Talk:Bramhall High School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within Schools. | |
...well the school is notable. Tell us more? Some pics? What about the school? History? Victuallers 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
I just reverted for the second time an edit changing a good portion of the article. My concern is that the edits violate the neutral point of view policy, in that they form an opinion with regard to the school. Specific examples of pov in the recent additions, the opening sentence to one recently added paragraph reads "These ongoing and damaging controversies are typical of a school with a long history of the introduction of madcap schemes by modernist teaching managers who have been seeking to make a name for themselves in the borough." All in caps at the end is the note "COULD DO BETTER - HOPE TO SEE IMPROVEMENT NEXT YEAR." My strong feeling is that this is not written from a neutral point of view. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. The recent edits are clearly pov vandalism, but the whole article was previously full of unsourced criticism and commentary - probably by the same vandal. I think it should be stubbed to what can be reliably sourced. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies if I breached any protocols in previous edits I made. There was no intention to vandalise or otherwise damage the article. The school has a well publicised history of unpopular policy making, and financial controversy. I have removed the comments mentioned by teadrinker, above, and hope that this will suffice. bluetuliproseread
- No need to apologize, but I still have some concerns much of the article is editorializing. I took the liberty of cutting two paragraphs of unattributed text, as well as a fair amount of material which appeared to be written with a specific point of view. I still have some concerns that the article gives undue weight to criticism, but I don't have the means to fix it this evening. I apologize if this editing appears abrupt--I don't mean it as an attack on your writing personally--but I think the article needs some improvement. Thanks for the work and continued discussion. --TeaDrinker 08:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
