Talk:Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton

Rating
I no longer see any "Category:California stub" class parameter on the Article page, so I removed the bot reference to it in the Talk page. Ottoump (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There is outdated and incorrect information on this page so I plan to update it Cvandyke19 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to do the same, and expand it to include the LMS and PK/K. In other words, make it a Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton, entry along the lines of other PK-12 schools. Ottoump (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ottoump, thanks for your questions at the Teahouse regarding this article, as well as your disclosure. It looks like you are well-prepared to improve the article. Feel free to pose any questions here about article improvement that you wish; you can request assistance from an experienced user, here or at your User talk page, by posting a question and adding  to your message. You can all on a specific user (or users) with the ping template, by adding   somewhere in your message.  For questions about editing Wikipedia generally, that are not about improving this article, please use your article Talk page with "Help me", the Teahouse, or the Village pump. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have upgraded the Rating from Start- to C-class. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Overhaul
In reviewing the article guidelines of WikiProject Schools, along with the examples set by FA- and GA-quality articles within the project, it seems clear that SHP should be weighted much more than the middle school (what they refer to as "lower secondary education ISCED 2011 level 2"). We can incorporate the lower school and PK/K, but mainly to provide context. Elements of SHS that tie divisions together include History, Spirituality, Campus, Sustainability, Notable Alumni, and possibly Reputation.

My proposal is to make this change in phases. Phase I would consist of the following five near-simultaneous steps: Phase II would reorganize the SHP section and add stub sections (after LMS) for whole-school concepts like Campus, Spirituality, Sustainability, and the like.
 * 1) Rename the page "Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton."  This involves "moving" it to a page of that name, which automatically creates a redirect.
 * 2) Change the infobox accordingly.  I have a version of that in my sandbox; the main changes are renaming the institution, including Francesca Brake as LMS principal, and breaking down enrollment into prep, middle school, and PK-5.
 * 3) Expand the lead into a few paragraphs that encompass the entire school.
 * 4) Move the existing SHP discussion of academics, athletics, etc. to a section after History, with appropriate subsections.
 * 5) Add a subsequent section that covers the entire LMS, with subheads for each division and a stub under each.

Phase III would improve each of these sections. At this point, we should be able to remove the maintenance flag template.

Comments? Ottoump (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In trying to implement the above phased approach, I've discovered practical difficulties with the stubs in that they can conflict with other parts of the Phase I scaffolding. As a result, I'm basically overhauling the entry and am 85% complete with a draft for review by senior editors. Ottoump (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 1 (rename, also called "move" in Wiki-speak), you should read WP:MOVE and think about whether any prudent editor (not just those that agree with you) could reasonably think your proposed rename might be controversial. Read WP:BEFOREMOVING, and consider following WP:RM, rather than just performing the move yourself.  At a minimum, you should have a separate section on this page withe the proposed move, make appropriate notification (WikiProjects, top contributors) and wait for feedback. (Which might not be enough, due to low pageviews; hence the utility of the WP:RM#CM process.)
 * I might have more comments on the other points, but since the Article title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles, a name change such as the one you are proposing changes the scope of the article, which in turn might affect how one responds to the other points, since in effect, it won't be exactly the same topic anymore, and responding to the other points requires knowing what the actual topic is. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've submitted the sandbox version as a draft and I'd appreciate your review, if you have a chance. I don't think the move would be controversial, but you may see something that I don't because of my inexperience. In the meantime:
 * I'm creating a new section on this page describing the proposed move.
 * I've looked at the most active editors (it's not a very long list), and I guess I should, at the beginning of the section, insert pings for anyone who has edited the page over the last decade?
 * I'll put in the single page move request notice at the bottom of the page. Ottoump (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the RM appears to be properly formatted, good job on that. (The notifications, i.e., the ping list, could have been placed in the same section, but nbd and can be left as is. Just fyi: anonymous users, i.e., users having an IP address for a userid, cannot be pinged, so you have to notify them on their Talk page if you want them to see it. Given that, if they haven't contributed to the encyclopedia in some time&mdash;a year?&mdash;there's no need to create a notification for them.)
 * Btw, please read WP:THREAD for how to use proper threading to respond to comments on Talk pages. I increased the indent in your last comment, to conform to the threading guideline. You'll notice that this comment of mine, is indented one more level, than yours was, and so on, and so on. (Actually, two levels in this case due to the final bullet, but one level is the general rule.)
 * Also, this is not a highly visible article, and to attract more eyeballs, you might want to add some WikiProject notifications. Some possibilities to consider, are: WP:WikiProject Catholicism, WP:WikiProject Education, and WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. You can write a single brief, neutrally worded invitation for feedback, identifying the RM, and containing a link to your RM discussion, and copy it to the Talk pages of those projects. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I put notices on the talk pages for WP:WikiProject Disambiguation, WP:WikiProject Catholicism and WP:WikiProject Schools. The last edit before my recent flurry was, sadly, in April of 2017, and the most recent edit by an IP address was in May 2011. Ottoump (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yw. RMs generally run a week, so please give it some time. Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, but whether the page gets moved (which seems likely) or doesn't, that should not stop you from continuing to work on improving the article according to your outline. Any material that you would like to add after the move, which wouldn't be appropriate to the more limited scope of the current article title, can be developed in your sandbox, or in a WP:USERSUBPAGE and transferred in after the article is renamed. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'm in no particular hurry; happy to let it take its course. I have a draft in for review with the proposed new title; when it's fully baked, I'll have to study the instructions for bringing the content over. Whether that's in pieces or lock/stock/barrel. Ottoump (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The page move is complete, so now I'm going to implement what was described as Phase I above. Phase II to follow in a few days after waiting for discussion. Ottoump (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Next up is Phase II/III, which will add sections on Campus, Spirituality & service, and Traditions.

