding citation of resources, I would like to point out that this can in no way be a measure as to the worthiness of any article being put under the showcase articles banner on this portal. If you wish to use it as one, then perhaps you would care to explain why only one of the schools listed in the 3rd grouping of schools (caulfield grammar) has got anything on their page cited? If citing is a must for articles to be considered for this section, then by the standards you have set these other 5 schools must be removed immediately. Beyondcapricorn 09:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then maybe they should be removed (or, at the very least, cited). My main problem here is that much of these articles is annecdotal gossip well known perhaps in the schools themselves, but certainly unverifiable outside of that. jfg284 09:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The St Michaels article is the only one which presents so much which cannot be easily proven. The claims about incidents at the school and also about marketing need to be cited as they bring in opinion to the article. Harro5 09:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Same could be said for the Caulfield article. The claims about incidents surrounding the school (eg the graffiti in China) should be cited as it brings into question how accurate the article is. Beyondcapricorn 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • What exactly about the marketing section isn't about as self explanatory and stated plainly as fact as it should be? Comradeash 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Um...what casued you to ask that question? I think most everything in the article is self explanitory and stated plainly as fact as it should be. However, I could change the number 5 to the number 10, and it would still by "about as self explanatory and stated plainly as fact as it should be?". Or, I could change "smoking heroin" to "smoking opium." Or any number of things. The issue isn't how it's stated, the issue is if it's verifiable, as i've mentioned before. jfg284 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I am willing to hear reasons why either of these articles should be a showcase article, but this is not like WP:FAC where votes decide. That is not what the portal is for. If you wish to have St Michaels recognised by community consensus, head in that direction. No vote will be viewed as valid on this matter, but I am open to seeing why you think these articles deserve this recognition. Any attempt to bring this to be about my bias is without cause - the section itself shows I want to promote other schools on Wikipedia. Thanks. Harro5 08:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Harro5, it is not a matter of if you are willing. I need not your consent to add content to this portal as 1. I am also a member of Wikipedia, and 2. I am also a maintainer of this portal. I choose to ask for your consent out of kindness and respect and I ask you show the same to me and any other user who wishes to contribute. No-one here needs explain why such articles should be included, other than that they are quality, lengthy articles of standard that exceeds those that are already on the list. You should be thanking us for including you, not biting back by claiming you somehow have more right to this portal. You don't. Kind Regards, Beyondcapricorn 08:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Majority, it's not a matter of how many of you there are. Decisions on wikipedia are taken by discussion and consensus, not by voting. This is an inappropriate poll. Please see Don't vote on everything. Argue, don't bully. Think, don't vote. Thank you for striking out the above comment. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added for G.C.E.G.S. (203.19.252.190 08:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Proposal To Add School Link[edit]

Please vote below. If you are against this idea, please state why in your objection. --GorillazFanAdam 03:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The article is entirely lists, with only the lead being actual prose. The articles for this showcase should be well on their way to meeting featured article - although they don't need be worthy of successful FACs - and this article fails the first two criterion. Harro5 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Schools/Showcase_articles&oldid=930501608"