Talk:United States Academic Decathlon

Controversies section
"The Controversies section is probably the weakest though. It could probably be changed to Controversies and criticisms; the article would then have to include the various criticisms USAD has received over the years - most notably those from California coaches, and Coach Hatem from North Hollywood High School in particular." On my talk page a while ago, suggested that the following ought to be added to the article. Since I don't have access to actual paper newspapers, these are the best I could find:
 * Gale Group -
 * Gale Group -


 * Criticisms
 * 
 * - "Critics say that some competitions focus too much on fact-mongering, as one educator put it, and not enough on independent, in-depth thinking. There is also concern that the competitions take up too much time. The National Association of Secondary School Principals, which publishes an annual list of contests and activities, does not endorse national contests that require team competition at a common site.'We do discourage national competitions of all kinds, said Scott D. Thomson, executive director of the association. They draw too much of the students' time and attention away from their regular schoolwork, But he added that the association did not object to the competitions themselves. We're opposed to the national dimension of it, Mr. Thomson said, not the academic competition dimension of it.''"
 * Thefreelibrary
 * This one from the LA Times that I can't fully access
 * Another LA Times one
 * Cheaters
 * - On the cheating scandal in Illinois
 * - More on it
 * - Cheaters after the fact
 * - "Acadec = Memorization"

Anything else along these lines that people could think of? Criticisms of USAD is probably the only real thing missing from this article; a prose cleanup would be enough to get this article to FA. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About that LA Times article...I think that might be right here:Top Coaches Lead Protest of Decathlon I also found a few articles discussing that year's...issues. Dumb Questions for Bright Kids - Time, Acadectalk - Editorial by Larry Jones, posted on ADT by a decathlete from PA. I'm looking for the original source. TechVars (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Found the original source of the Larry Jones editorial. Credibility Gap for Academic Decathlon - shocker, LA Times. TechVars (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those are really good. I incorporated those into the article. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 17:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Formerly used references
These references used to be used, but were then replaced. Since they might have a future use, I'm moving them here: NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * More

Medals Image
Well, it's pretty well-known that all states use different medals. However, since this is the United States Academic Decathlon article, would it be better to instead use a picture of say, a bronze, silver & gold medal from USAD itself? I know that the E-Nationals medals are the same as the Nationals medals, and I've taken at least one in every category. I could take a picture of them, and upload them to Wikimedia, if that would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechVars (talk • contribs)
 * You know, that would be great. Do you think you could add the images? And if you have access to the medals with you, do you think you could get gold, silver, and bronze all in one shot? That would be greatly appreciated. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Small/Medium School E-Nationals
Well, I know USAD no longer has anything about this at usad.org, but for the first two years that they offered Small-School E-Nationals, the guidelines were fewer than 950 students, not < 650. I guess to allow for a broader net? It wasn't until they added the Medium School category that the current school size guidelines were established. I'll look into digging up a source on that one, but if I can't find one, shall I just add it anyway? TechVars (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you found a source for it first. I'll take a look into some of the archives we have used (just take a look at the citations) and hope that some of them mention that. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions and comments
I will post my questions and comments here as I read the article.


 * is one of the premier academic competitions for high school students in the United States - Should this be "is one of the premier academic competitions in the United States for high school students"? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds more appropriate, so I have changed it to that. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You refer to AD as "the Academic Decathalon" throughout the article. I'm used to hearing it referred to as simply "Academic Decathalon". Is this merely a regional difference? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It might just be a regional thing; I'm used to hearing it both ways. But in keeping with consistency; I have changed it to simply "Academic Decathlon". NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This will need to be changed throughout the article. (It wasn't consistent anyway.) Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ten events require talents from all forms of academia - Poorly worded sentence - "talents" and "forms" are not quite the right words. Perhaps "disciplines" instead of "forms"? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "The ten events require knowledge in many disciplines of academia", though looking over it after a night's sleep, I see that it might need changing from that. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed further to "academic disciplines". Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Subjects are not proper nouns and therefore not capitalized. I've started fixing that in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I managed to change that in the rest of the article.