Proposal for move
As editors of this page, I'd appreciate your comments on the proposed move below. Ottoump (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 07:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California) → Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton – Rationale is that all of the schools were integrated under the Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton umbrella in 2010, that its branding has followed suit, and that other multi-division schools with highly rated articles (e.g., Judd, St George's Academy, Monmouth School) do not focus exclusively on the upper division. Also, the emphasis of WikiProject Schools is supposed to be on "lower secondary education ISCED 2011 level 2 or upper secondary education ISCED 2011 Level 3," per WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines – in the U.S., middle schools and high schools. Ottoump (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – seems fine, according to WP:COMMONNAME (especially per search ), and perhaps by the spirit if not the letter of WP:COMMADIS.    Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – . This management structure seems similar to the UKs Multi-academy trusts which have their own articles eventually. Often they are extensions of a Single academy trust which once was a school. ClemRutter (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as above. But I see this article is no longer on my watchlist. Doug Weller  talk 16:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Promotional content
The article appears to have been written by the marketing department of the school, stuffed with unsourced trumpery and promotional puffery. I have hacked some out other stuff remains, but poorly sourced to pdfs etc. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Theroadislong, it's not written by a marketing department, but by the parent of an 8th grader – as I disclosed several weeks ago. Could you please help me by pointing to the specific items of undocumented puffery? Ottoump (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here, here and here . Theroadislong (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Argument that draft conforms to WikiProject Schools guidelines
The guiding principles I used in overhauling this article – aside from the overarching pillars, style guides, and Teahouse exchanges of Wikipedia itself – came from two sources: (1) WikiProject Schools' Article guidelines and (2) articles that have been judged to be exemplary within WikiProject Schools. I'll refer to these in responding to the three main criticisms (on this page and on my user talk page) to the changes that I attempted to roll-out this morning:

Length
One criticism is that the content "is excessively detailed for what is appropriate for an article about a school" and that I should "please stop adding to what is already a bloated, excessive(ly) long article." The Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton article at the time of this writing is 1,793 words. The full article I had drafted is 4,610 words. By comparison, FA-Class and potential FA-Class school articles in the table below average 5,872 words.

The Article Guidelines further call for the following sections, as appropriate, and I assume this is to provide some degree of uniformity across articles: Lead, History, Governance, School Structure, Admissions, Curriculum, Extracurricular Activities, Campus, Awards and recognition, Notable alumni, Notable staff, Former headteachers, References. In this article's case, I propose the sections as History, Prep school (with subsections), Lower and middle school, Campus, Spirituality and service, Traditions, Notable alumni, Former directors and principals.

I think we have room for other sections.

