Talk:Durham School of the Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Durham School of the Arts article.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	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 North Carolina, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve North Carolina-related articles to a feature-quality standard.	North Carolina Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Durham NC, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Durham NC. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.	Schools Portal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within Schools.

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Mr.crabby (talk · contribs) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Durham School of the Arts has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Durham School of the Arts was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 2, 2007

Contents 1 AP stuff 2 assess 3 Assessment 4 Good article nomination on hold 4.1 Notes

[edit] AP stuff

what is lit. and comp.? They are under AP English IV. Abbreviations are difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs)

Well, "lit" should be "Literature", but I'm not sure what "comp" means.. --Molotovnight 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assess

This is a good start. Lacks pictures. References are started but could be inline. No alumni listed. One claim to fame is the 2005 story which is good. But more history? A picture of the production/ protest would be good. Start could be a "B". Mid is only just.... tell us more Victuallers 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

This article has greatly improved since i last visited, I have edited to include more current events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxictwelve (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 25, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A few things need fixing. The grammar is sometimes very repetitive (example:"Durham High School was a high school for whites in the city of Durham"). I'd like a general review of the prose specifically considering this aspect, and I'll try and help out by doing some myself. Considering there is only one entry, the Notable alumni section should probably be integrated somewhere else or removed. Having entire sections for small bulleted lists without accompanying prose is undesirable unless a list is clearly necessary. In this spirit, Past Principals should be integrated with History (isn't that what it is part of?). Same goes with a few other sections. most of Recent Events should be a subsection of History. However, Construction should be a part of the Campus section, which is pretty thin right now.

2. Factually accurate?: This is big problem area. First off, the article is lacking in inline citations. Some sections - History, Middle school, and Vandalism - have no citations whatsoever. The bare minimum of inline refs is one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations (especially quotations). Also helpful is a ref for any claim likely to be challenged. Per the preceding comments, a major increase in the amount of inline referencing needs to occur.

3. Broad in coverage?: The introduction, per the guidelines of WP:LEAD, needs major expansion. A lead section should be a precise overview of the entire article, not just a definition of the subject and a mention of how students are enrolled. Most surprisingly, this article has little to no coverage of the content and type of arts education. The Classes section needs to be significantly expanded to distinguish the style and content of arts education at Durham.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fair and equal treatment given to all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: All of the images now present have licenses but no sources given (if they were self-made this must be noted).

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 19:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

For ease of reading, please place any questions or comments on the requested improvements below, rather than in the review itself. Thanks, VanTucky ^Talk

Okay, thanks so much for reviewing it, I'll see what I can do --Mr.crabby (Talk) 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say though that most of my edits will be on Sunday and Monday, so don't be surprised if the article looks the saem tommorrow. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. As long as you complete all the necessary changes within a week, the article will pass. VanTucky ^Talk 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, when you get the chance can you evaluate lead and how well it written again? I've tried to make improvements. Thanks again for all your help! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is better, but there is still a lot more citation work needed. Nice job on expanding the Campus section, but in addition to the ones I mention in the review, each of the paragraphs of that section needs at least one citation at the end (of each paragraph). VanTucky ^Talk 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still gathering information and sources, I do appreciate your help though. Thnaks again! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 03:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly things have come up and I am unable to take the time right now to turn DSA into a GA. I apologize for this and appreciate your help. Eventually, I will make the changes you recommended and renominate this. Thanks so much though, I really appreciate your help VanTucky! All the best --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your forthrightness. Please feel free to renominate the article once you have completed the requested improvements. Happy editing, VanTucky ^Talk 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)