 * In 2000, a policy change led to a major protest by several coaches. - This sentence from the lead is unclear. What change? What kind of protest? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to "In 2000, USAD's decision to market error-ridden Resource Guides led to a major protest by several coaches." NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Though at first only regional contests were held, as early as 1969 there was a push to make the competition state-wide - Who was responsible for this push? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * sought to bring the competition to the international level - This seems a bit wordy to me. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That became "However, Peterson, inspired by the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, hoped to make Academic Decathlon an international event". NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * File:LibroMuertosMetropolitan.jpg - Could this description be translated into English? Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Translated it and put it in the appropriate infobox. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Alvino controversy is poorly explained. What was the religious article about? Why was it controversial? Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "During the 2000–01 season, the program's executive director of four years, James Alvino, resigned.[19] Alvino had written a religious article that had been included in that year's Super Quiz Resource Guide, regarded by his critics and the USAD Board as a conflict of interest." NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is better, but why was it a conflict of interest? Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * File:California Super Quiz Relay.jpg - The author and the uploader are not obviously the same person. How do we know that the author has released the rights under the CC license? Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I contacted Yohhans; hopefully he can explain. Meanwhile, however, I have taken this out, and I shall see if I can replace it with one of my own images. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1999 and 2000 both featured Science-based Super Quizzes, and in 2001 and 2002 Super Quiz was Social Science based. From 2003 to the present, the Super Quiz has alternated between Science and Social Science. - Do we need all of this detail? Can we simply say that from 1999 to the present, the Super Quiz was based on either science or social science? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of liked this information, but I think I have managed to shorten it while keeping the information intact. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was changed to "In 1998, Super Quiz replaced economics; since 1999, it has replaced either Science or Social Science and has alternated replacing the two since 2003". NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think this level of detail is unnecessary, but ultimately that decision is up to you. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * With the change in policy came a change in scoring. - This seems to suggest that the scoring process changed, but the text following this seems to suggest that this was not the case. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reclarified to "After the change in policy, scores vastly increased across the country". NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 2000–01 season was also significant in that it was the first year that states were allowed to send both their large and small school champions to the national competition - This is the first the reader hears of large and small school differences - it is confusing. Should this be mentioned in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I added a note to that effect in the lead and later down. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The "2000-01" and "2002-present" sections repeat information that has already been stated Is there a way to condense the history section into one section rather than breaking it up into several sections that repeat information? For example, the information about the introduction of USAD research materials is introduced several times. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I reorganized it so that history is one section now, so I think that issue is fixed. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of all the sections in the article, I think this is the weakest. It doesn't flow very well right now, partially because the paragraphs don't have transitions. You need to lead the reader along a bit more. History reads best told as a little "story", so each paragraph needs to lead into the next. There needs to be a reason for the reader to connect the paragraphs together. Right now, this section seems more like a listing of facts. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * File:USAD medals.JPG - Owner of the copyright needs to be listed. An expanded purpose of use would be good. Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I expanded this slightly. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk )
 * I've added even more. This image might be challenged at FAC by fair use diehards. I can imagine someone saying "we all know what gold, silver, and bronze medals look like". A stronger fair use rationale would say something about the actual design of the medals, but I don't have the sources which would allow me to construct such a rationale. Perhaps you do. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The USAD requires breadth of knowledge and diversity of teams - "diversity" can mean a lot of different things - can you be more specific? Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to "The USAD requires a diversity of grades within each team; teams must have students who fall into three categories determined by GPA." NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed "grades" to "achievement". Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes in the math exam are also repeated (History and Events). Repetition like this makes the article longer and more difficult to read. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it in the later section, where it didn't make as much sense. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to take a break from this. Will finish this later. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing box. It is much easier if you respond under each item - that is why I signed each one. We can then have a discussion. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything I didn't respond to, I "fixed". Or least I tried. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you mention how you fixed it? Otherwise I have go back and look to see. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why are some of the topics in the table in quotation marks and others not? Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to remove the quotation marks entirely; I don't think they need to be there at all. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactly was the cheating scandal resolved? Was there a punishment? The story doesn't seem to be fully told. Awadewit (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence telling what happened to the team members and the coach afterwards. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to get more details on the Burke scandal? What exactly did he do that was wrong in the appeal situation? Awadewit (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All I could find was that it "inflamed" the situation. Even the not-so-reliable sources had nothing more than that. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the way the sources crumble. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've been over the article again. It is looking much better. I would suggest one final copyedit from someone other than myself before FAC. ,, or might be willing to help. Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DemiDec Self-Promoting
I just feel this site should not be used to promote someone's company and should be used only to give information regarding United States Academic Decathlon. By posting photos of vendors such as Demidec Dan, it seems to cheapen the site to an ad for his company. Photos should be restricted to USAD and students, not vendors!Llamagirl1 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Llamagirl 1
 * Well, you are right in that articles should be kept neutral and informative to all. However, Academic Decathlon is not only notable for the competition itself and the students, but for the companies that have sprung up around it. It is amazing that an small industry now exists just to support Academic Decathlon, and if we wish to be comprehensive (see FA criteria), we must cover that. NW ( Talk ) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. There are two companies that were created to make a living for a few people off the backs of USAD, a "small industry" is inaccurate. While these companies exist soley as a result of Academic Decathlon, I still don't think that their self-promoting photos etc. should be on the USAD wiki site. I believe that privilege should be confined to USAD and the students that support the program. Demidec, which produces some nice study materials, should promote on their own wiki site is all. 76.164.53.118 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Llamagirl1

