Talk:American Canyon High School
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Comments and contributions are welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Coordinates
[edit]Someone added coordinates for Justin-Siena High School to this article. I've corrected the coordinates. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Photos.
[edit]The number of photos is ridiculous, and, TBH, on an un-maintained high school page an invitation to vandalism (image-switching). Unless someone objects within a couple of days, I'll remove all but the lead photo, of the actual front of the building.
That the library is on the left of the building definitely does not need a photo.
Revent (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would encourage you to do just that. My impression exactly. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
After some further though, I didn't delete all of them. The gym photo is marginal, but I checked, and there are four other high schools in that district, which makes it's inclusion at least 'plausible'. The PV field photo is def okay, given that it's damn big and the article extensively discusses the school's green features. Actually, where the photos fall now compared to the article content looks fairly nice, IMO. Revent (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I took the photos and they were my attempt to reflect the community pride in the school when it was new, as shown in the coverage in reliable sources. I understand deleting some of them, and don't object to deleting the ones of the principal and the crowds at the dedication. The one showing the library was my attempt to show the architectural style of the school. I can live without it, I guess. The photo of the central campus showing the sun shining on the solar panels above the building entrance was intended to illustrate the energy efficiency of the design. Accordingly, I think that photo should be added back into the article. But I don't own the article and will accept consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- For me it was a problem of layout balance. There were simply way too many photos for the size of the editorial content in the article. The commons link is still there and those photos can be seen by anyone interested there. As far as your community pride statement, that really isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The article on this school is there to inform the world, not to serve as a forum to show your community pride. I will say that the school certainly is something your community should be proud of, but Wikipedia isn't the place to show that. That is more appropriate for the school's or the town's website. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree about the 'layout balance'. What I felt was 'ridiculous' (sorry if I seemed judgmental stating it that way) was that the photos pushed the bottom of the page over a screen and a half below the end of the text. There was a massive amount of empty white space. I don't think the photo with the sun reflection really illustrated that point at all...you couldn't tell what the sun was reflecting from, it wasn't stated, and it just looked like a redundant photo. Revent (talk)
- I wrote the article almost three years ago, and am glad that other editors are paying attention to it. I apologize if my enthusiasm for the project clouded my judgment, but I did try to reflect what the reliable sources said, rather than my own opinions. I live nearby the school and can see it from my bedroom window. I will defer to the consensus of you two uninvolved editors, and will step aside. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't do a bad job at all, actually. My attention was drawn to this by the vandalism, but 'wikistyle' is my main interest. I don't think this had really been looked at since by an editor other than drive-by vandalism reverts, tbh, and everyone's writing needs a second opinion. Revent (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I wrote the article almost three years ago, and am glad that other editors are paying attention to it. I apologize if my enthusiasm for the project clouded my judgment, but I did try to reflect what the reliable sources said, rather than my own opinions. I live nearby the school and can see it from my bedroom window. I will defer to the consensus of you two uninvolved editors, and will step aside. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I agree about the 'layout balance'. What I felt was 'ridiculous' (sorry if I seemed judgmental stating it that way) was that the photos pushed the bottom of the page over a screen and a half below the end of the text. There was a massive amount of empty white space. I don't think the photo with the sun reflection really illustrated that point at all...you couldn't tell what the sun was reflecting from, it wasn't stated, and it just looked like a redundant photo. Revent (talk)
- For me it was a problem of layout balance. There were simply way too many photos for the size of the editorial content in the article. The commons link is still there and those photos can be seen by anyone interested there. As far as your community pride statement, that really isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The article on this school is there to inform the world, not to serve as a forum to show your community pride. I will say that the school certainly is something your community should be proud of, but Wikipedia isn't the place to show that. That is more appropriate for the school's or the town's website. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)