Talk:Baton Rouge Magnet High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baton Rouge Magnet High School article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Building Condition

I believe the section on the building condition should be added back. While some may see it as having an agenda, it is factually important given that the school is a Registered Historic Place in Louisiana. -- Cozret (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Cozret's opinion. I do not believe that putting pictures of the school's unfortunate state is propaganda of any sort. Merely displaying what is there should be allowed, and without anyone's objection, I may add a gallery similar to the old one. Arachanox (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How do we make sure that images that are meant to convey such a message meet WP:RS. What method can we use to know that they're both current and accurate? In addition, the pictures give the impression that every single thing at the school is falling apart, which seems unlikely and therefore also violates WP:UNDUE. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
In a nutshell, how do we know
  1. When the pictures were taken?
  2. That the pictures are really the correct facility?
  3. what percentage of the facility is in that condition?
  4. What reliable sources discuss the condition of the facility?

AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I can say this much, as a BRMHS student I can fully confirm the validity of the statements and pictures related to the condition of the school, and a check of my IP address would likely confirm my location. Also, the official alumni page, http://www.brhsalumniassoc.org/photos.html, shows strong support of the evidence to the condition. If someone feels compelled to do the research, www.2theadvocate.com should include a few articles on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.74.109 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added some tags reflecting the condition of this section. I've also removed/trimmed some clearly problematic captions that ran afoul of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I've additionally found a reliable source for the water damage, although the extent of the damage is unclear, as well as the other issues originally alleged in the captions. Probably this should be trimmed to just a couple of other pictures to match reliable third-party sources. Those of you who live in the area are probably best suited to find more sources related to this. Your assistance is appreciated. I've also posted questions about this section at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Photographic_evidence so that we can get some input from others. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There. I've fixed it. Discuss any changes before editing again. It isn't WP:UNDUE anymore, but it (the image) adequately covers the topic. AtmanDave (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Listen. All of these pictures document verifiable facts, and supporting articles and websites have been footnoted. This is reality, and it will drastically impact the school. But I'm willing to split the "undue" difference, K? 68.13.73.193 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
AliveFreeHappy is clearly never going to be happy with it, because it's becoming clear he is upset about how other people will see the evidence. It doesn't matter how other people take it, facts don't have opinions. --Cozret (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I don't mind your "evidence" at all, I'm trying to improve the article so that one day it will pass a GA review. I hope that you'll be willing to help do that. As it stands the article has issues that need to be addressed so it can improve. We'd love to have to explain why you feel that having a large section with 8 pictures makes for a balanced article if that is your position. If not, please explain what and why and let's work it out. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhhhhhhh . . . there are only four pictures now, highlighting various physical problems at the school, though still not all. I winnowed the gallery to four in the spirit of compromise -- literally splitting the difference -- in an attempt to break the "undue" logjam. Call me naive, but I thought that WAS "working it out." 68.13.73.193 (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
When I wrote that someone had added all 8 pictures back, which is probably what threw you. I had originally trimmed it back to 4 myself. I think probably the captions should be shortened just to clean it up and the text should lead the images that support it, otherwise if you get the pictures first its a bit confusing. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that 4 pictures are sufficient; however, I think we should add more to the section of text right above this so the gallery doesn't seem disproportionate. The state of the school was on the local news yesterday, so I think it is now WP:DUE. However, need more text for the section. AtmanDave (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added another footnote to recent press coverage of the maintenance breakdown at Baton Rouge Magnet High . . . and other parish schools as well:

http://www.businessreport.com/news/2008/jan/15/baton-rouges-best-high-school-edn1/

Frankly, the photo gallery with the Baton Rouge Business Report article from Jan. 15 is in some respects more shocking than the Wikipedia photo gallery. The graphic nature of the school's condition -- and the impact that has on the education students receive -- makes, I think, the Wikipedia photo gallery not only appropriate, but perhaps a bit understated.

