Talk:NAPLAN

Capitalization
The article contains many capital letters, some are names, some, which are not names, have been corrected, but there are some which are possibly names but may be mistakes, I leave the so that these can be reviewed. Additionally, there were three kinds of quotation marks. Nlemslu Phlyshi (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing several references, capitalization of "test" after NAPLAN is not done though they do capitalize type of test ie NAPLAN Numeracy test. I have changed remaining "Tests" to "tests" to be consistent within and to external material.--Prairiedog2011 (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Spelling in edit summary
The edit with the edit summary "punctuation, capitalization, links (one was captioned with the title of its target page with an added capital S), see talk:NANPLAN" was intended to be "punctuation, capitalization, links (one was captioned with the title of its target page with an added capital S), see talk:NAPLAN" Nlemslu Phlyshi (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Article style
This article has been skewed towards a teachers and parents guide rather than an encyclopedia article. It would benefit greatly from some mainstream media sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've improved it as much I can for the moment. It was reading like an essay and required substantial fixing.  I would like to see others shaping this article because even though it was not designed to be a high stakes test a degree of community scrutiny has developed around it.  Its the sort of article stakeholders might turn to when seeking more information. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Biased?
This article appears biased in that it does not mention any of the many criticisms leveled at NAPLAN. There's a mention of contention but none of that is reflected in the article itself. There is no criticism subheading in section 3 (analysis) and the current "authenticity" subheading is heavily skewed towards support of NAPLAN without any any references or citations. For more information on the criticisms refer to and for a large number of researched and referenced articles and papers that point out the negatives... hopefully someone is upto the task of adding some criticism information.
 * It looks to me as if most of the Analysis section is saying critical things about NAPLAN, e.g. teaching skewed by the test, timing isn't right, issues around special needs students, selective schools, etc. Structurally, I don't see a reason for adding a generic "criticism section" as such. I think criticism can be added under the existing Analysis sub-headings with new sub-headings as required. We are a volunteer community, so please feel free to add the content you suggest. Kerry (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Change the article name to NAPLAN
Nobody calls it what our article is titled. The evidence is on this very page (NAPLAN every time, in every discussion), and among the sources. The only places where the full name is used are in very formal, public sector type articles. Most teachers I know (I'm one myself) would pause on seeing this title and ask themselves "What IS this about?". I propose a simple move to NAPLAN per WP:COMMONNAME. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Guarapiranga ☎ 04:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)