Wikipedia:Peer review/Amador Valley High School/archive1

===Amador Valley High School===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm bringing this article through the GAN process and potentially preparing this article for FAC. Looking for comments from editors to see what I can do to pass GAN and possibly even FAC Is the article comprehensive enough? What details are missing? There have been some concerns about NPOV in the article, are there still some remains of non-NPOV statements (especially in the Math Team and Speech and Debate sections)? Transitions are a bit rough - I would appreciate some suggestions on how to make the prose of the article flow better. Is the last paragraph of the lead an appropriate summary of the article's content? I would greatly appreciate your help in reviewing this article and judging how far away it is from Good Article and Featured Article Criteria. Thanks for your time, Deltawk (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Amador Valley High School/archive1. Finetooth comments: This is interesting, broad, apparently well-sourced, stable, well-illustrated, and neutral. To have a chance at FA, though, it will need further work. Here is a list of suggestions for further improvement. If you would like me to take another look at a revised version in the future, please post a note to that effect on my talk page.


 * MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and to avoid including anything that is not mentioned in the main text. While this lead is generally well-written in terms of prose style, it includes information about the school's location that does not appear in the main text. I'm thinking particularly of these two sentences: "It is bordered on the east and southeast by Santa Rita Road and the Altamont Commuter Express. Because of the school's proximity to Main Street and downtown, the city of Pleasanton uses Amador Valley High School as the launch point for the annual Pleasanton Hometown Holidays Celebration parade." I would suggest repeating some of this material toward the end of the "History" section, which mentions improvements to the buildings and the school grounds. At the same time, you might expand a bit on those buildings and grounds. In addition, the lead gives short shrift to or does not mention "Academics", "Athletics", "The Amadon", "Band and Color Guard", "Math Team", or "Notable alumni".
 * The second paragraph of the lead now does not mention the location of the school, but mentions academics, athletics, the school newspaper, the band, and math team, and notable alumni. Information on the location of the school was moved to the history portion, although I had a difficult time finding more references to elaborate on the renewal of the campus. Deltawk (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS says in part, "When introducing a new name in an article, it is good practice to use the full name on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses." Thus "Amador Valley's J8 team has also met" should appear as "Amador Valley's Junior 8 (J8) team has also met... " Ditto for any other abbreviations, with exceptions explained by the Manual of Style (MOS), in the article. G8 later in the lead is another example.
 * I've addressed the acronyms listed in addition to Riverside Community College and full-time equivalent Deltawk (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation tool that lives here finds several wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended target. You can use this tool see where they are, and you can use the tool to double-check later to see if more dabs have been accidentally added to revisions. In the lead, J8 is one, and Pleasanton is another.
 * Addressed using provided link Deltawk (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OVERLINK says in part, "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." It's sometimes OK to link a term more than once in a long article if it's possible that the reader may have trouble hopping back to find an earlier link to the term. Otherwise, multiple links to the same term, especially instances in close proximity, are redundant and should be trimmed to a single link. For example, Pleasanton should not be linked twice in the lead. Ditto for the "public high school" and "high school" pair. Ditto for the President George W. Bush pair. Ditto for the We the People pair. I'd suggest going through the whole article carefully and removing the redundant links. Another kind of overlinking occurs in the "Academics" section where terms with well-known meanings are linked. Examples are "science", "mathematics" "Spanish", and so on. Common words like this should be unlinked.
 * I realize this was a big problem in the document and that I had overlinked terms. I've removed all of the unneeded links that I found, including those that were redundant or well-known. Deltawk (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Generally, use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup." The images in the existing article are generally bigger than the recommended size because a specific pixel width has been added to the markup. I would suggest removing the specific widths and returning to "thumb". That will have the beneficial side effect of eliminating the text sandwich in the "Academics" section. Also, images should not bump against a third-level head. The robotics team image bumps the "Robotics team" head and should be moved to the right side of the page to avoid this. Ditto for the band and color guard image and the speech and debate image.
 * I've removed all of the specific widths and moved the images so that the third-level heads are no longer shifted. Deltawk (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS: says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." For this reason, I would suggest rendering the material in the "Speech and Debate" section as straight prose.
 * Fixed. Deltawk (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the items in the "References" section are incomplete. Citation 69, for example, includes only a title, while citation 45 includes only a link. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found.
 * I've fixed these two references and smoothed out some others. Deltawk (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for your comments on the article and professionalism in linking me to more information on what problems exist. To the best of my ability, I have fixed the errors you highlighted in the feedback. Style changes include delisting material in Speech in Debate, making all thumbnails default width, and fixing overlinks and acronyms. Reference changes include filling in missing references and disambiguation. The lead has been improved to better summarize the article. I will PR articles, starting by giving brief comments to some of them in the requests. Deltawk (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: This article has certainly improved since my first read-through. I have suggestions for further improvement. I didn't want to hit you with too much on the first round. Many of these in the second round are more nit-picky, and I don't think they will give you a lot of trouble.


