Wikipedia:Peer review/Hopkins School/archive1

Hopkins School
I'm trying to expand this rather important school article, and I'm trying to make it look pretty. So, basically, what issues (either cosmetic or informative) should I deal with? Staxringold 23:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bumped, I really need some commentary people! A simple school article, I just want to know what (if any) sections need expansion and what stylistic issues should be addressed! Staxringold 20:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeez, you could show a little bit of patience. It's only been a day, and it's not like the universe will implode if this doesn't get reviewed.      Anywho... it's decent overall but could use some polishing up in places. For example, a number of the descriptions are too terse and need to be converted into proper sentences. For example,  "4 floors, contains underground pathway to the Admissions/Administrative building, Computer Lab, School Store, numerous classrooms, and the Library. Last renovated in the year 2000." "Hopkins students" should be "Hopkins' students". The "aka" abbreviation should be avoided, I think. It also needs running through a spelling checker. "Seperate" is incorrectly spelled in a number of locations. Finally, do you any references? Thanks. :) &mdash; RJH 15:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I refuse to show patience! :D Thank you for the review. I've fixed that seperate->separate spelling error (repeatedly), the possessive Hopkins, the Baldwin description (which was oddly terse, thanks for that one), and I'll give the entire article a good spellcheck. Also considering adding basic graduation requirements. Staxringold 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A lot of the article is about stuff no one but alumni would care to read. This is meant to be an encyclopedic article. Try to greatly compress the stuff on extra-curricular activities (sport, clubs) under one brief headings (there is far too much at the moment for what information it presents) and stop bolding everything. No one cares who heads a certain department, and they care even less what priviledges a Year 10 student has. Try to think about what is actually notable to the general public, not just a kid reading up before they come to the school. I'll come back for some more advice, as I'd love to see the article featured at either WP:FA or on the Schools Wikiportal. Harro5 09:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Er... What kind of information do you mean? The standard school format (including what made Caulfield an FA) include an athletics and extracurricular section just like I've got... I'll go turn those departments into italics, not bold, but I thought basic form was to emphasize the subject of a section the first time it's mentioned.. Staxringold 12:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's some more advice from me:
 * Not every club and team needs its own little segment. Have a look at Stuyvesant High School - the best article on a US high school - and notice how much flow there is to everything. One section that could easily be merged is the individual headings for each season of sport.
 * No cutting it down into a list of faculties. This is the worst bit in the whole article: "The Computer Science department is the newest of Hopkins' academic departments. It is headed by Director of Technology Micheal McCabe, and currently only offers an 'Introduction to Computers' course and a couple progamming courses (in HTML and Java)." Why do people want to know this? Is it straight from the school's website? I'm not saying that what you have in the article now is all useless, but much of it is too trivial for Wikipedia. This could be moulded into one brief paragraph on academics and say: "Hopkins' newest faculty is a Computer Science department, offering basic computing courses in HTML and Java." Short and sweet!
 * You're also still bolding and italicising way too much in this article.
 * Why are all these buildings notable? Sure, it's nice to have a hall and a science lab, but what makes them more notable than what every private school in America has?
 * Please try to address some of these points, but don't just brush them aside. I take quite a passion in school articles at Wikipedia, and wouldn't want people to think this is the best we can do. As I said before, this article has a lot of potential, as long as it becomes an encyclopedia article and not a bloated school brochure. Harro5 21:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't take my statement the wrong way, I was by no means brushing your comments aside! They were just vague enough I wasn't sure what you meant. I'll work on combining the lesser sections together (though I do think the buildings deserve at least some mention, I'll cut out the fields section which is a bit silly). I'll get to work and post on your talk page when I think she could use another review.. :D Thanks Staxringold 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Good start with the cut back, but I'd like to a near complete rewrite of the Academics section. What subjects are offered by the science faculty does not a Featured Article make. Also, the Student Priviledges section stands out like a hairy mole on a Playboy model - its horrendous. What is it trying to tell people? Please seriously consider scrapping the whole section, and maybe even the stuff on student leadership. While it might round out the article's original focus of giving every nook-and-cranny of Hopkins life a blurb, I really see all this stuff as terribly generic and ugly now. Also, the images are all copyrighted, and well done on explaining the permission scenario, but I don't like stuff like this - "Use of this image in no way degrades Hopkins School or Heath Commons, in fact it promotes them." People can make up their own minds about the image's effect, and this doesn't need to be said. It might be a good idea too to use your real name when saying you're a Yearbook editor and can reproduce these images - people get really picky about this stuff at FAC. And sorry, but the photo of the girls with the Hopkins t-shirts has to go - it serves no real purpose. There's some more to go on with :)...Harro5 07:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Another major point: you have to employ the Wikipedia footnote system for external links mentioned in the article. See Caulfield_Grammar_School for an example. Harro5 10:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * What would I footnote? And why would I dump the shot of the Hopkins girls? What kind of pictures should I use, because all text gets a bit dull. Staxringold 14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No words should have external links connected to them, they should be footnoted.


 * Google. Like this, with an explanation of the link. This is standard Wikipedia format. The pic of the girls is blatant advertising - it doesn't tell us anything about the school except girls like to cheer at events. Not exactly groundbreaking. Harro5 21:23, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware I linked any words in the article.. I'll give it a look-see. As for the pic of the girls, I'll get rid of it, but both Caulfield and Stuyvesant had similar style pics (heck, advertising wise, Stuyvesant had a picture of their own book for sale). In any case, I'll dump the cheering girls and look for links (and try to get to work on the graduation requirements sub-section of Academics). Staxringold 01:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's an example in the lead, at the end, "...with a variety of financial aid packages." That sort of thing is what needs to be footnoted. Harro5 01:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Another little note: please remove all links from the numbers (eg. 9th grade) in every instance except those in the lead. Only link to a word the first time it is mentioned. Harro5 02:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Harro, you are awesome. Thank you for the serious reworking, the Did You Know mention on School Wikiportal, et all. I'll footnote the stuff, and when I get back into the yearbook room where I've got all my Hopkins photos I'll dig up another... Say 1 to make it look more polished and interesting. Staxringold 03:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The bolded stuff must still be addressed. There are still things needing footnotes (eg. Smartboards), and these should also be numbered in order of when they appear in the article. lease remove the links on things link 7th grade after 7th grade has been linked in the lead. Harro5 08:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've now cleaned out all but the lead links for the grades, and footnoted SmartBoards. Should I custom renumber (as opposed to the automatic system, which it currently is) so that the financial aid note comes before the endowment (endowment, being in the note box on the right, comes first and is numbered 1 even though it appears lower in the article to the reader than financial aid)? Staxringold 14:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Custom renumber. Harro5 07:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)