I reviewed this article (as you can see above), so I thought I would comment here. First off, thanks so much for contributing to this article and thinking about how Wikipedia is dealing with the issue of presenting for-profit companies. As I am sure you are aware, we have had trouble in the past with companies promoting themselves and other such issues. We have to be very careful with how we present this material and you were very astute to raise these questions. So, let's look at the material in the article. In order to decide whether or not this is promotional, let's look at some of the sentences from the article:

"In the 1990s, various companies were established to research subjects and provide practice tests to teams. Two of the major ones were Acalon Cards and Exams and DemiDec, formed by former coach Dan Spetner[86] and former student[87] Daniel Berdichevsky,[88] respectively. The two offer exams and study guides that can augment or replace USAD's official Resource and Research Guides and exams.[86][89][90] USAD explicitly discouraged teams from ordering materials from third-party companies in the late 1998,[91] though it later removed their discouragement from the curriculum page.[92] However, USAD republished their discouragement just a few weeks after removing it.[93] However USAD did not publish such a warning in 2002."

The language here is not promotional, in my opinion. It presents the facts straightforwardly ("various companies", "two of the major ones"). It offers descriptions of the books "exams and study guides" "augment or replace" (note that it is not endorsing either choice). The paragraph also presents the official USAD response - in detail. As these books are an important part of the studying process (whether published by AcDec or not), it is essential that the article mention them. I do not think that this article is an advertisement for them.

The other question you raise is about the photo. This is a very subtle issue. You, I think, view this as "product placement" or "viral advertising". However, Daniel Berdichevsky is clearly a notable person in the AcDec world, so having a picture of him is not inappropriate, in my view. This is like having a picture of Andrew Carnegie in an article about steel. He was a good businessman related to the field (obviously AcDec is a bit smaller than steel, but you see the point).

What are your thoughts about these arguments? Please do let us know. Perhaps we have missed something! Wikipedia is all about discussion! Awadewit (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would not compare anyone's involvement in USAD to Andrew Carnegie's involvement in the steel industry other than its creater, Robert Peterson. A former high scoring student and current for profit vendor is not worthy of that comparison! This company does not have the expense of research and development of the materials, they simply "borrow" USAD created, researched, and produced materials and expand upon someone elses creation. Then, they sell them to make a profit for themselves. No creativity there. There are many people who are responsible for the success of the program, and USAD deals with hundreds of companies. Maybe we should contact USAD and ask them for a list and invite all vendors and others involved to have a section on the wiki page? No, most mature and reputable people and companies would not be so brazen in their self promotion. I believe that this page is getting overloaded with exessive information. I agree that there should be mention of Demidec, DB is no longer the highest scoring student, but photos and an entire section is just too much. Lamagirl (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ermm... I personally could not care less about the self-promoting thing, and I think this is all being blown a bit out of proportion. With that said, the DemiDec information isn't really all that intrusive. You say that an entire section is too much but also say that there should be a mention of DemiDec. As far as I can tell this is exactly how things are presented; that is, under the Study Materials section, there is mention of both DemiDec and Acalon. Nothing intrusive, just enough to let the reader know that third party materials exist. I think the way the article is written is perfectly acceptable in regards to bias / self-promotion.