Tone
A final criticism says that I am "adding volumes of extremely promotional material, some unsourced and some sourced to their own website, this is not acceptable, please stop," with these examples called out. ,, I honestly don't see the puffery. The first example discusses the spiritual/religious component which, like it or not, is a distinctive part of a Sacred Heart education, and it's relevant to people who wonder if it's hard-core Catholic, nominally catholic, or something in between (the answer is C, but that's just an observation). The note about the board of trustees (again, let me stress: I'm not on the board, not a staff member, not a consultant) is relevant because it speaks to some limit on the board's independence – there's still an obligation to the founding organization. The point about the graduating class of one student in 1899 struck me as interesting, but not promotional. And the LMS section bears directly on the multi-division nature of Sacred Heart Schools and what the relationship is, if any, between divisions. I couldn't imagine a more sober patch of prose, but it will likely be important to some subset of the article's visitors.

FA-Class school articles
Notes to table
 * this includes all five FA-Class school articles on extant high schools, plus the three potential featured article candidates (designated by an asterisk)
 * word counts stop just short of the reference lists
 * reference counts include all numbered references plus the number of times a named reference is applied

My request
I hope you'll consider the above arguments regarding length, content, and sources, and that I'll be able to roll-out the remaining sections of the draft with your support.

Also: thank you Theroadislong and David notMD for the edits you've made thus far. From what I've seen (and with a few exceptions that I'd argue on the basis of structure and necessity), the edits have noticeably improved readability. Ottoump (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * there appears to be an editing error in the last sentence of the paragraph under Girls sports. Am I able to edit that without getting into trouble? Ottoump (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As a first response, I'd strip out all the tables about championship years, and replace them with a sentence. That does seem like WP:PUFFERY; ask yourself this: who, other than a parent or student in this school, would have the slightest interest in reading all of this detail in a Wikipedia article? It's hard to imagine who that person might be. Given that you had to source that information from reliable sources, anybody that was truly *that* interested, could just click the footnote and gorge on all the championship year detail that they could handle. Instead, you could say, perhaps: "the boys' teams excelled in water polo, winning over a dozen championships since 2000, as well as earning titles in baseball, basketball, and football in the last five years", or something like that. Ditto for the other tables.  Wonder if  would agree. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * YES, absolutely agree. Theroadislong (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also agree. That a four-year high school with an enrollment of ~600 (from the Info box) wins league championships says more to the leagues it competes in than it does to newsworthiness, regardless of being able to find a newspaper article as a reference. David notMD (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Aiming for quality
In the lifespan of every article there comes a point where it stops struggling to exist and we start to refine it. WP:BITE no longer applies! We are at this point now. We start evaluating it more critically. So I looked at the text, and compared it with Caulfield Grammar School and felt like rewriting that whole article as it is so short of refs and other basic mistakes. I looked at Amador Valley High School which is generally well written but lacking in detail of the core function, teaching, its organisation and the results and value-added achieved. This is a European thing, where extra curricula activities are interesting but not core. Crucially here everything mentioned in the lead is explained and expanded in subsequent sections. They don't give detais of why the AP courses are important. Crucially the tone is right, it does not look as if the history section has been lifted from a parental prospectus and and a few words change to prevent it being a copyvio. It does not give details of the location, and its socioeconomic status, catchments, feeders and destinations.

I then went back to look at Judd School to see how that was written and while generally comfortable with the text, it reminded me of my loathing for my own habit of starting each sentence with a subordinate clause. Wikipedians seem obsessed by writing qualifications before they commit themselves to a fact. But I suggest editors observe the tone of the article it is descriptive not promotional. These lessons can now be applied to Sacred Heart.

Back to Sacred Heart there are a few things that jarr.
 * A prominent reference ranks it -- name it
 * consists of --> is composed of
 * a prep school for-> differnt meaning in UK
 * grade almost doubles f -what was the starting number  - the use of almost- too vague
 * do not have to apply for re-admission to higher schools - why would they, sounds like prospectus speak
 * Sacred Heart is governed by an independent, mostly lay board of trustees -- firstly Mostly-- then where is the governance section
 * Sacred Heart was an all-girls school with a significant boarding component until 1984, when it adopted the Preparatory name, ended the boarding program, and started admitting boys --> Sacred Heart was an all-girls school with a significant boarding component until 1984. It started admitting boys, and boarding was ended. It changed its name to Sacred Heart Preparatory.

