Talk:Broad Run High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Broad Run High School has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Broad Run High School article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools.
Current Collaborations:	Oldest Wooden Schoolhouse - Westville Boys' High School - Guildford Grammar School - Greenwich High School

Archives

Archive 1 Feb 5, 2007

[edit] Amount of citations

I do like the fact that citations are put in the article and they do show the integrity of the article and why Broad Run has a GA rating. However, it seems that nearly every sentence has a citation next to it in some paragraphs. Do any of you think that some citations can be removed or at least that some areas seem to be with great deals of footnotes? 20176 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been dwelling on that for weeks now, and have the same impression. However, the Manual of Style is pretty specific and supports lots of cites for these reasons —

1. To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
2. To show that your edit isn't original research.
3. To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
4. To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
5. To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
6. To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.

I think we're mostly focused on 3, 5, 4, 2, and 6 here, in that order (or something close to it). So adequate citing is important. But I do think it interferes with readability. Consequently, I've been doing research, mostly reading Featured articles and comparing them to BR's. I'd like to get it to the point very soon of having a peer review so we can nominate it for FA status. The level of citing on FAs varies considerably. I think one issue we have is that of necessity there are quite a few statistics in the article. Possibly what we can do is move some of the specific cites from the Footnote section to the Sources section. These citations are certainly there to demonstrate credibility, but, more practically, they are maps for future editors to update stats that will change. Locating them in the Sources section still facilitates that purpose.

First thing, though, I'm going to remove 90% of the cites in the lead. This should be no problem since everything in the lead should be supported and covered in the rest of the article (and will therefore be cited there). That will improve readability. That means some expansion of the History section, but that was needed anyways.

I'm also going to ask for some input from Appraiser: she/he did the GA review and is knowledgeable.

— Jim Dunning  talk  : 04:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it seems excessive, but i figure we should probably err on the side of caution. I agree with increasing readability, especially in the lead, but we need to make sure at the same time we still have all our claims verified. The lead can probably lose most of them (unless we are supposed to cite facts the first time they are stated. I am unsure if we are required to do this or not). Also, would moving some of the citations to the end of the paragraph be acceptable? I know for most scholastic papers I was taught I should cite a source at the end of the sentence in which it is being used. -- Johnny06man 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading more than a few leads, the tacit style seems to lean toward minimal citing. The expressed style for leads, however, is to only state information that is explored more fully in the article body, like any good introduction. Therefore, I think we're safe in eliminating the refs in the lead as long as we're diligent about including the supporting information and cites in the body.

Also, I think we may be able to eliminate many of the missing cites after I go through some more yearbook volumes. I'll do this as quickly as I can so we can get the article in shape for peer review.

— Jim Dunning  talk  : 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks again for all the hard work going through the yearbooks! -- Johnny06man 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. All those yearbooks are squirreled away in a secret room at BR. Fortunately, they leave it unlocked a lot.

— Jim Dunning  talk  : 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long lead

Can the lead be trimmed at all? It's a touch long for an article of this type. PhoenixTwo 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the first paragraph can go under the History section 20176 00:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)