Talk:Ursuline Academy (Illinois)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ursuline Academy (Illinois) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Tone and POV edit
This entire article should probably just be blanked, pretty much. There might be some nuggets worth saving but most of it is unsourced POV. There are almost no sources at all. It needs major work. Most of the writing needs to be redone as well. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have taken out most of the POV in this article, citing is almost impossible as almost all of the websites have been deleted for the sources, this article can probably only be improved by the knowledge of students and alumni. I have confirmed myself that a majority of this information is in fact correct. Aswed123123123 (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Per policy we really do need reliable, verifiable sources. If no one objects, I'd like to hack this article down to the portions supported by reliable sources. Obviously, I would have no objection to editors restoring portions of this article - provided they do so using verifiable, reliable sources. Rklawton (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The only problem is, almost, if not all, the reliable sources we had have been deleted. Even the old Ursuline Academy main page has been now changed to the wikipedia article that was created for this. Aswed123123123 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yup. We're really out of luck on this. I've trimmed the article back to its basic facts; these facts *should* be verifiable, but we still need sources to actually verify them. Didn't any of the local papers publish stories about the school or its closing? Rklawton (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell the issues have been taken care of by Rklawton's trimming down of the article and I found references, so I removed the multiple issues box. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)