 * WP:MOS says in part, "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line". This includes expressions like 7 a.m., 20 miles, $3 billion, and many others. I've added quite a few hard spaces to the article, but you might notice some other places that need them. The MOS section that I've mentioned has more detail about how to handle these.
 * I've added non-breaking spaces in all the additional places where they seem necessary, although it is very possible that I've missed some. Deltawk (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:IMAGES says in part, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." On my computer screen, the library and media center image forms a sandwich with the bottom part of the infobox. The problem could be fixed by moving the library image down at least five lines. Also, the two images in the "Academics" section form a four-line text sandwich. If you move the image on the right down three lines and shorten the caption of the image on the left a bit, the sandwich should disappear. You might have to play around a little to get it right.
 * This took a bit of playing with the text to do, but all text sandwiches should be fixed. I've moved one of the images from "Academics" to "History" it fits well there too and prevents a text sandwich on my screen. On my viewing resolution, there's a short one-line text sandwich between the two images. Hopefully I can find some way to resolve that. Deltawk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:IMAGES also says in part, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." The image of the "We the People Team" overlaps two sections. Also, the image of the robotics team should be moved into the "Robotics Team" section.
 * All images have been moved to their appropriate section. With your comments on merging the speech and debate subsections, the "We the People" image fits now.16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Numbers from one to nine are generally written as words; bigger numbers are written as digits. I fixed some of these. You might find more.
 * I've fixed some of these too. I believe we've covered all of the one digit numbers. Deltawk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The team first entered the competition in 2000 with its Hammerhead AUV, weighing 98kg and designed to perform tasks autonomously." - WP:MOSNUM says in part, "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided... ". Furthermore, because this is a US-centric article, the imperial units should come first; i.e. 220 pounds (98 kg). Other quantities like this in the article should be given in imperial as well as metric. I like to use the convert template to do my conversions.
 * The units are fixed. Deltawk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is TRANSDEC in the robotics caption? Should it be spelled out as well as abbreviated?
 * I've spelled it out now as the Transducer Evaluation Center (TRANSDEC)


 * Date ranges and page ranges take an en dash rather than a hyphen. I fixed most of these, but I'm not sure I caught them all.
 * All en dashes have been placed where appropriate. Deltawk (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. Two possible fixes are to expand or to merge. The first paragraph of the "Speech and debate" section is an example of an extremely short paragraph. I think it could be merged with the "Mock Trial" material, the two subheads eliminated, and overall section head changed to "Speech and debate". The two short paragraphs in the "Enrollment" section could be merged. Probably the last paragraph of the "History" section could be merged with the one above it. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The short paragraphs are merged. Further time and research can give me time to expand on some of the mildly shorter paragraphs. Deltawk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And one more: WP:MOSQUOTE says in part, "Unless there is a good reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." The fairly long quote in the robotics section includes four wikilinked terms. Since these are worth explaining, it might be better to paraphrase rather than quote so that you can link. Or you might add an explanation after the quote, or you might be able to write a combination of quoted and paraphrased material. This will take some thought and tinkering. Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first part of the quote is kept. I've paraphrased the second part to preserve the wikilinks. Deltawk (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response: Thank you again for your peer review comments on this article. All problems with the article that you have brought up have been addressed. The pictures have been adjusted so to fit in the appropriate section and not to sandwich any text. Hard spaces and en dashes have been added where necessary, and short paragraphs have been merged. Units, single-digit numbers, and TRANSDEC are now formatted properly. Do you believe this article ready for FAR? My major worry is that some sections, like Athletics, may not meet the comprehensive criteria for FAC. I can do additional research to fill in more information about these sections before I nominate the article. Deltawk (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm usually a bit reluctant to answer this question because, in my experience, it's hard to say what will happen at FAC. The best advice I can give is that you fix anything you think might need fixing before you nominate. Two things you might do yet are (1) to make the athletics section as complete as you think it needs to be and (2) to try to find someone who has not yet read the article to read it with a critical eye and tell you if anything seems amiss. Finetooth (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Jp07 comments:
 * I wouldn't say I'm a Wikipedia pro, but I have done a fair bit of writing... So here are my observations. In the first paragraph, Village High School and Horizon High School are not linked, but Foothill High School is.  I do not believe there are articles for the first two--would it be beneficial to create red links, or to just leave it alone?  I almost feel like it would be best to create these links (or articles if red links are detrimental), but otherwise it seems inconsistent/unbalanced with one school linked and the next two in the list not.  Also, (this is mostly personal preference) but I do not like the verb "graduated" as it is being used.  Grammatically, it is fine, but I would rather see it say "the first class graduated" rather than "...Union High School...graduated."  Treat that as you wish.  I feel like "The school is a two-time..." is awkward.  I think it would be improved by saying "The school has been twice deemed/named a...whatever."