I may join in and make a few aggressive edits- please revert them if I go too far. There is the basis of a fine article here.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

A slightly different approach
So, after about a month of what appears to have been undisclosed paid editing (?), has finally disclosed his/her conflict of interest in relation to this article. While I applaud the valorous efforts of, , and  (did I miss anyone?) to restore some semblance of encyclopaedic tone and scope, the article was – in my opinion – noticeably better before all this began, even if it was distinctly short on sources. Unless others object, I propose restoring this version as a first step. If there are then notable errors or omissions of fact, no doubt Ottoump will request corrections here, on the talk-page, as should have been done right from the start. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which version are you proposing to revert to? your link is incorrect. Theroadislong (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarifying to Justlettersandnumbers: your "this version" link is incorrect. Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Grrr, how dumb! Thank you both, is the one I meant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Undisclosed paid editing?" Seriously? I'm sorry, but I'm baffled at this. I am a parent of a 14 year old who goes there and occasionally I officiate at swim meets. That's it. I have a non-technical job in a technical start-up that has nothing to do with writing, ghostwriting, and the like. And I disclosed that thin link (not the officiating part, but really?) a month ago, and ran that by editors in the Teahouse who, I thought, felt it was OK for me to work on it. If WikiProject Schools tells every parent and student that they aren't suitable for editing the Wikipedia entry about a school the child goes to, then I submit that there won't be a lot of editing of schools going on. What on earth gives you the idea that I'm a paid editor? Is this for real?  I can't believe I wasted my time on this. Ottoump (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers - I am STRONGLY against a massive revert to a pre-Ottoump version. If you do that I will revert your revert and we can take it to arbitration. Ottoump has been editing in good faith, and belatedly declared a COI on own User page. This declaration was already on the Talk page of the article in question. As Ottoump is not in Paid status, should not have to go through the tedious process of proposing line by line changes at Talk and then hope an editor will act on same. Theroadislong and I have over many edits reduced the length of the article by one-third. My own opinion is that it is NPOV and not overly long, especially of Ottoump complies with the recommendation to convert the tables of sports wins to a shorter version as text. David notMD (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved third party who happens to be watching the page, I'd like to chime in and say I think Ottoump's relationship to the school doesn't constitute a significant COI, though it was sensible to disclose it. I agree that Ottoump should not be required to request edits on the talk page.  No doubt some parents of pupils might not edit the article on their child's school neutrally, but there's no compensation or benefit being gained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the team- its good to have an experienced admin amongst us. I have several POVs on this- and I am about to air some of them.
 * 1) As a councillor for 10 years, I had to declare any CoI on any item I spoke on in meeting- We would say "I would like to declare a clear and substantive / un-substantive financial/non-financial interest in item x. I have taken advice from the solicitor and as a result, I will reserve my right to speak/ take no part in this debate and if if was onm blue paper (not open to the public- I will leave the room. This was recorded in the council minute book and failure to do so, ultimately led to a jail sentence! We did the same at school governors meetings, and generally this worked fine. An example of a substantive non-financial interest was when you were a governor whose school had applied for planning permission. That had to be declared. A parent would be advised that they should declare the connection but it was non-substantial. A user of the swimming pool would be told not to bother as it is a role that any member of the public may do, and they could do it anywhere. This is being over cautious.
 * 2) The past version is actually more to my liking- it gives more detais about the core issues. If I were starting afresh my article would be very similar. However, if you study our range of FAs not one of the looks like that. If you attempt to develop that article, using the examples given it would morph into something similar. With the benefit of hindsight and years of editing I despair at some of the articles we gave FAs in the distance past- and that it is now so difficult to achieve FA today which prevents new ones being added.
 * 3) We don't revert, that is not the consensual way Wikipedia adopts. I can almost say the new text and the old text easily jigsaw together, and it will not be a problem to integrate in either direction. As  is the lead editor, he probably should make the decision on how it is done, and we as experienced editors should be available to give technical assistance. I reserve the right to be bold- and just get it done.
 * 4) We do need some more relevant FAs. Could this be one of them. I, personally write lousy prose, lapsing into German grammatical structures so could never get their without considerable assistance.
 * 5) I am getting impatient with repeating all this- whatever we learn here, we need to document as a help sheet essay. I am interested in Ottoumps experiences in attempting to improve his/her childs schools wiki-entry, and I have another important article I need his comments on- I will contact him separately on his talk page.
 * 6) Any editors from the states, visiting London should time their visits so they can come along to the monthy London Wiki-meetups where we can continue these discussions over a coffee or a beer. London Wikimeetup Cooperation is the key and personal contact makes it easier. ClemRutter (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the interest all of you have demonstrated in this article. It hasn't had much attention over the last decade and, in my opinion, it shows. The comments supporting the previous version make me want to step back from vigorous editing (such that I'm allowed to continue editing at all) to understand what worked in that version and what didn't, and I'd particularly like to understand ClemRutter's perspective given his experience on WikiProject Schools. I've indeed been using the FA-Class school articles as a collective ideal; if that guidance no longer holds then I'll need a new set of standards.
 * That caveat aside, most of the edits made or suggested strike me as unambiguous improvements, although I'm not convinced about a few. For example, in the athletics section, replacing the tables with bulletized lists doesn't work for me, although it's good seeing what that looks like – thank you Steven (Editor) for that and all the other edits – and my inclination would be to replace them with straight text per Mathglot and David notMD. If the screen real estate dedicated to five separate tables is the concern, then it might be worth eliminating the three NorCal and State Championship tables by applying superscripts to the relevant years in the single CCS championship table. I appreciate Mathglot's concern about interest, but I think interest is high within the population of people who would be parochially interested in an article about a secondary school in the first place, along with regional sport enthusiasts (e.g, Bay Area water polo players). Ottoump (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not try to be the encyclopedia of everything. There are arbitrary decisions - high schools are article-worthy, but not elementary or middle schools. And in general, articles are not intended to contain everything about a topic. References and External links should suffice to satisfy the curiosity of those who want more information. David notMD (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You're welcome and is there any chance you could get the school to upload a good quality copy of its logo on its website or somewhere where I can upload on here and be able to provide a link for its sourcing? The current logo in the article is terrible and blurry, and it would need to be one that can be used on a lighter background — I was gonna use the one on their website but it's their white version which will not work best. I was gonna use the one on their Facebook page but that is also no good. My concern at the moment is the athletics section; asking  (excellent experience with US schools) to please take a look if he wouldn't mind Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The logo has been bugging me for months. However, as you can probably imagine given the CoI concerns expressed above, I'm trying to be very careful about keeping the school at arm's length. I could certainly poke around for a transparent png version, but only if there are no objections (after, like, a week?) here.


