Talk:Avery Coonley School/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well written

 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * Some minor grammatical issues were corrected myself. Some portions are more problematic and need to be addressed by the editors, though. This sentence in section "Avery Coonley School (1929–1968)" runs on and offers no logical connection between the two segments. It should probably be split up in some manner that preserves its meaning:
 * "An additional building was constructed to provide more space, but the school had outgrown its facilities and Coonley purchased a 10.45-acre (4.23 ha) wooded tract on Maple Avenue in Downer's Grove, adjacent to the 83-acre (34 ha) Maple Grove Forest Preserve."


 * ✅ Fixed.


 * In the same section, the following sentence introduces "the board" without any indication of who this entity is. I would have thought it was the board of NCE while reading it, but purchasing a school from themselves isn't very logical.
 * "After twenty five years of partnership, the board purchased the school from NCE in 1965."


 * ✅ Fixed.


 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 * No WP:MOS issues found

Factually written and verifiable

 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * References are well laid-out inline


 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * The section "Avery Coonley School (1929–1968)" appears to have some unreferenced statistics:
 * To increase revenues, the school launched the Summer Program in 1960, open to all children from the surrounding area, and added a swimming pool in 1961 to bolster that program.


 * ✅ Fixed.


 * By 1964 enrollment had increased to 200 students, which brought additional, much needed, financial stability.


 * (c) it contains no original research
 * All clear


 * ✅ Fixed.

Broad in its coverage

 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * The following sentence in section "Academic program" leads the reader to think "what is 'Bass in the Class'" without any way to investigate:
 * "Experiences in the outdoors enhance the science program, examples of which include adopting personal space in the adjacent forest preserve, participation in the 'Bass in the Class' program sponsored by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources..."


 * ✅ Fixed.
 * This was "fixed" by removing the content about "Bass in the Class". It seems OK without it, but that's really for an expert to decide, not myself. I'd just like a little justification for my own peace of mind: is this really off-topic for this article, or should it be put back in with some explanation? My initial comment wasn't to make it sound like it should be removed, just that we need some way to tell the user what exactly that means. Is it a prominent title for students? Is it a tradition? Etc. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you were correct that the name is not self-explanatory (although it is just what it sounds like -- they raise live bass in their classroom.) I think the important point is the students' involvement with public nature programs and the detail of this program might be to much for WP:SS. It is neither prominent nor traditional. The program is here: http://www.connectforkids.org/node/335, so it would be easy to reference, but I think it would distract from the main article. Let me know if you disagreeNasty Housecat (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading the source I agree with you that it's just another average activity that doesn't really merit discussion. With that, I think we can mark this section ✅.


 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Related content well-discussed without going off on tangents.

Neutral

 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Well-written

Stable

 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * No evidence of instability.

Illustrated, if possible

 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * All are free, confirmed by OTRS


 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 * All images are very relevant to the topic and improves its quality. All with captions.

General comments
No major issues. It just has a few things to tweak, but a definite GA candidate.

Overall
On hold while the above issues are addressed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed all the identified issues. Thanks for the careful review. Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes look good. Please check my comments in 3a. Thanks. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With the improvements to the article, I'm happy to pass this article for GA.