Talk:St. John's Diocesan Girls' Higher Secondary School

Assessment: July 2012

I am assessing this article after a request made at the WikiProject Schools Assessment Page. In my opinion this article is rated Start/Low. The article is not referenced except for a single link to the School's website, but makes not reference to where in the article this is referencing. In some sections the article also sounds like an advertisement in places, eg: 'The school strives for full development of an individual through not only academic excellence but also physical, mental and emotional growth through its Games, Sports, Fine Arts, Bulbul (Blue Birds) & Girl Guides, Elocution, Music, Dramatics, Debates, Creative Writing, Science Exhibition, Hand Work Exhibition and various clubs.'

Going forward I think the most pressing priority for this article is to add inline citations to reference all the material which could be challenged and also remove all the trivialities. A good place to look for article structure/content guidance is the WikiProject Schools Article Guidlines. Thanks Glanis^Talk 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment: September 2012

I'm re-assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A#AR. The alumni list is very impressive and would normally merit a high-importance school, but it is completely unsourced and there are lots of red links there raising the question on if everyone listed is notable - only notable alumni should be in such lists. So for now I am giving this article mid-importance. The main problem with this article remains unresolved: no sourcing. Referencing is an essential part of writing an article and the article will not get a grade higher than Start without some kind of referencing - see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information.

Some particular areas for which I can provide suggestions are:

• School life: Would probably be better as part of an academics/curriculum section. See WP:WPSCH/AG#S for guidance on article layout.
• School Aim: Promotional and not very useful, so should be deleted - see WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI.
• School Prayer & Anthem: The prayers are obviously public domain, so no copyright issues here, but linking to the relevant articles should be sufficient - re-stating the prayers in the article is not neccasery. Please note that Wikipedia is not a host of lengthy primary source material.
• Notable alumni: Desperately needs sources, as mentioned earlier.

The remaining sections need sourcing and general expansion. I hope that helps, but feel free to request re-assessment once some further expansion is done and more sources are added, or if anyone is having problems, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. CT Cooper · talk 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment: December 2012

I've received a request to re-assess this article; reviewing the changes that have been made since I last assessment, some improvements have been made but there is still a long way to go. While some sourcing has been added there are still huge gaps which goes against WP:V - nothing has happened at all in the alumni section, the place where sourcing is most critical, per WP:BLP. I think the article still has a promotional tone, therefore I think the advert should stay - I stand by my previous recommendation to delete the school aim section. The added founder section is promotionally written and dominated by quotes - this should be cut down and merged into the history section. The list of principles is good, but it should be towards the end of the article - a simple list with just the names and little else.

Overall, I cannot give this article a higher rating until the bulk of my suggestions in this assessment and the previous one are implemented. If further help is needed, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. CT Cooper · talk 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)