This redirect is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
"George A. Todd, Jr. was the first teacher and superintendent of the school" - probably easier to say "The first teacher and superintendent was George A. Todd, Jr" Also, by not using "school", it avoids confusion that this paragraph is talking about the current school, which it isn't
It's still the same school, just in a different building.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 03:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that confused me, so what does "Its replacement, Briarcliff Public School" mean? A replacement building? That might be worth clarifying. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 2000s, the current Briarcliff Middle School was constructed" - do we know which year exactly?
Read the next sentence.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 02:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a cost of $24 million ($30.8 million today[9])" - use the {{inflation}} template instead, as "today" is guaranteed to go out of date and is one of the words to watch.
Edit that section and read the markup; I've had others make the same mistake.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 02:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be simpler to take out "today" and use one of the examples in the template documentation if people are making mistakes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "in {{currentyear}}" is much better than "today" but I'll do it regardless.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need four citations to cite the same paragraph (last one in this section). See WP:REFBLOAT
They all back up different material within; I'll try to see if they work at the end of other sentences within the paragraph.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 02:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This section is unsourced, and I'm not particularly sure it's of encyclopedic relevance either, unless these shows have been critically acclaimed or have proven to have notable alumi who've had success in professional theater work.
point taken.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 02:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is well written and reliably sourced, but I don't think it meets the "broad in coverage" and "neutral point of view" criteria. I reached this conclusion from looking at some of the sources, such as this New York Times piece about the school. That includes key facts such as "the upper end of about 50 middle schools", "is part of a district in Westchester County that spends $24,738 per student" and "the number of students passing state reading and math tests at each grade level ranged from 89 percent to 97 percent". That puts a whole extra spin on the school's catchment area and affluence that hasn't really been touched on at all in the article aside from brief sentence.
As it stands, the prose is under 3K of text. That's quite short and the article is at risk of being proposed for a merge into the parent Briarcliff Manor article. Indeed, many middle schools have the level of sourcing and history here, yet no articles exist, or if they do, they are frequently pulled up for AfD. For example, Mersea Island School has coverage in reliable sources, and a history dating back to 1871, but there is no article for it.
So, in summary, I don't think I can pass it as a GA at this time. Sorry. If I get time, I'll have a look at the corresponding college article I see you've also nominated, which probably has a higher chance of success. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quick to work things and can easily turn this article around in a very short time. I'll fix the things you mentioned. If you'd like, review Briarcliff College, but I can fix all of the above issues in a day, maybe two; then I would like to proceed with the GA review.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm normally one to trust people can do that (see Talk:South African general election, 2014/GA1 for a recent example). I'm sure the issues mentioned will be quick to resolve, but for a quick rule of thumb, you probably want to look at this article size more than doubling, probably being at least around 7-8K of prose, and it has to have something to really show how this school is substantially more notable than others at the same level. I can't in good conscience pass a GA that I think might be at risk of AfD or a merge request. Still, if you think you can turn things around, then give me a ping on my talk when you're ready and I'll give it first priority. Since over half the prose will be new, it will need a full re-review in any instance. We did this at Talk:Noel Lee (executive)/GA1 and the only reason I didn't do GA2 is because I helped out with the expansion. As I've said elsewhere, I dislike the term "fail" and prefer "not listed" or "not now", as that's what it really means. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the article, I agree that it's rather short. If it didn't exist already, I wouldn't have created it; I didn't think it was necessarily very notable. Now I think there's enough information for it to warrant its own article. The Briarcliff Manor article is pretty large as-is, and this information wouldn't fit in too well there. I could fit it into the school district article. As for the 'broad in coverage' argument, I believe you can't assess that just through one NYT article. Those facts you describe are statistical, and being that the article's outdated, they don't carry much weight. As well, the first you mention is vague as to how it's on the 'upper end' (in curriculum? tech? budget? area affluence?), and therefore pretty useless. The second fact is much more relevant to the school district, which has an article. The third fact is okay, but that as well as a few other facts I almost wanted to omit to make the article seem less promotional and biased in POV.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 00:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the content into the school district article, see if you think it's better there. If so, please continue the GA review with that article. Regardless, I'm currently fixing/addressing the above issues.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 02:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well these were quotations I came across in one source that gave me a new view on the school. The article describes its history in plain, neutral English. But the source also said it was in an affluent area and that it had a history of being so. That puts a whole new spin on things. As for notability, let me ping education article experts @DGG: and @Kudpung: and ask them if they would AfD or merge this article. In any case, you are right to work through the action points, as whatever happens, they improve the article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how there's any technical right for this to be merged or AfD'd; the text is long enough per WP:SIZERULE. As well, the GA criteria don't state a minimum length requirement, only that the article be comprehensive. I believe it is, and I think most of the 'affluent' aspects belong in the district or village article, where it's much more relevant.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 20:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The summary is perfectly accurate. See HCGS for an example of the scope and detail that makes a school article a GA. I don't see Briarcliff Middle School as being particulary notable - simply a plethora of sources does not always add up to notability. I know it's hard to say this after so much work has been put into it, but middle schools are usually redirected to the article about their district. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kudpung. I think with that comment, I regretfully have to conclude there is no consensus to pass the article as GA at this time. I won't initiate any AfD or merge proposals myself, as you have done some work on the article and improved it, hence the review has been beneficial. If you feel the decision to be wrong, you are in your rights to review it at WP:GAR if you wish. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