 * I've created articles for Village and Horizon to improve balance within the sentence. I've changed the use of the verb "graduated" to a more standard use, and removed mentions of "two-time" and "three-time" to improve the flow of the sentence. I do agree that your suggestions slightly improve the paragraph. Deltawk (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the next paragraph, why is Advanced Placement linked and varsity sports not? I feel like these are equally important terms.  Also, perhaps you should say "approximately 2,500 students."  Not sure, but you'll want to check... is the publication called "The Amadon" or "Amadon?"  It would probably be best to leave off "the" if that is not part of the name.  Furthermore, I kind of feel like that sentence doesn't really provide any useful information--it basically says "this is a newspaper that reports things." What does the audience learn from this statement?  Perhaps you should devote an entire section to this newspaper, do a little more research, and provide some useful facts.  Otherwise, maybe you should just list the name of the paper in the table/infographic to the right.  Is there a Wikipedia article on "Amadon?"  Should it be linked?  I make the same argument about the next sentence... " Student groups including the Marching Band, Color Guard, and Math Team have achieved high ranking in state competitions and have traveled out of California to compete."  Does this divulge any useful information?  I think you should either develop this statement or omit it.  Also, is there some sort of article that you could link to for Math Team?  (The links are unbalanced again.)  Is it referred to as "Math Team" or does it have a name?  Is there an article for Amador Theatre?  It should be spelled "theatre," by the way, as it is fine arts.  "Theater," on the other hand, usually refers to a movie theater.  (Unless, of course, this is how it is spelled by the school.  But it is probably supposed to be "theatre.")
 * Varsity sports are linked now as well. According to MOS Large rounded numbers are generally assumed to be approximations; only where the approximation could be misleading is it necessary to qualify with about or a similar term and I feel that the use of "approximately" is not needed. Scartol also agreed with you on your comments about the section on the paper. I couldn't find any third-party coverage of the paper at all, so I just decided on removing the section. The Amadon has been mentioned in the sidebar now however, thank you for the suggestion. Deltawk (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Student groups including the Marching Band, Color Guard, and Math Team have achieved high ranking in state competitions and have traveled out of California to compete This is just a lead statement that will be developed later on in the article. There is likely a better way I can phrase this however. Deltawk (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see what you mean by the links being unbalanced. I couldn't find a good article to link "Math Team" to so I decided to unlink Marching Band and Color Guard. The math team is referred to as Math Team. To make this clearer I've replaced Amador Valley's Math Team with Amador Valley Math Team in the text. Deltawk (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no article about the Amador Theater. The official name is "Amador Theater," although I see what you mean about the wrong word being used. Deltawk (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the third paragraph, is it necessary to repeat "We the People" in specifying the team type? Can this be inferred?  I suggest rewording this sentence--I don't like seeing "We the People" twice in such close proximity.  I think that "places" should be specified after "the top four."  Also, instead of saying "the past four years," say 2005-2009, 2004-2008, or whatever years this was.  Otherwise it is confusing (has the competition taken place this year?) and it will require updating after the next annual competition.  (Also, it sounds less biased.  It sounds like self-generated PR the way it is written.)  Robotics team link?  I suggest you write "the autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) competition of the  Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)."  This breaks up the big words/acronyms/blue links.  Also, make sure you link "AUV" if you are going to link "AUVSI."  Watch the consistency.  "Former President George W. Bush has asked to meet Amador Valley basketball player Kevin Laue, who is now an alumnus of the school."  <--Is that significant?  "Other notable alumni of the school include professional athletes, actors, and reporters."  <--Omit this.  This tells us nothing.  List REALLY NOTABLE alumni, or create a section later in the article.  "(J8) team also met the former president" <-- which former president?  Summit of World Leaders link?
 * The concerns in the third paragraph have been addressed. The sentence on J8, Kevin Laue, and alumni have been removed. Deltawk (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... I will read over the rest of the article later. Make sure you really work on your introduction--this is the most important part of a piece of writing.  I would suggest that you not submit this yet.  It is pretty good, but it could use some work.  The major problems with the introduction include inconsistency in writing style and formatting, vagueness, and lack of development/inclusion of insignificant details (not sure which is the case). Good luck!  --Jp07 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for your comments on improving the lead. Hopefully the changes that I have made will help the lead be more consistent and easier to read. I've removed some of the more insignificant sentences, and improved formatting and specificness. Looking forward to more comments from you on the rest of the article. Deltawk (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)