Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British International School Vietnam/1

British International School Vietnam

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Withdrawn by nominator --Philcha (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was unfairly quick failed, saying "it is an advertisement with no independent verifiable sources". It is clearly not an advertisement, as it at no point makes any hint that the school is better then any other, and there are no independent sources available. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to look past the bluntness of the review to the material fact: the article is entirely sourced to http://www.bisvietnam.com. It is far from true that this is the only source that discusses the school, as a google search quickly reveals. Even adding a source such as http://www.english-schools.org/vietnam/british-international-school.htm (which may not be very independent) would improve the article. Look for references to the school in newspapers (are there no league tables in HCMC?). I found a reference by UNICEF to the school in connection with the tsunami. Other such nuggets of information are almost certainly available. Geometry guy 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree our policies require multiple reliable third party sources. This is required just to establish notability. Standards for Good articles are higher. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't know what league tables are, but I'm fairly confident that there aren't any in Saigon. And while I believe it should be a Wikipedia policy, I can find no reference to the sources needing to be independent on Wikipedia pages. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this being considered here - I thought this page was to reconsider existing GAs, not to sidestep the GAN process? Ruslik and Geometry Guy are correct, but the other reason for quick-fail was that the article is not neutral. It has a pov spam lead and the actual one-sentence "mission statement" is followed by a whole chunk of spam. The user is a pupil at the school with a clear COI and part of the article is a copyright infringement of the school's website. jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Jim, the other use of GAR is to re-examine situations where a GA might have gone wrong. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I thouroughly checked the page on the GAR before posting it. This is a valid reason for a good article review. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

League tables means rankings of schools. I would be surprised if this was not the case in Vietnam anymore. It can't have changed that much in 30 years... YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Philcha
These are based on the Good Article criteria. For future reference you may find one or more of the guides linked to at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11 easier to use in the majority of cases.

Coverage
Lots of gaps, mostly obvious (I'm not in the education business, and these are off the top) At present the article falls a very long way short of meeting Good Article  criteria #3. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's eligible? Are there entrance exams?
 * How is tutition paid for? Does the school or any external organisation provide scholarships.
 * How does it work compare with that of the state schools and of other independent scholls in the locations it covers?

Structure
Can't really comment at present because so much needs to be added. --Philcha (talk)