Talk:Lowell High School (San Francisco)/A 20080207

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A 20080207

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lowell High School (San Francisco). [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Vending Machine Theories

The section is highly op/ed than NPOV. Although the Albertson's stock information was cited, it has no phyiscal/actual value to the validity of the statement, nor to the section. It should be removed immediately.--jamesontaiTalk 16:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Computer and Geology clubs

Why was all mention of the Computer and Geology clubs removed? If the clubs are defunct, say so, but removing mentions and links to their still-active websites seems unnecessary. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Computer and Technology Club is still an active club on campus. Student Life in general was probably removed (not by me) to be equal with other qualified clubs on campus. --jamesontaiTalk 16:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Matt Cheng Foundation

Is the Matt Cheng Foundation really a club? I think there's someone on ASB named Matt Cheng, but I don't think he has a club. Can anyone confirm/deny? -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 04:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there really was a "Matt Cheng Foundation." It was founded by Matt Cheng, a Class of 2005 senior. The club's activities consisted of nothing more than watching Family Guy amongst a certain close-knit clique. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that this club evolved into the Family Guy Club. 138.23.20.10 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Although there was a "Matt Cheng Foundation" it is not Family Guy Club!!! "Family Guy Club" was created by a guy in the class of 2008 last year because he loves Family Guy

Family Guy Club was created by a senior class of 2003 in 2002. Not sure whether its existence was kept throughout the period of time I was at Lowell, but its activities seemed to be on and off. The class of 2008 student probably just revived the club.--jamesontaiTalk 16:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oldest High School?

I found an inconsistency with this page in that it states that Lowell is the oldest high school west of the Mississippi, I found the same claim on the Lincoln High School in Portland wiki entry. Does anyone know which one is technically correct? I added a comment on the Lincoln page, but it felt redundant here.Asedzie 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I figured it out. According to the history sections on the websites of the two schools, the Lincoln entry is incorrect.Asedzie 22:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

MCF is probably just spam, we have had similar stuff before. Unless someone shows me (Hat man, 0617) club docs, I am deleting it.

Are we defining clubs as those that successfully completed their mods, or including those that simply reemerged each semester but are clearly recognizable as enduring organizations?

I'm fairly sure MCF made it into a club listing or yearbook one year or another, but I don't have it on hand.

Vending Machines

Please stop adding the "vending machines" entry into this article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --physicq210 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How come you keep deleting the article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information << This does not state a reason for deleting that portion. I was a Lowell student as well and I remember reading about this in the school newspaper which is cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBhalsimYamouff (talk • contribs)

How is it notable? How does this section contribute to the article? If we are to include this, then we might as well include the "Not the Lowell" issue. --physicq210 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The section contributes to the article by providing readers with information that they might not be aware of. If readers are not interested they may simply skip over that section.

You are welcome to include the Not the Lowell. It's a tradition of the school. --DrBhalsimYamouff 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the reason is valid. And sign your edits. --physicq210 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please quote the portion in the link that makes the deletion valid? Saying so doesn't make it a fact. Provide citations, like those included in the Vending Machine article for example. --DrBhalsimYamouff 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I shall.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -from WP:NOT

  • emphasis added by me.
And don't edit other people's comments without their permission. It is considered rude and bad etiquette. --physicq210 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So who decides what is suitable? You?--DrBhalsimYamouff 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Now it is your turn to prove why it should be added, instead of making off-topic remarks. --physicq210 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhmm.. can physicq stop breaking my balls? I liked reading the vending machine article when I noticed that it disappeared when I tried looking for it 5 minutes later. It's a part of Lowell's history so it should be up, no matter how small a history it is. Otherwise it's just like not telling us Leonardo da Vinci's left handed because it doesn't matter what hand you write with. Plus, it does contribute to the article.. Think about it. When in the history of Lowell has there been an ice cream vending machine? Exactly. Please don't be a dick about this. You know, a private investigator? <3 4gisntenough 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try. Should we add that Cindy Sheehan visited Lowell (with protests)? Should we add the "06-06-06" incident? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random info bazaar. And no, it does not contribute anything to the encyclopedia, and no, Lowell's history can do without an entire section devoted to a popsicle vending machine. And no, I am not being a dick, contrary to your accusation. I'm not going to throw the rulebook around, but calling people dicks often involve calling themselves one. --physicq210 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Personally, I don't think those should be added. If you wanted to, you can. It's Wikipedia man. The way I see it, the article does contribute to Lowell's because it shows students believing in something and using their knowledge gained from that school, and using it in their school livelihood. What's so different about this article being posted than club names being posted? If something like that doesn't deserve to be up, I don't know what should be. And am I really calling myself a private investigator? Maybe, since I am instigating right now. Cheers. 4gisntenough 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the 060606 incident should be up. I mean, the pole was at a 60 degree angle. More application of knowledge learned from Lowell. Just that the spray painting was unnecessary. 4gisntenough 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think my last remark was off-topic, but if you plan on ignoring it what can I do? It should be included because according to [1] "Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it." My article had that. In fact some of the other entries in the Lowell High article had the same 'verifiability' or less, so if you choose to delete my entry it's out malice, considering you did nothing to other portions of the article. --DrBhalsimYamouff 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not arguing whether the information is correct, which is beyond dispute. The disagreement here is whether it is notable, and you have not provided any evidence that it is so. I am not ignoring you; you just haven't provided any evidence that such an incident is worthy of inclusion. And accusing me of deleting your entry out of spite is a display of bad faith. --physicq210 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

