Talk:New Leaders

Has a promotional tone. -- N D Steve 10 ( talk ) 19:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposing renaming and new article draft
Over the last couple of months I have produced a new draft of this article, working on behalf of New Leaders. The organization asked me to write an updated draft, better reflecting their new name and current programs and bringing the article into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The most immediate issue with the current article is that the title is now incorrect. The organization has recently been renamed to "New Leaders" and is now no longer "New Leaders for New Schools". Due to this change, I believe that the article should be renamed.

I recognize that since I prepared my draft on behalf of New Leaders, I have a conflict of interest. So, before I make any changes, I'd like to ask that other editors read through my draft and my explanation here, and offer any feedback they might have.

There are a number of problems with the current article, not least that it is rather promotional in tone. It seems that this has attracted the attention of editors in the past, as you can see from the warning tag. However, despite the warning tag, and the discussion that was opened by NDSteve10 on the Talk page (see above), there hasn't really been any improvement to the article in the last 12 months. No editors responded to the Talk page note, and only a few edits have been made. In fact, little has changed with the article since it was originally created in December 2009.

The article currently has few citations, less than half of which are reliable secondary sources. The introduction doesn't adequately summarize the article, and certainly does not give a real sense of what New Leaders does. The most problematic sections are What it does and Educational impact, both of which are written in a promotional tone, especially the latter. In addition, the "What it does" section is outdated, since the organization has since introduced new programs and initiatives. Meanwhile, the "Educational impact" section provides a lot of detail, but would be better presented using Wikipedia's summary style. The information provided is cited to New Leaders' website, but makes no mention that the source of the claims is the organization itself.

I would like to propose a new draft of the article that addresses the issues with the current version, which you can view in my userspace:User:16912 Rhiannon/New Leaders

This is an entirely re-written article, using reliable secondary sources as much as possible, with new section headings to provide readers with a sense of the content at a glance, a new introduction which properly summarizes the article, and an infobox with all the key information about the organization fully up to date. The "Creation and history" section now includes details of the organization's founding and expansion up to the present day. The descriptive information about New Leaders' has been removed, as this is more relevant in the new "Function" section. The information from the current "What it does" and "Educational impact" sections has been rewritten under a new section heading of "Function", which includes the organization's mission, its programs and its results. This section provides details of all the organization's current initiatives and an overview of the impact of these programs. I have retained the sections on "Geographic reach" and "Executive team", but updated the information in each and added citations.

While I have put much effort into writing this from a neutral POV, I appreciate that due to my COI it may be that other editors have some changes to suggest. I welcome any productive feedback on the draft and my suggestion to rename the article to New Leaders. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I have not received any objections to the new draft or my proposal to change the name of the article, I have gone ahead and replaced the current article and moved it to New Leaders per WP:SILENCE. Any feedback would be welcome and I invite editors to discuss here if they feel that changes are needed. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)