 * As to the athletics section, I think we could go with the text only or two consolidated tables (to replace the five tables as of two days ago). Please allow me to drop in an example of the latter to see what everyone says; we can always revert. A few points here:
 * I like the idea of showing the strings of CCS wins, as it gives factual clarity as to when the different programs were at their strongest and to their comparative strengths. I had zero appreciation for these streaks until compiling the data a couple of weeks ago.
 * The CCS consists of 140 schools, so it's a pretty big jump from a conference championship. The NorCal region covers half of a 40 million person state.
 * The level of competition can be pretty high. The school has two recent alumnae on the U.S. women's national soccer team and an alumnus in the NFL.
 * There's a particular state championship win by the girls basketball team that played out in the press like something out of Hoosiers. I believe it's worth noting; if the prose hyperventilates in any way, I'm sure it will get corrected/reverted, and I'm good with that. Ottoump (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , regarding logo, is there any chance you could provide me a link and I can upload it? Steven (Editor) (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I searched for downloadable logos on the parent portal and the only one I found was a high quality bitmap but with a white background. I think I'd have to ask someone. Ottoump (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, I got it from the school's SmugMug page and made it transparent manually. If a larger size can be found, the file can simply be updated with a new version Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nicely done. Thank you. Ottoump (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reconciling versions
ClemRutter and I dissected the old version on his talk page. Ottoump (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion referenced in the preceding paragraph, I propose the changes below. I think these go some way toward making this article correspond more closely to the WP:WPSCH/AG and less closely to an implied gold standard set by the FA articles in that project. (N.B. I'm not quite sure how they're falling short of what might now be viewed as FA ca. 2020, except to note the initial criticisms of this article regarding length; i.e, maybe the FAs are too long.)