By the definition of notable [2], meaning "noted"[3], my addition to the article should remain on wikipedia. Otherwise, the vending machines would have never made it onto the newspaper. If you never saw people selling ice cream at school I highly recommend you spend less time in the library while you still have 2 years ahead of you.

Is there any way we can put this to a vote? I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement, but I would be willing to settle this democratically. --DrBhalsimYamouff 02:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I need not your condescending remarks about my life at Lowell. If we were to include this event just because it showed up in the Lowell, then we might as well include the news about Kermesse, Winterfaire, and the Spirit and Color Wars Rallies. And, yes, you can put it up for a vote, but it's not going to get us anywhere, because there will only be 2-3 votes, which is beyond consensus (see WP:CON). I'm not discouraging you from doing so, though. --physicq210 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that's such a good idea. Kermesse, Winterfaire, and the Rallies should totally be put in. It definately defines Lowell, though it may not sound as interesting as the ice cream vending machine fiasco. (no sarcasm intended) 4gisntenough 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Now I can't distinguish between sarcasm and reality because of your comment. Thanks. </sarcasm> --physicq210 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Cindy Sheehan and the 06-06-06 incident should be added. Sheehan is a notable enough individual that she has her own wikipedia entry. 06-06-06's are very far in between, I think every thousand years or so, and I've never heard of the flag pole being pulled out of the ground in Lowell's history before. --DrBhalsimYamouff 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it up for a vote. How many votes would you need to settle this? The only numbers I cought were the 60 to 80% majority.--DrBhalsimYamouff 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus. Usually, a vote takes a lot of people or else the vote is pointless. --physicq210 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How much is a lot? I can't find the number on that page.--DrBhalsimYamouff 03:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no minimum number. However, if you look around Wikipedia, you will see that polls that have only a few votes are often disregarded. Many Wikipedia polls often go beyond 20, 30, 50, even 100 votes for both sides. I'm not trying obstructing the vote, but a lot of people will have to vote to get this past. And frankly, voting for including a trivial section is not the best idea. --physicq210 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

i read the article while it was up, and i must say it was appropriate for wikipedia as it informs the reader of controversial events that indeed happened.just put it back, its not hurting anyone, and if you dont like it you might as well not read it. and who makes you judge of wikipedia? this is a free encyclopedia, and we should all have a right to edit it. --Chemictry211 20:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Add it as you wish. I won't delete it then. But accusing people of being "judge of Wikipedia" is considered a personal attack. --physicq210 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sinceyou're ok with it now, I took the liberty of restoring the page. --DrBhalsimYamouff 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I am one happy camper. 4gisntenough 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an alumnus('03) and I'm not going to touch the entry, but I think it's not worth including because similar incidents happen every year or two, and this is just one of them - it has no massive impact on the student body or general public. If we were talking about a Columbine, it would belong. But this kind of stuff is useful only in that it betrays the geeky nature of the school. 67.150.255.3 01:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm sad. 69.228.195.235 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oddball Trivia from 1971

The seldom-seen senior movie from the class of 1971 would be deemed inappropriate today--especially after the Columbine High School massacre. This was a student project of George Moore's Cinematography Production class during the 1971 Spring semester. The movie, originally titled "Boobs," is a tongue-in-cheek protest against the closed campus rule. Influenced by Lindsay Anderson's If... (film), it also contains subversive references to the Kent State shootings of May 4, 1970.

The goal was to make a movie that was representative of life at Lowell without focusing on just one group. The student body was socially Balkanized. Most school functions, like the Prom, tended to favor the SA (Student Activities) Office kids and the jocks. School publications like "Myriad" (the literary magazine) seemed out-of-touch with the mainstream. Most extracurricular organizations were also narrowly focused. This made it very difficult to find a unifying issue to drive the plot. Lastly, the film needed as many members of the senior class as possible to participate as extras.