Furthermore, I hope that this most recent bit of documentation for what has been stated on Wikipedia would be grounds for resolving -- quickly and without a doubt -- the NPOV challenge with the article. I don't have time now, but perhaps someone else could condense the thrust of the Business Report article into a sentence or two and work it into the text of the building-condition section. 68.13.73.193 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Academics

For all that Baton Rouge Magnet is the third (or second, after the devastation of Ben Franklin by Katrina) highest testing school in Louisiana, there is precious little information to go on. I suggest that we focus more on the educational aspect of the school. GenericGabriel 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-and-paste

The history section of the article is virtually a direct cut-and-paste from the school's website. I'll try to rewrite it whenever I can, but if someone gets to it first, that'd be great too. Just make sure it's completely in your words if you want to write it.--Nibblesnbits 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics

We need to at least explain what the Ford Cup is instead of just saying that it was once the Picadilly cup.--Nibblesnbits 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalries

Caddo Magnet is not a particularly big rival of the school. I think we should also include athletic rivals and such.--Nibblesnbits 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Caddo is the rival of Baton Rouge High when it comes to academics, especially after the devastation wreaked upon New Orleans' Benjamin Franklin Magnet by Katrina.GenericGabriel 01:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Alumni

There're a lot more than Jindal--Nibblesnbits 06:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay Dardenne is NOT an alumnus of Baton Rouge Magnet High School, since he graduated in 1972. Prior to the 1977-78 school year the facility was known simply as Baton Rouge High School, as it did not have a magnet program.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BRMHSBulldog.jpg

Image:BRMHSBulldog.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I am re-assessing this article as B / Mid for WikiProject Schools. Current article is of a good length, has some references, includes pictures, and s info-box, giving it B class. Alumni, awards and history show this school has reasonable Mid importance. For GA class the article will need significant improvement with referencing, many sections such as 'Alumni' are currently completely unreferenced. This will also help the article follow WP:NPOV, which there currently some issues with, note that for GA the article will have to be in a stable state i.e no disputes over content in progress. I notice some school lyrics are included in the article - I would suggest these are checked to follow copyright and if alright are moved to WikiSource and linked to from the article. Do however include some information about the lyrics in context to the school if notable. For the 'Extracurricular activities' section try and convert this to prose if possible and put it into context, see WP:SCH#WNTI. Finally, try and make sure the article follows WP:MOS, for examples titles should only have the first letter of the first word capitalised unless it is a proper noun. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations and NPOV

Some of the article reads as an advert for the school. I have attempted to reword the worst examples and have also added wiki links but more work is needed. In addition the article needs more citations or the unreferenced material should be removed. It has the potential for being a very good encyclopaedic article. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Baton Rouge High is notorious for its various clubs and student organizations. Why is the school notorious? Does it have a bad reputation or did the editor mean that is well known for its clubs or just that the school has many clubs? Just one example of a poor choice of words for an encyclopaedia. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've updated and added a lot of citations for things you noted. Some did seem a bit excessive, but I added them anyway in most cases. Many that I left in were statements that are written very objectively and need to be rewritten or a citation added to prove that it is actually a fact and not opinion. I did however remove the {{Fact|April 2008}} that you had added to all of the Notable alumni. Per the guidelines in the WikiProject Schools notable alumni should either have their own wiki article or be cited by a third party. Since all of the current notable alumni have wiki's it makes no sense (to me) to cite them as well. Cheers! Bgautrea (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bgautrea regarding the removed citation requirements from the Alumni list. Can you point me at the policy that says you don't need one. I understand that the requirement is only that they attended at some point but I would have thought there was a need to show that they did actually attend; otherwise it is a list of anyone notable as any editor could add anyone without having to justify it... there must be some records. Whoever originally added the person must have some source for the attendance. I found one on the web for Bobby Jindal but didn't have time to search for the others. BTW, you have done a very good job at improving the article. keep up the good work. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK found it. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Alumni. I take the point but think the wiki article as a reference is only there to say that you don't need to show they are notable (as having a main article means they must be). We still need to have something to confirm they did actually attend. Have you checked that each individuals main page has a reference to attending the school? If so then I think duplicating that reference on the school page would cover the bases. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. I've checked all that are listed and all but one, Karey Kirkpatrick, have some reference back to BRMHS *cough* note that I didn't add the references as cheesy as some seem *cough*. But seeing your point and agreeing with it entirely, give me some time and I will add the citation needed back to the Karey Kirkpatrick entry. I will say my belief however is that this should in fact be added to the person's biography not cited here in the school article.Bgautrea (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes some references can be a little awkward lol. Are there any public records that list school attendance for US schools? References do not have to be available on the internet, just freely available so that they can be independently verified. I think we should ensure that the articles are back-linked. On the reference duplication, I agree that the reference MUST be on the biography page but also think that it is useful on the school page if only to highlight those without references. If a 'list of attendees' was publicly available then the same reference may cover multiple alumni. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)