 * Governance (new section after History). Clarify SHS's status as an independent school, but note the commitment/pledge to follow the educational objectives of the founding order. (completed by Ottoump (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Structure (new section). Include a paragraph or two for each of the lower and middle schools. Move the discussion of the prep school to the top of this. Get rid of the existing Prep section. (completed Ottoump (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Curriculum (renamed from Academics). Address how SHS handles the Religious Education component. Resurrect some of the previously-removed content on graduation requirements. (completed by Ottoump (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Extracurricular activities (new consolidation section). Include within this the existing sections on Athletics and Fine arts (renamed Performing arts). (completed Ottoump (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)) Per guidelines, add a section on Traditions. (completed by Ottoump (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Campus (new section). Include within it the retirement home for 54 nuns; the farm; the certified gardens; two LEED award-winning buildings. Main building has some historical interest and is an architectural outlier. ''completed by Ottoump (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)"
 * Former Headteachers. See note below.


 * Omitted from WP:WPSCH/AG for lack of heft are Admissions, Awards, and Notable staff. Former headteachers should include, in my opinion, the separate principals for the elementary/LMS and high school, since these have always been separate and only overseen by a director of schools in recent decades. Ottoump (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neglected to provide edit summary of removed reference in Oakwood section. (The reference was off-point.) Sorry to neglect the summary. Ottoump (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Found enough material to include a short and what I'd think to be useful admissions section. Ottoump (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * With the addition of Campus, the meatier sections are in place and it tips the scale at a svelte 2,600 words. I note this partially for the benefit of ClemRutter who observes (probably accurately) that I'm overly obsessed with word counts. Ottoump (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Tuition fees and FAST
I think listing tuition fees is approaching promoting the school and is a no-no. Certainly the source you use here should be *independent* of the school. Ref 30 is just to close. See how the Eton College article handles it. I had never heard of FAST (funding body)- fascinating and it needs to be a wikilinked article or explained further. Perhaps if FAST became the subject of the paragraph, then the tuition fees could be worked in there. ClemRutter (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I completely agree about the tuition, ClemRutter. I included it purely because it seemed to be called for by WP:WPSCH/AG (see Admissions bullet there). Having no external reference, I've taken it out. My impression is that FAST acts as an independent source for determining financial need. Parents supply tax returns and the like, FAST churns through it, and the school uses this to determine financial aid. It saves the school from appearances of favoritism, getting lobbied by parents, gaining access to private information, and an administrative burden. Ottoump (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

With the idea of making the article less provocative to the 'mustn't be promotional' lobby I started looking at the subheadings and changed one of them, Investment and growth: 1998-present  to Renovation and expansion as the former looked as if is came from a broschure for a share issue, and the latter is more encyclopedic. What do you think? Do others need changing? --ClemRutter (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good change. One of the many benefits of fresh eyes. Ottoump (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, I changed Taking root: 1898-1944 to Establishment: 1898-1944. Ottoump (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone do any teaching
Does anyone do any teaching? The curriculum section is absent! Often is is difficult to write the hook- but then everything flows. Try In common with comparable high schools in ......, Sacred Heart Schools teach a core of ...................... to the younger classes, but in addition ............... One can always tie in some text from ISCED and High school (North America). --ClemRutter (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I put a curriculum section in, but really struggled with it. My intent is to add a few sentences on distinctive courses. Ottoump (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was worth the struggle. It reads wells though you are aware that the direction the conversation will now go! References (other than primary source), international readership, completeness to include K-8.

I would hold back on the distinctive courses until you have a strong independent references. It is always easier to explain the higher level courses than the innovation that happens in the early years.ClemRutter (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good advice, ClemRutter. Thank you. I trimmed the "notable electives" sentence to just the one written up in the Merc. I'm hoping to hit the Stanford library sometime over the next few weeks for independent references that aren't available online re electives, K-8 standards, former principals & directors, and the like. Ottoump (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Reclassification
what do you think. User:Ottoump and myself have been working on this for a couple of months and the change is enormous. This is your side of the pond- is it worth taking this to GA yet? If or if not what should be changed/ improved? Fitting use of Christian holiday to have a look at one of their schools. Best wishes ClemRutter (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a serious look soon. Off the top, why is the title in variance to the US standard? John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noting I had a discussion with Ottoump regarding GA which you can see on my talk page. Regarding title, it seems this is the name of the school Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's "Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton" per NCES, the school's registration with the California Secretary of State, and how it refers to itself. Ottoump (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither the name registered with (insert authority here) nor how the school refers to itself is how we determine the article title. John from Idegon (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon, what is the standard for U.S. schools? Ottoump (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Same as for anything: WP:COMMONNAME. If this is that, then this fine (confusing, but fine). John from Idegon (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * John from Idegon, you raise a good point and without doubt it's an unusual construction. The smaller local papers (i.e., the ones serving the immediate towns within maybe a 10 mile radius) refer to it as just "Sacred Heart."  If you go to newspapers in some of the larger regional cities, they have to draw a distinction with other Sacred Heart schools in the region, so they refer to it either as "Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton" or "Sacred Heart Schools in Atherton."


