Talk:British International School Ho Chi Minh City/GA2

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

I am quick failing this - it is an advertisement with no independent verifiable sources jimfbleak (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not an advertisement, as it at no point makes any hint that the school is better then any other, and there are no independent sources available. Further more, the article has been failed before, and has met the criteria stated at that time, and surely if it did not meet the requirements for a quick fail the first time, it does not meet them before. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy states that you should not be quick-failed "just because you are not willing to review an article in-depth". Wikipedia prefers that you give a set of things which need to be improved, rather then failing it without even trying. --Sauronjim (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can accept the article failing the review, but not for a reason as bad, and utterly incorrect as this one is. Especially as you obviously planned on failing it, and then just ignoring it. The article's last reviewer was clearly interested in the improvement of the article --Sauronjim (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In my view it is arguable whether the article is even acceptable for Wikipedia, since it is clearly advertising. It contains completely unsourced spammy claims like A British education and qualifications are recognized, valued and respected around the world and is a thorough preparation for students to progress to colleges and universities of their choice in any country. and the only sources given are those of the school itself, with no independent references for any of the content. The history section is also a blatant copyright violation of the school website.


 * The mission statement is also pure spam - the actual mission statement says To prepare students for the future and futures for our students - the rest is pure spam.


 * Even if I ignored the spam, how can it be a potential GA if it has no wikilinks in the entire article, and the headings ignore MOS? I am sorely tempted to delete this article, but I'll give you some time to at least remove the spam jimfbleak (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you are tempted to deleate it. That seems to be all you do around here. I've had a look at your talk page, and there seem to be a lot of articles you have deleated. I will grant you the wikilinks comment, I thought I had put them in, but apparently not, thanks for that one. And I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the actual mission statement says To prepare students for the future and futures for our students", because that is what I've put in the article. I will also grant you that the rest of the mission statement does sound a bit like an advertisement. I will hopefully get round to fixing it during the week, but cannot at this time. I'm afraid I don't understand how it ignores MOS, as I checked for that before nominating the second time, and I couldn't see anything wrong with it. The title is the name of the school, how can that change? The claim isn't unsourced, I have taken it, and referenced it, from the school's website. I would very much like to have other sources, but this isn't the kind of article that will have many other sources available. If I could find more, I would. And it is not copyright violation, I have the permission of the copyright holder, and if necessary, I will obtain it in writing. I have found a third-party source for the spammy claim that you quoted above, but as I said, I don't have time to insert it now, but I will do as soon as possible. --Sauronjim (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you get permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.


 * A source is useless for verification if it is not independent. Advertising-type claims such as the value of a British degree need a reputable independent source. The mission statement on the school's website is the single sentence I have quoted - the rest of your paragraph is just advertising.
 * The MoS issues are fairly minor, mainly incorrect capitalisation, I'd fix those if they were the only problem. Some statements do not seem to have any ref at all eg The students at BIS are mostly Korean, Vietnamese, Taiwanese or English. The teachers are mostly British or Australian. Is this WP:OR? Before you nominate again, please ensure that the article meets all these criteria jimfbleak (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)