Talk:École L'Odyssée

Room for Improvement

I spent a long time trying to find the needed sources to complete this article (and unfortunately, the school's history isn't very well documented,) and I ended up placing the information I personally knew alongside tags requesting sources. I'd be grateful if anyone can find the following:

• The date for the school's proposal and the motivation behind it  Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Any extracurricular activities prior to whatever I inserted in the article worth mentioning.
• Sources for the Jazz festivals and, most importantly, the name of the damn thing (probably get someone in the team for it).  Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• The number of staff in the school as of 2010  Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Notable alumni from the school, other than Julien Cadieux (filmmaker and logo designer),  Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Pictures of the school available for Public Domain release and / or written permission.  Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Strike out when completed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 copy edits

Hi, I have started copy edits of the article and I think we should remove the course codes from the course description section. It looks like these numbers apply only in New Brunswick and thus should likely be removed for GA. I will finish tomorrow. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you very much for the "third opinion". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tables are complex and will be difficult for people to edit.

• Tables should be coded as simply as possible, and things like colour, column width, and centering should not be hard-coded into the table. You are specifying cell size, colour, and centering for virtually every cell
• Colours should not be the only method used to convey information.
• Over-use of colour does not add anything to the readability of a page and in fact can detract from it.

The way your tables are at present may or may not be challenged by your GA reviewer. I just wanted to let you know that there are discussions are going on elsewhere so you can be aware. See for example Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All done. Good luck with your GA. Please let me or any of the others know if your reveiwer recommends another round of copy edits, or if you need help with any specific concerns. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've removed excessive coloring and added a few text indicators for things which were originally only pointed out by color. I've also added comments in the editing box to help with future editing if necessary. Again, I thank you very much for the copy edit and the constructive criticism. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of the GA review, I'm not worried about how the text looks for editing. (Similarly I'd prefer the references in cite template, and the first use of the convert template to be less clumsy.) But yes, this could probably be achieved better by specifying the styles at the top of the table instead of per-cell. The gray/asterisk for record-holders is also a bit subtle for those using assistive technology such as screen readers, and should probably at least *above* the table for that reason. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:École L'Odyssée/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've make what I consider to be uncontentious copy edits as I went along, feel free to revert any of them, they're all here. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   One word that is not in any dictionary I have ("semestrial"). "Hockey" should perhaps say "Ice hockey" (in the UK it means grass hockey), I've piped the links but kept it as "hockey" in the text. I've placed French language text in templates. Similarly it might be better not to hide Canadian football under a pipe from "football". It might be worth making explicit that $ means Canadian dollars, at first use, though that should be obvious (i.e. just link $ to Canadian dollar.)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

   Good refs, but a few (three I think) references to primary source (the school's official website). I'd like to see the refs in a {{cite}} template, although they are well formatted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The section about AIMS being criticised perhaps does not belong in this article beyond that directly connected with schooling. However, it's short enough I'm not too bothered about it, in the absence of a "Criticisms of AIMS" kind of article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Collaboration of several editors, no reverts or undos in edit history.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Slight concern on the permission of the soccer team, but it's on Wikimedia Commons, so that's their problem.

8. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Any or all of the copy edits I made could be reverted, and my view that it it would stand as GA. Congratulations, [bravo] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) and thank you for your hard work. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick review! I'll address these concerns as soon as possible. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

I am assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A#R. I am leaving the ratings as they are, given that this article is already beyond the highest quality rating that can be given unilaterally (B-class) and with this school being fairly new it is difficult to justify an importance rating greater than low, but well done on the GA. I don't have much experience with getting articles to FA, but I can give a few suggestions. Firstly, this article currently does not use citation templates. Using citation makes referencing easier and makes the article look a little more tidy. These days this can be considered good for a GA, and must for an FA, so I would recommend you convert the referencing to use citation templates. While I recognise that this is a fairly new school, the article does seem to be missing sections, see WP:WPSCH/AG#S for suggestions. Images are great for GA/FA articles, however File:Odyssee-soccer-team.jpg will eventually be deleted if left as it is. You need to ensure that the image is explicitly released under the free licence you have given by the school, with evidence of this sent to OTRS. I would also suggest you move this image, along with File:Ecole Odyssee school.png, File:New-section-at-odyssee.png, and File:Ecole-Odyssee-map.png, to Wikimedia Commons once copyright issues are resolved, see WP:MTC. Finally, good luck with the FAC, and don't feel disheartened if you fail first time round; it is not easy getting an article to FA. CT Cooper · talk 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment. I was the one to place the assessment, but I was under the impression that, once the GAN passed, I could change it myself. If that was not the case, sorry. Thanks as well for the suggestions; I personally find the citation templates to be much harder and complicated to use, especially since I'm used to the conventional writing-the-reference-out method. The people at the FAN said it was fine as long as I had the format down (But trust me, I tried converting the tags to citation, I really can't get it to work. I must be incompetent. :P) Also, the lack of documentation for the school makes it very hard to find sources for those sections the WikiProject suggests, but I've looked at them. The image is being worked on; the people in charge of the copyright at NBIAA are very slow at responding... I sent them an email right after having the notice placed on the image on Commons. Worst case scenario is that Commons removes it, like you said. As for the other images, I'll do so whenever I get the time. Finally, I ended up withdrawing the nomination, due to the lack of available sources not being able to kindle to the suggestions by reviewers. Some articles, I suppose, are not meant to be FA, this one included, but thanks for the kind words! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Odyssee-soccer-team.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Odyssee-soccer-team.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)