 * I agree that the picture could be interpreted as being too much, but if I understand NW's intent correctly, it's more there for aesthetic appeal: an article with pictures is more fun to look at. If you can provide some alternative that would be great! Or even just a suggestion for an alternative picture. Maybe we could include a snapshot of some of the USAD official study materials? Although if we do that, we start getting into copyright violations, something that is in no way condoned on Wikipedia. Perhaps something to do with the basics material? Something like including a thumb of the circle of fifths? I remember that information being on quite a few music tests that I took when I competed. What do you think? - Yohhans talk 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One paragraph on DemiDec / Acalon seem to be an adequate amount, and that's what is currently in the article; we can't neglect their existence without sacrificing the article's comprehensiveness, as they are very prevalent in the AcaDeca world. That said, if we add a picture, it'd be better if we add some pie charts of the table immediately above the DemiDec prose. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to USAD officials some of the information regarding their position on third party materials is inaccurate and should be removed, or restated. I think the photo should be removed and the inaccuracies corrected. I would also like to add a photo of Dr. Peterson as he IS the Andrew Carnegie of USAD.Lamagirl (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on "information regarding their position on third party materials is inaccurate". What part is inaccurate? Everything in the article is sourced, and the comments about USAD discouraging third-party materials is sourced directly to them. If you think what is stated is said with a bias attached to it, how do you think it should be reworded? Personally, I think this "USAD explicitly discouraged teams from ordering materials from third-party companies in the late 1998,[92] though it later removed their discouragement from the curriculum page.[93] However, USAD republished their discouragement just a few weeks after removing it.[94] However USAD did not publish such a warning in 2002.[34]" ought to be shortened to "USAD explicitly discouraged teams from ordering materials from third-party companies in the late 1998,[92] though it later removed their discouragement from the curriculum page.[93]". But that's just me. Beyond that, I don't see much need to alter anything regarding USAD's comments on third-party materials. Am I missing something?


 * As far as a picture of Dr. Peterson, I think you're right. There should be one, and there was. But, unfortunately, the one I included in the article previously was deemed inappropriate since it apparently did not qualify as fair use (I grabbed the pic from here: http://usad.org/About/Peterson.asp). If you can find a picture that can be used freely, that would be great! I'd love to have one included in the article. But as I commented earlier, I think something should replace the DemiDec picture if it is to be removed. Do you have suggestions for one? The Dr. Peterson picture would go in the History section. - Yohhans talk 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are in contact with USAD officials, you can always tell them that they can clarify their position (and us confirm that they are indeed talking on behalf of USAD) by emailing OTRS. Also, they could probably provide a libre image of Dr. Peterson to resolve the whole picture issue. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the source and it seems that USAD only eiscouraged purchasing 3rd party materials in regard to Art and Music as all of their test materials came directly from their own curriculum. Quote is as follows. "5...d) VERY IMPORTANT - ALL TEST QUESTIONS ON ART AND MUSIC WILL COME FROM FOUR SOURCES EXCLUSIVELY: THE ART BOOKLET (PICTURES AND TEXT), THE OPERA COMPENDIUM, THE MUSIC CD, AND THE ART AND MUSIC SECTIONS OF THE SUBJECT AREAS GUIDE. Purchasing study materials from commercial companies is a waste of money."

I think this is a bit fuzzy, but does not mean that USAD discouraged all purchases of 3rd party materials. I have requested and received a photo of Dr. Peterson from USAD to include on the Wiki site with their permission.

