Talk:Messalonskee High School

WP:WPSCH Assessment
Starting assessment on this page as stub with low importance. Only the very basic summary demographic information provided. Does include external links and references section, but no real content sections beyond a specific event. This section, Resignation of Principal Putnam, likely violates Wikipedia neutrality and conflict of interest guidelines, as such I added a tag. See WP:NPOV and WP:COI. See WP:WPSCH for ideas on sections to add to this article like: history, extracurriculars, curriculum, notable alumni. -- Lucas20 (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Neutrality of Putnam Section

In the sentence, "This was a welcome change as former principal Linda Laughlin, who was promoted to the position of Assistant Superintendent after her tenure as principal, was not well liked by staff and students." the last phrase is supported only by reader comments to an online version of a local news article and as such is anecdotal at best and not verifiable. Linda Laughlin isn't even mentioned in the original news article. I'm suggesting removing the sentence entirely because without the last phrase it adds no substantive value to the section.

The sentence, "The general consensus by many staff and students was that Putnam's ideas and methods went against the desires of the administration, which people assumed was the reason her contract renewal was at risk." is not supported by the referenced newspaper article because there was no survey of the student body or employees that could reasonably be concluded to provide a "general consensus." The referenced article mentions a few students and employees by name but doesn't include the content of the presented petitions which are only purported to ask the school board to retain Putnam. Hence I suggest removing this sentence entirely as it is not supported by evidence. Alternatively, the words "The general consensus by many staff and students" could be changed to "Two students reported that...." However, the claim is somewhat inflammatory and as such should be supported by more than the verifiable opinions of two students. Hence I lean towards removing the claim altogether.

In reference to Putnam's eventual resignation, the sentence," This news came as a shock to staff and students, as they assumed that the school board's ruling meant that Putnam was going to remain principal of the school." is not supported by the reference article. Only one staff person reported being "shocked" and another "echoed" the first, but details of the second's claims are not provided. Also, anyone who knew that the chief executive officer, the superintendent, of a school district had previously tried to influence the school board to terminate a school principal, should not have been shocked that the targeted employee decided to move on to another job when the opportunity arose. Since the claims of sentence are not supported by the referenced article, I suggest removing it entirely.

I'm planning on making these changes if reasonable objections are not raised here in the talk page.

Michaelecyr (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)