Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stuyvesant High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Stuyvesant High School

Because it is a good article collab, and all the issues brought up in the last 2 noms have been cleared up, I would like to re-resubmit this article.--Zxcvbnm 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to previous nominations

here
and here.
  • Oppose Support I feel bad doing this, as I know how hard getting a school through an FAC is, but this needs work. First off, slow down a bit. This nomination should not have been listed before the Good Article Collab tag was taken out, and by manually archiving the previous nom your name was very mis-timestamped (I'm restamping it with this edit). Bullet pointing my points:
  • Second, I think the History and Enrollment sections should be switched in position, with "School facilities" and "9/11" taken out of the general History section.
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Third, large sections of "History" are still unsourced, such as the first two paragraphs of the section (that make some large and specific assertions) and some later paragraphs. Ditto for the first paragraph of the facilities section.
Fixed RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I see that you objected last time that the naming of the school was unsourced. I have added a reference for that as well, although it wasn't easy to find. I guess those of us who studied there just took it for granted, based on the life-sized portrait of Peter Stuyvesant in the lobby. RossPatterson 00:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, why not source things at least with the material they cover, such as some of the academic details with the course catalog, info on the sections of student publications with a copy of a student publication, etc.
Fixed - there's a link to a copy of the Math Survey in the Publications section, and a reference to the Parents Handbook section on graduation requirements and to the course catalog in the Academics section. And there have been student publication cover shots in the article for a long time, although it was in an odd location (since moved). RossPatterson 00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Plus, "Political Fire" and "The Broken Escalator" get full subsections for one sentence of text?
Fixed--Zxcvbnm 23:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Records for sports teams in this year do not warrant a spot on wiki unless they were notable as champions of one kind or another.
Fixed, by Zxcvbnm at 14:09 on 28 May 2006 RossPatterson 01:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally, the "Faculty Scholarship" section is just very strange indeed. Maybe trim and sub-section it under Stuy people? Staxringold 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed - You're right, it wasn't up to the standards of the rest of the article. I've done as you suggested. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree, and thanks for all the responses. I've changed to support, however, as a sidenote, it's generally not good to strike out other editor's comments. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - I agree with the above. Additionally, the lead section needs to be expanded as per the manual of style... three to four paragraphs, not two please. Also, there are {{fact}} tags in the article which need to be taken care of. Furthermore, Bishonen's objections from the previous FAC have not been fully addressed, in that there are unexplained, potentially US-centric terms used with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with them. Fieari 01:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The lede will be improved soon - several of us are working on it. It had been up to par, but Occam's (or somebody's) razor intervened and it got smaller. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed - There were only a couple of {{fact}}s, and they were easily dealt with. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's comments during the last nomination were very useful in improving the article. Her objections were heard and were acted on, many of them during the nomination, although that didn't save it at the time. Her comments then (summarized by me (RossPatterson)) were as follows:
  • You need to try harder to avoid speaking to a US audience exclusively. ... assuming US practices ... American cultural specifics ("varsity") ... acronyms for government bodies (EPA).
  • Fixed, maybe - Several of us have worked on this, but it's hard for American eyes and ears to spot these things. If there's anything left, I'd appreciate specific identification of them. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For instance, there's a section about "feeder patterns" (a non-obvious phrase to most non-Americans, surely, but that's a side issue), which turns out to be about the fact there there are no such patterns. At least remove the first "paragraph" in this section. But preferably the whole, because it's weak: it's too short to be a top-level section, and consists of too short paragraphs, and the claim that students "often" use deceptive pracices to get into the school is simply impressionistic—how on earth can I verify it? Source it, please (not from somebody's blog).
  • What is "the international FIRST competition"? What's PSAL? Feel free to link or explain words like varsity etc, preferably at first appearance (I just found FIRST linked further down, but that's sort of unhelpful).