 * In any case, I ran the Google searches below about a week ago, focussing on what are probably viewed as the most reliable secondary sources in the region. The San Jose Mercury News seems to adhere to the "... in Atherton" construction, although the others go more for the "Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton" version. Ottoump (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

! width=200 |Newspaper !! Search restrictions !! style="text-align: right;" width=100 | "Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton" !! style="text-align: right;" width=100 |"Sacred Heart Schools in Atherton"
 * || -shschools.org -wikipedia.org || style="text-align: right;" |18,500 || style="text-align: right;" |2,300
 * San Jose Mercury News || mercurynews.com || style="text-align: right;" |3 || style="text-align: right;" |68
 * SF Gate || sfgate.com || style="text-align: right;" |41 || style="text-align: right;" |41
 * San Francisco Examiner || sfexaminer.com || style="text-align: right;" |80 || style="text-align: right;" |1
 * San Francisco Chronicle || sfchronicle.com || style="text-align: right;" |100 || style="text-align: right;" |7
 * Los Angeles Times || latimes.com || style="text-align: right;" |144 || style="text-align: right;" |5
 * Sacramento Bee || sacbee.com || style="text-align: right;" |8 || style="text-align: right;" |2
 * Fresno Bee || fresnobee.com || style="text-align: right;" |54 || style="text-align: right;" |0
 * Oakland Tribune || oaklandtribune.com || style="text-align: right;" |43 || style="text-align: right;" |1
 * Wall Street Journal || wsj.com || style="text-align: right;" |91 || style="text-align: right;" |0
 * }
 * Los Angeles Times || latimes.com || style="text-align: right;" |144 || style="text-align: right;" |5
 * Sacramento Bee || sacbee.com || style="text-align: right;" |8 || style="text-align: right;" |2
 * Fresno Bee || fresnobee.com || style="text-align: right;" |54 || style="text-align: right;" |0
 * Oakland Tribune || oaklandtribune.com || style="text-align: right;" |43 || style="text-align: right;" |1
 * Wall Street Journal || wsj.com || style="text-align: right;" |91 || style="text-align: right;" |0
 * }
 * Oakland Tribune || oaklandtribune.com || style="text-align: right;" |43 || style="text-align: right;" |1
 * Wall Street Journal || wsj.com || style="text-align: right;" |91 || style="text-align: right;" |0
 * }
 * }

Chart
What's everyone's sense of putting in a graduating class growth chart to the right of the last history section? On one hand, I think it's really informative and would let the article shed its vague indicators of growth; on the other, because every year requires its own source, it requires a ton of citations. My proposal would be to keep the Chart Data as a separate subsection in the Reference section (between Notes and Citations, most likely), but I'm not sure if all those new sources will weigh down the article.

Please see the example below. In doing so, note that I haven't figured out how to get the starting reference list to begin with a lowercase "a" and I don't really know how to make the text size match that of the other Reference sections – but those questions are subordinate, of course, to the larger question of whether the chart improves the article in the first place. Ottoump (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Chart data


^ For 1899, see
 * For 1931, see
 * For 1939, see
 * For 1941, see
 * For 1942, see
 * For 1943, see
 * For 1944, see
 * For 1954, see
 * For 1966, see
 * For 1967, see
 * For 1975, see
 * For 1977, see
 * For 1982, see
 * For 1984, see
 * For 1996, see
 * For 1997, see
 * For 1998, see
 * For 1999, see
 * For 2000, see
 * For 2001, see
 * For 2002, see
 * For 2003, see
 * For 2004, see
 * For 2005, see
 * For 2007, see
 * For 2009, see
 * For 2011, see
 * For 2012, see
 * For 2013, see
 * For 2014, see
 * For 2015, see
 * For 2016, see
 * For 2017, see
 * For 2018, see
 * For 2019, see