I still think the photo of Daniel B. should be removed and that students should be featured as they are the focus of USAD, not 3rd party vendors...Llamagirl1 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan and Dean were once Academic Decathlon participants; in fact, Dan was once the top scorer and is now on the Board of Directors for California Academic Decathlon. There are other reasons to keep him and the image there besides DemiDec after all.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I spoke to USAD, Ms. Chafe and she gave permission to use the photo Dr. R. Peterson on the site as they own the copyright. It is the same photo used on their webpage. Unfortunately, I do not have the status to publish the photo on Wiki. Is there someone who can do that. I have it started and placed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamagirl1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to accept the article on Wikipedia, it would have to be published under an acceptable license. Is USAD willing to do that? NW ( Talk ) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinions bleeding through article
This article contains a number of quips against the complaints made by coaches surrounding the AD, rather than simply stating what happened along with any resolution. This, coupled with the inclusion of DemiDec, as well as the generalization of scandals as being "small," constitute a strong bias favoring the USAD. In addition, the lack of coverage regarding patterns of schools qualifying for national competition (i.e. Whitney-Young in Chicago qualifying 22 out of the last 23 years) certainly demands investigation. The fact that the author, as knowledgeable as they are about the Academic Decathlon, chose to refer to scandals surrounding the AD as "small" while ignoring the largest scandal surrounding the competition altogether - educational segregation - is absolutely deplorable. This article should be stricken of its star altogether, and further research performed discussing the viability of this program altogether. Brigg1st (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you would say that I am heavily biased towards USAD, as after some pretty terrible competitions (including Nationals), I have been quite critical of them. As for schools like Waukesha West High School, Acton-Boxborough Regional High School, Whitney Young, Madison Academic High School, Northwest Pennsylvania Collegiate Academy, etc. that seem to constantly go to Nationals year after year, that is simply indicative of the fact that they have built up a very good program in a state that is not as competitive. Regarding this "educational segregation" that you mention; I never come across it in my research and do not know what you are referring to. Could you explain further please? NW ( Talk ) 00:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominated to appear on the main page
Please see Today's featured article/requests. NW ( Talk ) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref duplication
These references appears to be exactly the same. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * United_States_Academic_Decathlon
 * United_States_Academic_Decathlon
 * They are indeed the same, with just the page numbers swapped out. I didn't want to split the references off to make a references and a footnotes section, so I simply duplicated the ref. In doing so, I seem to have made an error with the title and author. I have fixed that now, I believe. Thanks for catching my mistake! NW ( Talk ) 18:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
Imagine my surprise to see an article I started over 6 years ago be featured on the front page. Good job :) CryptoDerk (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We couldn't have gotten it here without you. Thanks! NW ( Talk ) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics curriculum
I was a 1987 Decathlon participant, and I am certain that differential and integral calculus was covered on the examination, though not in depth as Adv. Placement Calculus AB. --Catofgrey (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was actually one question which involved taking an anti-derivative this year as well on the Nationals math exam, but the website explicitly said (as did the coordinator at Nationals) that math involved only up through differential calculus. I'm not sure what to go with. NW ( Talk ) 18:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about just mentioning the discrepancy in the article? 138.9.77.154 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't believe that we are allowed to publish such information without a reliable source to back it up (which we are unlikely to get). And indeed, perhaps USAD considers anti-differentiation part of differential calculus. Who knows? It's really a no-win situation. NW ( Talk ) 02:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

online guides?
are there any online versions of the guides or pdf downloads of them that i can cite? thanks. 99.189.105.78 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * USAD doesn't put any of the official guides online for public distribution. However, I did hear that they might be giving coaches who bought the paper guides PDF copies as well this year. You would be best served contacting their office directly to find out. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From the year before it went national
See File:CA Leg Res 234 1981.jpg. (Probably no action is needed to the article, but I thought editors here might find this of interest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 one external links on United States Academic Decathlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/downloads/USADHistoryWeb.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/Curriculum/theme2012_2013.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/22/local/me-54313
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreelibrary.com/403.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.academicdecathlon.org/news.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/competition/pentathlon.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usadic.org/Information.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usad.org/coaches/newsletter/FallNewsletter2010.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usad.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasc.us/tabid/2259/default.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.indiajournal.com/pages/event.php?id=6377
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jun/24/moorpark-decathlon-team-meets-president-obama/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430033839/http://www.usad.org/ to http://www.usad.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430033839/http://www.usad.org/ to http://www.usad.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on United States Academic Decathlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/downloads/USADHistoryWeb.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fcoe.k12.ca.us/spc_proj/acadec/topics.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/curriculum/theme2012_2013.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/22/local/me-54313
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.academicdecathlon.org/news.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usad.org/competition/pentathlon.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://usadic.org/Information.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usad.org/coaches/newsletter/FallNewsletter2010.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usad.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasc.us/tabid/2259/default.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jun/24/moorpark-decathlon-team-meets-president-obama/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yMexleJQ?url=http://usad.org/downloads/USADHistoryWeb.pdf to http://usad.org/downloads/USADHistoryWeb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Academic Decathlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603135108/http://usad.org/Directors/Essential.asp to http://usad.org/Directors/Essential.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

URFA/2020
I am reviewing this article for WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review older featured articles to determine if they still meet the FA criteria. I am concerned that this article's history section is not arranged chronologically, and that there are no post-2010 events described. This makes me believe that the article has not been updated in some time. Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:FAR? one of the FAC nominators who might still be active. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not still active enough to make these changes.  NW  ( Talk ) 16:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)