A number of different story ideas were proposed but none were acceptable to the entire writing team. For lack of a better idea, a plot that had been derided for being juvenile and tasteless was accepted because the production was running out of time: A conspiracy representing every Lowell clique--jocks, hippies, rah-rahs, back-lawners, Pit people, etc.--is formed. They plan to escape across the Pit and the soccer field to Winston Drive. (There were no buildings on Winston adjacent to the campus back then, but a new cyclone fence had been erected, much to the dismay of many Lowellites.)

The JROTC battalion learns of the escape plan. They draw rifles from their arsenal and form a single rank facing the Pit. The JROTC troops shoot and kill most of the escapees. (The JROTC instructors cooperated with the production of this film which was directed by one of the cadets!) A handful of survivors scale the fence and escape on the back of a VW Beetle driven by a member of the varsity football team.

Unfortunately, someone dropped and broke the movie projector during the 1971 senior dinner (at Joe Jung's on Stockton & Clay). The class genius (admitted to MIT as a sophomore) could not repair the projector, so the movie was not seen by most of its intended audience. Later, a few people (who had not left for college yet) saw the movie in September when the 1971 yearbooks finally arrived, 3 months late. The film's director seems to possess the only extant print of this movie which he would supposedly screen at San Jose State University in the mid-1970s.

One would hope that all parties involved in the production of the 1971 senior movie found their 15 minutes of fame elsewhere--and in fields other than cinematography.

--Alan Smithee

Historical Milestones section error

In this section there are two errors that I know of:

"1962 School moved to current campus to make room for future expansion and add a library, gymnasium and larger auditorium"

The new campus was needed because the old building had been cited for earthquake safety issues perhaps as much as decades prior the actual move. The old campus had a library, two gyms and an auditorium which accomodated the entire student body.

AND:

"1966 Enrollment limited, school switched from neighborhood to GPA/test based admission"

This is wrong. I was Lowell class of '62, and it was still GPA/test based admission while I was attending. There was the same old controversy while I was there about that being unfair to minorities, and there were occasional ballot initiatives to get it changed, which I am sure can be verified. However, at that time, when the numbers were run, I think Lowell probably had a more balanced student body than any other high school in the City.

Unless they switched from undistricted for the first four years in the new location, this is just wrong. Zlama 09:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. By my recollection, Lowell's enrollment was open to all qualified students in the San Francisco Unified School Districts throughout the 1960s. One sibling (class of '67), one cousin (class of '68) and a family friend (also '68) could not have attended Lowell if it had restricted admission by district. We lived across town on Russian Hill. There were dozens of other Lowellites in that neighborhood in the early 1960s. All of us complained about the long bus & streetcar ride to school (which got worse during BART/MUNI Metro construction).

I only recall GPA used to qualify for admission (in 1967). There was no admission exam that I knew of; I can only infer that some students cited their aptitude or achievement tests to gain admission. That should have been tough because one-third to one-half of the students were intellectually gifted. Lowell seemed to be the only San Francisco public school in which the gifted students were divided into subcategories: 98th percentile, 99th percentile and 99+. Yikes!

There is a place (I believe it's in front of the stage in the auditorium [A.K.A. Carol Channing Theatre]) where one can find the words "Southwest High School 1962" written in the concrete. An editor at "the Lowell" told me about this artifact which I actually saw back in 1970.

Apparently when the "new" Lowell's concrete foundation was poured, the City wasn't sure if it would be the new magnet school or just another district high school. Another classmate discovered old blueprints which showed that most of the classrooms of Lowell's east wing were originally designed to teach "industrial arts" -- shop classes.

One venerable member of Lowell's English Department often said that the 1957 earthquake damage to the Hayes & Masonic campus wasn't so bad. He lived in the Haight-Ashbury, so he used to walk to work and often ate lunch in Golden Gate Park. My Latin teacher told a different story about collapsed ceilings and rooms that were rendered unsuable by the 'quake. The "new" campus was a 15 minute drive from her home, so she welcomed the change. Years later (1978) I tried not to think about the old Lowell's structural integrity when I attended traffic school at the John Adams Adult School.

There's one other controversy that should be mentioned. The girls' gymnasium and locker room were smaller than the boys' facilities at the Eucalyptus Drive campus. Apparently the girls' gym was built after the City decided that the campus would be the new Lowell. They must have presumed that fewer girls than boys would be admitted. By the late 1970s, girls were subject to higher admission requirements--which resulted in a discrimination lawsuit. (I recall that when modular scheduling was instituted, girls' PE classes were always 2 mods long while boys' PE would be 3 mods on some days.)