  • Fixed - Over the last few months. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • [H]ere's the big one, over which I am opposing: the many dead or irrelevant links in the references section. The authors seem to be aware of them, dubbing them "Unknown, offline", but, uh, you can't source things in the article to a dead link just because there was one there in January 2005. Links are going to always keep deteriorating, and the idea is that you keep updating them, if you want the article to be one of Wikipedia's best. Please find the new URL, if it exists, or another source, or remove the info in the text. Or at the very least remove the null "reference", but if you take the last option, I think the Reference Police will get you.
  • Fixed - Every reference has been verified recently, and all are currently accessible using the URLs in the References section. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, incidentally, the account of the centennial celebration is incredibly uninteresting to the general reader. Please keep Stuy Struts and gala dinners and their guest speakers to the inner circle, don't put them in an international encyclopedia.
  • Fixed - There's still a bit of centennial stuff, but it's been reduced and moved to the History section where it belongs. RossPatterson 04:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • [T]he movie Hackers should only be mentioned in one place.
  • Hm. When I said Bishonen's complaints weren't covered, I had some specific locations in mind, but now I can't find them. Ah well. I guess the have been convered for the most part then. Still waiting on the lead of course. Additionally, I'm also concerned about the 9/11 section, in particular, the memorial part, since WP:NOT specifically states that wikipedia isn't a memorial. Are those names really encylcopedic for this article in particular? The proximity to the towers and the asbestos fear might be considered notable (though it could be debated), but the names? Fieari 08:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I de-listified the 9/11 memorial list so that it's less intrusive and in paragraph form, and expanded the lead to include 9/11 (someone cut off the lead before and I don't know why). The asbestos fear was a HUGE debate (everyone against this one guy who kept vandalizing the article with asbestos conspiracy stuff).--Zxcvbnm 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - As if there was any doubt from the foregoing. RossPatterson 04:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm reserving my judgement at present, as the oppositions are being cleaned up quickly and thoroughly, but as Fieari points out, the lead and the memorial list in the 9/11 paragraph are holding this article back. I'd love to support, and when these matters are dealt with I will not hesitate. On another note, I wait to see how Hopkins School appearing on the main page tomorrow wil affect the nom. Harro5 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, and well done to Zxcvbnm and Ross Patterson for this high-qaulity article with lots of great pics. I don't really see the need for the "self-segregation" section, as going on the info of the school paper isn't the best reference, but unless others have an issue with this I'm OK with it. Harro5 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This shouldn't evenm be an article. This school isn't notable. And don't give me the "But there have been four Nobel Prize winners that went there," I don't care! The school itself isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter111344 (talk • contribs)
    That's not an actionable objection, as subject matter is not part of the FA criteria. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Just a little bit Oppose. This article is really getting there! But since my ears are burning anyway, I'll keep up the tradition and keep complaining, if minorly. What's a double session? And the paragraph beginning "In 1972" is pretty incoherent. I know we're always getting told to avoid short paragraphs, but it's no solution to crowd natural one-sentence items together to make non sequitors like this: "Admission to LaGuardia High School is by audition rather than examination, in keeping with its artistic mission. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, at least four Stuyvesant teachers died from AIDS. In 1992, a new, waterfront building was constructed to house the high school." That's not prose, it's a list laid out as prose. Also, am I alone, and sick, in getting inappropriate associations from the claim that "approximately 43% of the total student body is female"? (Would it be possible to not use the word "body"?) Bishonen | talk 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
Fixed How does using the word "body" prevent this article from becoming featured? I will fix the "list paragraph" thing.--Zxcvbnm 03:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As was suggested by Staxringold above, please let the people who have made objections decide whether to strike them out. The word "body" won't prevent the article from becoming featured. I just thought you might want to avoid the associations to partial gender reassignment surgery (not that there's anything wrong with that). Bishonen | talk 04:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC).
Since I fixed all your objections (except the "body" thing, that's just ridiculous) is there anything else?--Zxcvbnm 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The objections to the article are withdrawn. I repeat that I'm the one that's supposed to strike them out. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Support a great article, very informative and its also very well referenced--Childzy 12:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)