 Collapsed to save Talk page vertical scrolling; User:Ottoump, this is your ref data post; feel free to un-collapse if you prefer. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Not at all. Thank you for collapsing it... doing so makes this talk page much easier to read. Ottoump (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice exercise, not to mention great referencing, but I can't imagine who would care to have this much detail. It could be handled in a single sentence: "...the class remained small&mdash;a dozen or less&mdash;from its inception through WW II, then started increasing slowly but steadily throughout the next half century reaching 80 by 1996, and then more rapidly, exceeding 150 in 2017." Just because the data exists, doesn't mean it's relevant or encyclopedic in an article. I'm not sure there's a slam-dunk policy reason it *shouldn't* be included, so in the end consensus probably should determine its inclusion (or exclusion), but some policies that might play a role are WP:ONUS ("Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"), WP:UNDUE ("...including but not limited to depth of detail..."), and WP:INDISCRIMINATE ("Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.") Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Another thing occurs to me: has anyone else, outside the school itself, ever published such a chart? I'm not sure that WP:OR requires that it be published in chart form by a reliable source first before we do, since you have amply demonstrated citations for each datapoint; but it just seems outside our role as an encyclopedia to be the first to publish a chart of this nature. There is WP:NOTLEAD, which says, "Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them." Does this mean a chart is a "novel way" of presenting it? It's not clear; might need a comment from someone more familiar with the subtleties of WP:OR policy than I am. Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent points as usual, Mathglot. To answer your question, I've never seen the data assembled in one place, much less placed in chart form. The best argument I can muster for its inclusion is that (1) size is relevant and perhaps even vital to an historical record; (2) the assembly of data is entirely based on secondary research (albeit a tedious amount of it from the researcher's standpoint); and, more important, (3) displaying for the reader all the known data is less interpretive than trying to describe growth within and between fairly arbitrary time periods. Cheers. Ottoump (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty sleepy corner of the encyclopedia; you might try posting at a board or Talk page related to the possible issues in order to attract the attention of editors more familiar with the intricacies of policy with regard to something like this. If you do, please post a link back to this discussion, so they can read the backstory first, before commenting. You could try at WT:OR, where, as it happens, the first discussion concerns a high school issue, although not the same one as here.  I'm not certain which board or TP would be the best, there might be other issues besides OR involved here, but the folks at WT:OR could point you somewhere else, if they don't feel that OR is the issue here. If you post there, or elsewhere, please leave a link here so interested editors here can follow the breadcrumbs. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've posted something on the No Original Research talk page. Ottoump (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The conclusion I've drawn so far from the above referenced NOR talk page is that such a chart isn't OR. That said, we need to be careful to avoid any uncited analysis, however slight, that interprets the data. Ottoump (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a few sentences/phrases at the end of each historical period to mark the graduating class size, per your earlier recommendation, Mathglot. This probably suffices to give readers a sense of growth trajectory without going so far as to interpret it for them. While I maintain that the line graph has some advantages, they may not be compelling enough to justify another 40 or so citations. Ottoump (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Explanatory notes
Explanatory notes may have a lower threshold of verifiability (or maybe not; not too sure abot this) but you have to at least not mislead. Note 9 about highway 101 and El Camino Real state that they run "generally north-south". Although that may be the designation on the signs, neither road runs north-south in Palo Alto. Ottoump, was this one of your additions, or does it predate you? Either way, as you're pretty active on the article, maybe you wouldn't mind fixing it. Mathglot (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have to own up to that dumpster fire of a nota bene, Mathglot. Will take care of when I regain access to a real keyboard. Ottoump (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable alumni watchlist
I've looked for reliable secondary sources that directly describe certain notable people as Sacred Heart alumni, but have failed to find anything so far that doesn't involve WP:SYNTH. If you discover a connecting source, please do any of the following: (1) note the reference somewhere below; (2) add the Notable alumnus/alumna to the article, and cite the source; or, (3) edit the bio page to reflect the SHS attendance, cite the source there, and add the Wikilinked name to the Notable alumni list on the Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton article. When finished, please replace the template in the first column with ✅. Ottoump (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)