Talk:Briarcrest Christian School/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

The LEAD should be a summary of the whole article. It will need expansion. See MOS:INTRO for more.
Not strictly required for GA (at least not by me) but it would be nice if sources 13, 20, 21, 27 could be fixed/expanded
The infobox photo should have ideally have a caption though it's obvious what it is. More strictly, all the photos should really have an ALT.
Would suggest changing Notable People to Alumni & Faculty.
Not all the sources for that section establish their connection to Briarcrest
Does the school have any academic achievements worth noting? In general several of the sections suggested at WP:WPSCH/AG#OS at least some of which seem relevant here are missing.
Could the citation for the few students (if any) being black be made clear? Given that the next sentence has two sources it's not as clear which info comes from which sources.
The time source (backed by the school's website) suggests the High School opened in 1974 (1975 was its second school year). I'm presuming that this is the source for that sentence
Where in Allen's testimony does it break out how the 3800 students were distributed?
In 1979 HS tuition was up to 1100 according to the source
Sourcing, from what I'm seeing, doesn't seem clear that the two students referred to here were not current students: None of its 3,800 students were black; indeed, only two black students had ever enrolled in Briarcrest's regular classes, and just 46 more in its summer programs
In 2 different places there's an Uncle Tom quote from Allen. From what I've seen in sources there's more variety to choose from. Could one of these be modified so it's not so repetitive?
Is there a secondary source that be used to cite the info from Allen v Wright
What's the source for In 1989 the school split from the founding church?
How did it go from nearly bankrupt to successful enough to build a 43 million dollar building?
Speaking of which I know from the issues with the page that there were/are two campuses. This is alluded to in the 2000s section but this is never explicitly spelled out. This is part of the sixth bullet point about overall structure.
Is there a reason the Blind Side movie but not book is addressed in the 2000s? Given current sourcing and from what I remember when I read it, seems like it would have information about the school that could be sourced for that time period.
Most of the first paragraph of Values, programs are not satisfied by the source
Accreditation and affiliations section has no source
Multiple sources will likely be needed for the first paragraph of Sports
I don't know if the Freeze paragraph is necessary. Feels too much like NEWS.
The source supporting Afterward, Allen said he was glad the tax code could not be "used as a weapon" by those who disagreed with the school's "policies or politics." is actually about the school nearly closing. Good source too - info could be part of the answer for how did it go from nearly bankrupt to successful.

Discussion[edit]

Just a note that I'm only sporadically available at the moment so I might not finish this review until early next week. However, since I have some "obvious" fixes even before I do a detailed reading, I'll go ahead and claim this and start. I would encourage the nom, and other interested editors, to begin any changes before I finish the review. Please note that I know a LOT of work has gone into the history section of this article and appreciate that and understand why it has been nominated. As indicated above, however, I'm thinking there's some amount of content development left to do to satisfy GA criteria. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billhpike: My initial review is done. I have a few sources I'm working on obtaining to do a check but there's a lot there for you to dive into. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; really useful suggestions. PRRfan (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billhpike and PRRfan: Doesn't look like there's been any work on this article and absent any updates will close this review in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the detailed feedback. I have been busy IRL and don't have the time to make change before the deadline. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll go ahead and close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]