Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stuyvesant High School/archive2

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

The article was kept by Dana boomer 16:23, 6 November 2012 [1].

Stuyvesant High School

Stuyvesant High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notified: User talk:RossPatterson, WT:NYC, WT:WPSCHOOLS

Discussion raised 6 days ago on talk page with no action.

• Very many portions of the article are unsourced.
• The article's structure is very sloppy, with loads of very short paragraphs and standalone sentences. A major copy edit is needed. (For instance, nearly every sentence in "History" begins with "In [year]…".)
  • "History" section cleaned up. RossPatterson (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Dubious lists ("Other publications" and "summary of floors") that are also unsourced.
  • (Deleted "Summary of Floors" as entirely inappropriate -- Y not? 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Cleaned up "Other publications" RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Entirely unsourced segments ("SING!").
  • Sourced as much as I could quickly find. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "In popular culture" is a mess of trivia.
  • I wouldn't mind seeing that whole section removed. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I did it. -- Y not? 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Another editor also raised concern that some of the text seems promotional. I tagged at least one section ("strength in areas such as math and science").
  • I'd like to know specifically what User:Kudpung found objectionable. Thank you for tagging that one section. RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SEe Talk:Stuyvesant High School. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assume you mean your August 1st comment "There are some phrases that might also be construed as promotional." RossPatterson (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV-tagged "Academics" section cleaned up. RossPatterson (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV-tagged "Culture Festive" section removed. How much diversity can there be in a 72% Asian, 23% White student body? :-) If someone finds references, it can alwasy come back. RossPatterson (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I also see a very high number of primary sources.
  • 27 out of 124, or about 21%. About half of those are for cases where a school web page or document is the authoritative reference, but, especially for the clubs and publications, the rest are certainly primary (and weak). RossPatterson (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the robotics team, StuyPulse, if you don't want to cite the team's website, http://frclinks.appspot.com/t/694 resolves to an official FRC page and shows the year they first competed, 2001 (being founded the year before as the season begins in January). If this is an improvement, make use. Chris857 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, added. RossPatterson (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted to FA in 2006, and kept through review in 2008. It is clearly unchecked in the past 4 years, as are many of the older-generation FAs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I will look into all of the above issues. I expect the article can be massaged back into FA shape and pass this review. RossPatterson (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer wrote on my talk page on 12 August 2012 (UTC):

• There are still a few unsourced statements, and a lot of short paragraphs that I think should be combined.
  • Thanks. I'll take a pass across the whole article in the next few days. RossPatterson (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a pass through the article finally, and pulled together all of the short 'graphs I noticed. There are still a few {{citation needed}}s, and I added a {{expand section}} for one section that seems like there ought to be more prose. RossPatterson (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ross, thank you very much for all of your work on this! To everyone else: could we get some comments on whether the article needs additional improvement or whether it can be kept without a FARC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ross hasn't made any updates to the article yet because he's been busy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm back on the job, as noted above. RossPatterson (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I pitched in on the 2008 FAR for this article, and it seemed to be in fine shape then. As we all know, 4 years is a lifetime on-wiki - and it has deteriorated. I'll see if I can take a crack at it next week. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the article hasn't changed much in the last four years. A comparison of the post-2008-FAR and current versions shows mostly simple cleanups, a few sections moved around, and very little deterioration. Some of the current state is the result of this FAR, but a similar comparison of post-2008-FAR and pre-2012-FAR versions shows that this article hasn't generally suffered the slings and arrows that most high school articles do. RossPatterson (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I agree with concerns per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), here's my comments:

• The section The Stuyvesant Standard and Other publications lacks a lot of refs and citations and is unsourced.
  • The Stuyvesant Standard seems to be defunct - I can't find any current information or any issues since 2009 - so I've removed that section. I've also flagged Other Publications as unreferenced so we don't lose track of it, while I look for references. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Stuyvesant High School building on 1909 postcard.png has no information and needs a source.
  • It says "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923." (User:DeansFA). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Stuydoors.jpg, File:Stuyvesant-library-interior.jpg and File:Danny-Jaye---Rothenberg-mem.jpg has no source.
  • Stuydoors says "Photo taken by me" (User:A1111). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuyvesant-library-interior and Danny-Jaye---Rothenberg-mem both say "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain" (User:Zxcvbnm). RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Voice May1977.jpg, no fair use rationale and source is a malformed url.
  • URL fixed. There seems to be a fair use rational as well. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Stuy sing v 1977.jpg needs a source.
  • It says "Scanned image of program from SING V, Stuyvesant High School, 1977. Program is from personal collection." (User:Simon12), and asserts public domain status. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Excel is disambiguation link, and needs to fixed.
  • Fixed, along with all redirects. There were no other DAB links. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 12:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe the individual images are included in FAR, although their use in the article obviously is. I would assert that the use of all these images, so long as they continue to exist on Wikipedia, is appropriate in this article. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not aware of any requirement that images be "sourced" (i.e., that they be backed by reliable sources). Each of these images contains what appears to be a valid rationale or license for its use on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be happy to make a pass over the entire article fixing redirects and DAB-page-links. I do it from time to time, and I guess it's time again. RossPatterson (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. RossPatterson (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any further progress? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe all comments above have been responded to. If there's more criticism of the article, I haven't seen it. RossPatterson (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I still see several unsourced sections and at least one [citation needed]. The intro's also a little short. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Intro has been tighted up and expanded per MOS:INTRO. RossPatterson (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still seeing a lot of cleanup tags on this article. Can we get an update on whether these are going to be addressed or whether the article should be moved to the FARC stage? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed all tagged material from the article. RossPatterson (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I believe the article cleanup has addressed every actionable comment that has been raised. RossPatterson (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still a bunch of potentially dated statements, but right now I see no other issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All but 2 {{As of}}s have been cleaned up. Those two both validly identify current states that will potentially change, but on a multi-year scale, not in the near future. RossPatterson (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, looks like we can keep this as FA now. I see no problems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed (as if there was any doubt :-) ) RossPatterson (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.