Talk:Sunderland High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV (Neutral Point Of View)
This page is a perversely written, utterly blatant advert for the school. This article does in no way represent a Neutral Point of View. It has been edited several times, seemingly with a corporate bias; this page represents a school which is fee-paying.
Recent additions and edits to this page;
"The Junior School was the first school in the country to be awarded the prestigious Investors in People Leadership and Management Award."
"...in March 2006 it was one of the first schools in the country to achieve the BECTA ICT Mark."
"Examination results are consistently amongst the best in the area at all levels from Key Stage 1 to A Level (2005 100% pass rate). The Senior School, Junior School and Nursery have all gained national quality awards. The school was highly praised in the 2005 Independent Schools Inspectorate report, notably for its pastoral care and the quality of its extra-curricular provision. There is a very broad (previously: good) range of sports"
(The bold type above denotes words or phrases which have been edited into a previously existing sentence)
In addition, information on controversies of the school has been deleted on more than one occasion. I have therefore added a POV to the top of the page. I would request further discussion on this matter.
Edit: It has come to my attention that an article on another school owned by the United Schools Trust, which owns this school, has been written with seemingly flagrant regard for a Neutral Point of View.
Link: Surbiton High School
Jackeftklang 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The page has been re-edited in the light of the previous objections so that the tone and content are considerably less contentious. In the light of these amendments, which take account of the objections, the NPOV challenge should be withdrawn?
The fact that it is a fee-paying school has no bearing on whether or not the text is neutral. Neither has the fact that there is a challenge to the neutrality of a sister school within the United Church Schools Trust.
[edit] Challenge to the NPOV
The page has been re-edited in the light of the previous objections so that the tone and content are considerably less contentious. In the light of these amendments, which take account of the objections, the NPOV challenge should be withdrawn?
The fact that it is a fee-paying school has no bearing on whether or not the text is neutral. Neither has the fact that there is a challenge to the neutrality of a sister school within the United Church Schools Trust.
--
Firstly, full bucket of thanks to whomever has added the buildings section to this article, it is a welcome addition. In reference to the NPOV, I am still concerned that there are no negative verifiable points made in the article, apart from asides regarding building state of repair. While I do not forsee that consensus will be reached on this matter, I hope you understand that to maintain a Neutral Point of View there will have to be not only verifiable positives, but verifiable negatives - while that may be read as if I want some kind of 50/50 split between the two, I only want to balance the article out from the positives eg: "good range of sports and extra-curricular activities" and "an agreeable urban campus with pleasant grounds." etc.
Other points you have made about the NPOV have been noted.
+ Do we really want a list of prefects in this article? A list of teaching staff would be perhaps more useful? I have slightly adjusted the formatting of the Prefects and House Captains section in the meanwhile.
Jackeftklang 19:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
