Talk:Leonia Alternative High School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 02:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Leonia Alternative High School; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

The article was started on 23rd December and nominated on that date. Well above Stub-class, although not yet rated, and >1,200 words. Well-referenced to credible and high-quality sources, including what seems to be the definitive study of the school (Kaplan 1977) – which I have accessed through JSTOR. I have checked all sources that were accessible (most of them) for copyvio/close paraphrasing (none found) and accuracy. Good to see extensive use being made of local and national newspaper archives: I am a big advocate of this. Neutrality is fine. Both hooks can be verified in multiple sources and are compliant with policy and suitably interesting; I don't have a preference as to which is better. QPQ review confirmed.
Wasted Time R Thank you for this very interesting article. Verified and ready to go. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Impartiality[edit]

While I do agree with the article's stance, I also believe it is not being impartial by stating its views from a pro-Alternative side that views the Unions as self interested, without giving the Unions' own statements which gives concerns about: 'run into serious trouble on a number of generic bases'(whatever that means), and is elaborated shortly after to be 'health and safety infractions', then goes into inadequate supervision for a school day starting at 7:30 and ending at 11:30 and attacks the 'pseudo-"courses"' and the lack of qualification of the educators, the final concern being more or less, divisiveness, inequality. The article presents the main concern of the teachers as their jobs, which they explicitly deny. Taken from https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-record/137171879/ which is a source in the article 125.165.109.166 (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I have added to the article the bits about inadequate supervision of student activities and the potentially long student days. I didn't include the teachers' denial of concern for their jobs because WP:MANDY. The health and safety infractions claim was I think part of some long dispute about where gym classes were held, that I didn't want to get into detail about. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would Vicki's book be counted as a reliable source then? I believe a New York Times article cited in this article(which I am unable to access so I'm making use of google previews) does mention her status as a faculty member in the alternative high school, which could mean by the same logic, she isn't a reliable source. 125.165.104.29 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Karant journal article is used judiciously to cite some factual statements about the nature and goals of the school and narrative elements about what happened in the dispute. For those purposes it is okay to use. Other aspects of the Karant article, like feelings around the school's demise or the multiple allusions to Socrates, are not used. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]