Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Avery Coonley School/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010.

The Avery Coonley School

 * Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the featured  article criteria of a  comprehensive and well-researched article on an interesting school which is notable for its place on the National  Register of Historic Places, historic importance in the progressive education movement, association with important architects and landscape artists, patented educational innovation, and academic accomplishments on the state and national level. It has been promoted to good article status and was peer reviewed  to gather further input on its content. Substantial work has been done post-GA to further improve the references and prose. A level of external copy editing has been done on the article, as well. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Comments. Needs a little more work IMO. Just a few comments on the lead:
 * I think you need to give a little more explanation for those of us not in the colonies who may be unsure what "eighth grade" means. Can you not just give an age range, as in from X-Y? I understand from The Beverly Hillbillies that a student can be in the first grade forever.
 * Eighth grade is wikilinked to address this. All the US grade names are linked, per WP:WPSCH/AG. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The school been located on an 11-acre ...". Is this typical of the rest of the article?
 * Typo fixed. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "... with grounds designed by the famous landscape architect Jens Jensen ...". I've never heard of him, so probably best to drop the peacockery.
 * The claim is well-supported by the references in the article and the association is a notable feature of the school. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The curriculum preserves the school's founding philosophy and traditions but is accelerated and enriched ...". How do you "accelerate" a curriculum?]
 * Acceleration is also wikilinked to an explanatory article. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I see similar errors and peacockery throughout this article and no desire to fix them, therefore I must oppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am  sorry you feel that way. I would be happy to address any alleged   "peacockery," which I think would likely be also supported by the   references, if you were inclined to point them out. Nasty Housecat   (talk)  04:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My responses were meant to be explanatory, not recalcitrant, and with additional direction from  Ucucha I now better understand your comments. It's my first time through  this. I'm slow, but I do get there. Accordingly, I have done the  following:
 * Confirmed that the first appearance of US grade names (and other obviously US-centric school terms) are wikilinked,  which seems to be the approach at WP:WPSCH/AG  and in other  FA school articles. There seems to be no  solution that does not confuse at least one side of the pond.
 * Reviewed superlative claims throughout and "neutralized" where appropriate. The sources might support the stronger claims, but nothing is  lost by dialing them back. So I did.
 * Removed terms from the lead that are not fully explained until later (like  "accelerate").
 * I believe this will resolve your specific concerns and hopefully your opposition to the nomination. I appreciate  your comments and would welcome additional feedback. Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take another look through either later tonight or more likely tomorrow. I do understand that the FAC experience can be a little intidating, even for those of us who've been through it before. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Oppose (see below). No dab links, no dead external links. Alt text is present, but needs work. You don't need to tell people that something is a photo, just what is on it. Give some sense of the locale in the alt text: what does the background look like? To readers who see the images, they tell a lot about the kind of place the school is in; this information should not be lost to those who do not see them. Ucucha 03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All alt text now revised accordingly. Thanks for the comments. Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much improved. Please check the one for the auditorium, which reads mangled at the moment. Ucucha 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Demangled now. Thank you. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You might still want to mention the empty seats.
 * They are still there. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From a cursory reading, I do see Malleus's points. "Student scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills have been in the top one percent in the nation", you say. Good to see that the Iowa Tests are so popular. Ucucha 04:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Iowa Tests are administered in schools across the US, as the referenced article states. I've changed the sentence to quote that fact directly from the source to clarify for readers who might not be familiar. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the first paragraph of the "Curriculum" section sounds quite promotional. It is sourced to the school's mission statement, which would be questionable anyway, but this mission statement does not even contain much of the information. Similarly, the claim that "ACS refers to grade levels as "groups", a practice which dates back to the early days of the school." is not supported by the source. With such problems found on a cursory check, I do not believe this article is likely to meet the FA criteria. Ucucha 04:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph is intended to link the modern day curriculum to the extensive discussion of the history and explain what all of that has to do with what goes on there today. These are also some of features that make the school interesting and different. I don't read it as particularly promotional, but will try to revise it if current reviewers disagree. The source is not actually the mission statement, but the "At a Glance" page with spells out the basic facts and figures of the school, which I think would be reliable for such things. I did not think that the claim about the term "group" was likely to be challenged. I will find a reference for it. Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have revised the explanation of groups and quoted directly from a source that explains why the term is used.Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have also revised the Curriculum section per your comments and I believe it will read more neutrally now. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not implying that the mission statement was sourcing the claim that the practice of calling grades "groups" dates back to the early days of the school. But the "At a glance" page does not contain that claim. Neither, for that matter, does it say that classes have 32 students, that there are four divisions, or that the EC program is for three-year-olds, all claims in the paragraph it references in the article. The same source also cites the sentence about tablet computers, much of which it does not support either. Further down, several sentences were lifted directly from the source. I deleted them.
 * I thought you meant to say the curriculum was sourced to the mission,  which I agree would not be a reliable source. I was merely pointing out  that the mission is not referenced in the article at all, for the reason  you mention. Nasty Housecat  (talk)  06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a reference which specifically supports the class size and EC claims. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a better source for the technology section that supports all the claims made. Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have revised the sentences in question to avoid repeating the source. Nasty Housecat  (talk)  05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When you give something as a reference for a paragraph, it means, to me at least, that all information in that paragraph can be verified in that source. This article repeatedly does not do that. Ucucha 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the comment. I have worked towards WP:V by citing quotations and anything likely to be challenged. The sources are not meant to support each fact in the paragraph, in the belief that many of those facts are in the not likely to be challenged bucket. But I have taken your comments to heart and added the appropriate references where indicated. Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your efforts in improving the article to address my and Malleus's concerns are commendable. Whether it will be enough to get the article to FA status, I don't know, but I'll review further later on. Ucucha 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of your comments. I will make additional efforts along those lines in the next day or two and look forward to your further review. Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please fix the article so that it does not contain invalid HTML. See the article's W3C Validator report and Help:Markup validation . Eubulides (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of general interest, which of the FA criteria make reference to valid html? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is caused by a section that has a perfectly valid and sensible name. When that results in invalid HTML, that is a bug in MediaWiki, not something that should be fixed in this article. Ucucha 02:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I don't like to mention this often, but I have a degree in gifted education and I will assist in helping you improve the article as I can. I find the writing descriptive, but not compelling. There are ways to fix this if you will allow some thorough copy-editing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Archived by Karanacs . Ucucha 20:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.