U. Calyptus Driver

I got in based on test scores. My GPA wasn't so hot, but I was in the accelerated classes on admission. When they posted our SAT scores, we were told in no uncertain terms that we would be sorry if our scores lowered Lowell's national standing. Yes, in those days they posted everyone's scores, with their names, for all to see. I don't know if anything was weighted to make any one group need higher scores. I hadn't heard that, but it may have been at the new school. As for earthquake damage, I don't recall any rooms being off limits or showing any remarkable damage, but it was a running joke that the building would collapse in the next one. Still standing, though.Zlama 20:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see old Lowell standing after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989. It's a tough, old brick schoolhouse! In the late '60s, there was some concern when we learned that the San Andreas Fault ran through the center of Lake Merced. We wondered what would happen to the school. My homeroom teacher assured us that, in the event of structural failure, the walls were designed to fall outward. Someone responded, "What happens to the roof?" This was shortly after Esquire magazine published an article about California sliding into the Pacific after a great earthquake.

U. Calyptus Driver

Academic Decathlon

"Among other academic organizations at Lowell, the Academic Decathlon remains at the top as 17-year State Championship county qualifier and has been undefeated as City Champions of San Francisco since the inception of the competition."

In recent years, the school's Academic Decathlon team has had no opposition from other schools in San Francisco. Their qualifying competition (between the school's A and B teams, and strictly a formality) has been held in Contra Costa County. I don't know for how long this has been true, but I feel this should be mentioned. Without more information, I don't know how to edit this section without sounding bitter. Their team does quite well at State, after all; I believe they were fourth in their division in 2006. I just feel glorification of the team should reflect those actual results, and not potentially misleading county-level results. 128.12.95.59 07:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

I see a number of issues which may factor into a GA evaluation:

  1. Writing: Auto Peer Review reveals a number of problem areas relative to the GA criteria. There are a number of lists (Mod system table, milestones, facilities) which could be rewritten and/or integrated into other sections. Would the milestones list make for a better history section if rewritten into prose? Structure could be finessed, should the Mod System section fall under academics? Perhaps separate the Academics and Admissions? The lead is simply far too short, it fails to succintly summarize the article.
  2. References: many sections and assertions aren't sufficiently referenced. Some of the notables that do not establish their relation to Lowell in their subject articles are unreferenced/unverifiable as well.
  3. Coverage: Is the detail on the Modular System really necessary? A succinct description and a reference to the school website on the Mods may be sufficient.
  4. Images: it certainly needs more (where did the few it had go?) but this isn't a deciding factor for the nom.

– Zedla 11:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I ran the Auto Peer Review script that Zedla mentions and I'm copy/pasting the results here for convenience:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 mile, use 4 mile, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&nbsp;mile.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • arguably
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Since it's just a program, some of the points don't actually apply; I suggest we strike the more minor points once we've determined that either they don't apply or they've been fixed, so it's easier to see what still needs work. For example, I've already struck the one about not using th in dates, as I searched the article and there were no occurrences of that. — CWesling 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination failed

I had to fail the GA nomination for this article:

  • Lacks any pictures.
  • Usage of words like "ghettoized".
  • Frequent run-on sentences in the "Academics and Admissions" section.
  • Lack of wikilinking for terms like "Chinese American", "African American", etc.
  • Claims in the "Academics and Admissions" need better inline referencing.
  • Overuse of subsections in the "Extracurriculars" section.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy - Racial desegregation

When the Hayes Street campus (the "old Lowell") was still in use, the student body was very much integrated/desegrated. If you were white and not Jewish, you were very much in the minority. There were plenty of Hispanic, Black and Asian students. I don't know the percentage of the student body, but I'd guess at least half. We had a Black Student Body President (Ron Stratton, IIRC) when I was a sophomore. We had an Hispanic Head Cheer Leader (as opposed to Song Girl) one year. These were both elective offices.

The admission process did not discriminate. The school was centrally located, so everyone had a long bus ride, unless they lived in the Haight. When Lowel moved out to Eucalyptus Drive, it would have been a 90 minute trip for kids from Chinatown, the Fillmore, the Marina etc. That was much more of a point of discrimination than the admission process. Of course, the demographics changed to favor the students who lived nearby and to make it all but impossible for those from across the City to attend. Anyway, my point being that to talk of racial discrimination as a function of the admissions process is misleading.Zlama 06:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LHSseal2.jpg

Image:LHSseal2.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 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 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Under the section labeled "history", someone has inappropriately inserted the term "uninhibited dorkdom".

