Template:Did you know nominations/Briarcliff High School

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff High School edit

(

)

~~... that 13.8 percent of public Briarcliff High School's student body pays tuition?~~

ALT1:~~... that this year, Newsweek ranked Briarcliff High School 17th-best in the country?~~

Improved to Good Article status by Ɱ (talk). Self nominated at 05:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC).

Comment: please use specific terms instead of general ones. Moreover, please don't assume readers know which country is being referred in the hook. I've struck the originals and replaced them with ALT2 and ALT3. Mind matrix 18:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that 13.8 percent of the student body at public Briarcliff High School pays tuition?
ALT3: ... that in 2014, Newsweek ranked Briarcliff High School 17th-best in the United States?

- Someone else is going to have to give this a go ahead, I'm just going to point this out, because perhaps @Ɱ: can fix it up easily? If indeed, it needs fixing at all. My confidence regarding the notability of schools is not excellent, but somebody should move this along, so I might as well comment.

Giant Note For Readers - this made it through Good Article, so seriously, please just take a brief read and then throw it out if I am patently incorrect, which I am more than happy to be.

You'll have to AGF on a lot of the sources. The ones I can access do have secondary coverage, I see no obvious paraphrasing.

To me it looks like only four out of the 38 refs don't have URLs; only those 4 should be more tough to get a hold onto, but they're in libraries.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A sizable minority (but sizable enough) of sources are bulletins, local newspapers (including the school newspaper), or things regarding the manor and proposed changes (which is mentioned in the article, so it does illustrate community zoning issues) is this ok? (Probably, but checking)

Being a small school in a small town, this one isn't making any major headlines any time soon. I tried to refrain from citing the school newspaper, but when I did, it was for information that is uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged, nor anything significant enough to require a strong authoritative source. The local newspapers check out as reliable sources.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Couple of issues with tone:

Briarcliff is noted for outstanding student achievement, testing scores and accomplishments, including a highly regarded science research program, world language and performing arts programs,' - By whom? Or rather, perhaps if we expanded these claims with more detail and specific reference to those programs, all would be well?

This was part of a Boards of Cooperative Educational Services publication. Some of the programs are referred to again later in the article; this is an overview on what the school is known for in particular over just being a high school. Most high schools in the area try to establish some sort of specialty, whether it be athletic or academic.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

All front-facing windows of the high school were replaced with energy-efficient windows, and a permanent-storage building was constructed on the northeast side to store auditorium and maintenance supplies. As well, many of the computers in the school were replaced with thin client computers - Do we need this? Lots of schools with expensive renovations have that. There are so many other good claims here.

The football field is complete with artificial turf, as well as the track and artificial turf baseball field; the artificial turf hockey field is to be completed by Labor Day. - see above

A security plan is to be submitted to the New York State Education Department; it includes plans to upgrade the main entrance doors and construct vestibules and greeter stations. - see above

They're recent events, and recent events tend to go into more detail; I'm pretty used to that. Often if I hear that a building did a renovation, I want to know everything and anything that got replaced; maybe that's just me being interested in less important things. The information is reliably sourced, so it's not very problematic. As well, I usually dislike removing information from articles. Articles can be very long; there's no space requirement, so why not go into the smallest details? Some may be into it, some may not, but at least those who aren't can skip over it; those who are wouldn't have such an easy luxury.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Courses section - Is this ok? The electives don't seem particularly notable, or even just having a list of what you offer. But again, my knowledge of school notability is unfortunately lacking, so I don't know. I put it to you oh editors of Wikipedia.

With the school systems nationwide all having the same history, science, English, and mathematics courses, the only thing that makes a school different in the classroom setting (academically) are those other courses and electives. I'd be glad for others to chime in and perhaps say otherwise. The information is there and sourced, and I can't see what harm the information has. I'm trying to develop the article, and I can't do that if I cut away all the borderline-uninteresting stuff.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

All other content looks very notable and lovely
Made it to Good Article in good time.
Well written with all pictures checking out.

I like ALT3, so if someone just tells me I'm horribly incorrect we can move along! I just thought that would address any and all potential problems so we could get them out of the way. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the points; I'll be glad to review them shortly.--ɱ (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Replied to the above with my comments; might not be what you're looking for, and feel free to seek out others' advice.--ɱ (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

- Cheers! Now hopefully someone will come along and have an easier read. Let's do this guys! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ɱ has made an excellent job of reviewing this nomination, and as well as confirming his/her views, I will give the final tick to ALT3. This fact is in the lead and has an inline citation to a reliable source. The fact was not present in the body of the article where the statistics stopped at 2013, but I have added it and cited it there also. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)