Talk:Palisade High School

Assessment
I am assessing this article following on from a request at WikiProject Schools. Firstly, I'm giving this school low-importance (reduced from mid-importance), since there is not enough evidence given in the article to suggest a higher rating is justified, and taking part in the International Baccalaureate is not enough. Next, this article is not B-class (see WP:BCLASS) and it is definitely not GA, so I'm demoting it to C-class. This article really needs further expansion, see WP:WPSCH/AG for suggested sections. There are no obvious referencing gaps, but the references should use citation templates where possible, see WP:CITET. Also, most of the references are given as the school website; note that articles should be dominated by references to secondary sources, not primary sources, and the school website is the latter. The lead needs to be expanded to better summarise the article, see WP:LEAD. The comment about the International Baccalaureate making the "internationally recognized" does seem rather promotional; the lead should set a good neutral tone for the rest of the article. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd Assessment Request 6/2011
The article has obviously been expanded, and strictly follows WikiProject Schools guidelines as recommended by CTCooper. Also noted an increase of secondary source referencing, including newspapers on local and state levels. The lead is also improved. Promotional tones in the lead have been "neutralized" (lol, get it?), as well as made to give a summary of the article. For these reasons I will improve the article to a B status, and request a second opinion on the WikiProject Schools assessment request list. Mailman9  (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Article Re-asessment June 2011
I am having a look at this article after a request on WikiProject Schools/Assessment. I am assessing this article against the B class criteria.

This is the version being assessed.

*The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.

''i.e. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as is not required.''


 * There are large sections of the article that are unreferenced, most notably some statements in the lead, such as: "The town of Palisade and the community are supportive of the school." and "The school has a history of successful athletics and other extracurricular events.", both these statements should be substantiated with referencing, as they appear to be a point of view (see WP:POV). In addition half the curriculum section and the majority of the Extra-curricular section are completely unreferenced, leading me to think this is original research (WP:OR).

*The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

i.e. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
 * The first thing that strikes me, is that for a school of over 100 years old, the history section is very short. I would like to see this expanded to more broadly cover the timeframe; currently there are large jumps. Also other sections of the article could be improved and expanded. In addition, none of the persons listed in the Notable alumni/ teachers section appear to be classed as notable, therefore reason for their notability should be established or otherwise they should be removed (see WP:NOTABILITY). Please also note that any mention of living persons should conform the the Biography of living persons guidelines WP:BLP

*The article has a defined structure. ✅

i.e. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.


 * All the main sections are there, however I would like to see a section describing buildings and campus layout, perhaps with some information on the original school building from 1902 and the replacement following the fire. These however are not strictly necessary at this stage, but would become so at GA level.

*The article is reasonably well-written.✅

''i.e. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.''


 * The prose seems fine, but before proceeding further could do with a copy edit, although it should be noted that the length of prose is insufficient for B-class on an historic school.

*The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. ✅

''i.e. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.''

*The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.✅

''i.e. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.''


 * Overall the article represents the content well, although to a reader who does not have knowledge of the US school system, such as 4A, 5A, etc, but overall fine.

In my overall opinion, this article does not qualify for B-Class, due to lack of depth in the content, and lack of referencing. I also note that the previous assessment promoting to B-class was undertaken by the most recent major contributor; as a point for future reference, this should not occur as it is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). As a result I am assessing this article as C-Class.

To improve this article further, I would initially try to satisfy the guidelines above, to move the article to B-class. From there I would recommend reading the Good Article criteria, and perhaps submit the article for a Peer review. If you would like any further information please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks GlanisTalk 08:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this re-assessment. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)