Needs to be changed back to the original.

Cdnrav4x4 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

reverted, you or anyone else can also fix future occurrences, take a look at Cleaning Up Vandalism.— Zedla 05:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing the removal of JROTC competition results

As a Lowell JROTC graduate, it's not easy for me to say this, but to preserve the article's integrity as well as noting Lowell's failed Good Article nomination reasons, the JROTC Competition results (however impressive) do need to come off of the article. Perhaps the San Francisco JROTC Program could have an article on the brigade (especially when the brigade will collapse following the end of the JROTC program in San Francisco). Lowell's stats can be entered in addition to the other high schools' stats as well. I think it will be more suited and will help Lowell's article get back on GA track. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New sandbox for future article San Francisco JROTC Brigade I'm actually kind of surprised no one has responded to this yet... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes people don't really respond to threads. But, I think it should (stay?), because this year we got 1st place in drum corps, but I'm not sure whether it's necessary for both articles, I mean, if someone wants to do research on which school's better, then well do it. —BoL 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the information; it was unencyclopedic. —Kurykh 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article: fails

Specific problems:

Removed
  • Location and Facilities should probably be merged into a section simply called "Campus," because they both deal with the same subject: the school's physical existence.
Merged - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Facilities" should be in prose, not a list
See above - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The diversity court ruling issue takes up three of the subsections of "Academics and admissions." Discussion of the topic should be grouped together and probably be discussed in the History section rather than Academics and Admission, which should detail how those processes work at the school today.
Moved, but couldn't find third party sources that addresses the last issue. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Overview" heading of "Extracurriculars": if it's an overview, it doesn't need a subsection. Make it the first text of the "Extracurriculars" and ditch the "=== Overview ===."
Deleted all unnecessary "Overview" headers - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "JROTC > Competitions": The table of competition history should be summarized much more briefly and in prose. This information should be in the JROTC batallion's article (I'm not saying make one, but that's where it would be), not in the school's main article.
Deleted earlier by another author
  • "Lowell Hymn": (1) lyrics possibly copyrighted; (2) lyrics not necessary; (3) there should never be only one subsection to a section.
There is a centralized discussion (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs) regarding this subject. Until that discussion receives consensus, I'll decide whether to transwiki, delete, or keep as is. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Historical milestones": should be integrated with "History" and should not be a list.
Placed into History as a subsection. I'm too tired to put it into words... I'll work on it when I wake up. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Notable alumni" should be in prose
I thought it's pretty much in prose. Have said that, yeah to the common folk it's not in prose, but to the formal writing normally seen in Lowell, it's pretty relaxed. This revolves your comment about this article being written by students and staff originating from this high school... I'll work on it. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Systematic problems:

  • The article is almost entirely uncited
I find that slightly unfair. Most public schools are hardly noted in everyday press. Lowell had a press fever in the 90s when the admissions standards were under fire, but after that it seems like now when the press talk about Lowell, there's a common (omg not those stuck-ups again...) tone which drives away readers/viewers. Hence in a lack of recent press coverage. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • References are not formatted properly: note the publisher and the date accessed, preferrally using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}.
  • The prose is unprofessional (e.g. In 2004, the cinderalla team captured its first AAA Championship...) with many typos and errors
OK... I fixed that "captured" thing. I not an English major, so I might get yelled by my former English teachers for this, but I thought prose was supposed to be like everyday speech. Wouldn't that amount to a slight unprofessionalism involved? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Original research. I sense that a lot of this uncited information (e.g. "some teachers felt that the distribution was not as equal as was purported") comes from authors who are students or teachers at the school speaking from their own personal experience or knowledge. Things like this are so publicly insignificant that I highly doubt any reliable, published source has reported on them.
See above on lack of press coverage. This phenomenon simply cannot be helped unfortunately. I'll work on it though. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dylan (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lowell student in the news

President Bush will be going to Lowell today to present 18-year-old Richard Berwick, a current Lowell student, with the President's Volunteer Service Award. Is anyone writing about this?

ABC7 coverage on news topic

- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dang, that's sweet! That kid's parents must be proud of him! Maybe we should write about it. But, let's see what Kurykh thinks, we don't have any of that over at Galileo (yes, we got people doing stuff here.) —BoL 04:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, let him know for me. I'm wondering if I should make a recording of a stable version of this article soon for the Spoken Wikipedia thingy. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
He probably won't show up as much. College papers! And maybe you should, depending on how you sound... —BoL 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll try it out after my various festivities in the next couple of days... including my own little festivity at the moment while I rush my fluid mechanics lab reports that are due @ 8am... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.