Jump to content

Talk:Astrea Academy Woodfields

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Error upon error

[edit]

There are so many things wrong with this article I don't know where to start:

Despite, its name, it's a school, not a FE college (so Category wrong)
The university infobox needs replacing with a schools infobox
It is not 'independent', it's state-funded
OFSTED does not 'grant' anything, it describes

Plus problems with layout etc etc. I will have a go at correcting this article, but someone else may have to take over with some details (e.g. I can't find the number of pupils). Emeraude (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number on roll is 1251 according to Ofsted Keith D (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or 1276, also according to the OFSTED report, though as this was published a year ago, it is likely that 1251 is more up-to-date. Article duly altered. Emeraude (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be many positive elements to this article, I must say. Sounds to me like the place needs closing down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.122.112 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced Tag

[edit]

I am dismayed that this article has been tagged 'unbalanced'. It isn't 'unbalanced' and everything written in it is true and suitably sourced. If there is 'good news' about the school anywhere then I am not aware of it, maybe Martin Craig (the Head) needs to be contacted and told to input something but it would only be spin.

Personally, I am only sorry that the public and the government are not able to be informed (at least on this forum) of the full extent of the scandal that is Balby Carr.

Furthermore, by the looks of things someone from the school has already 'had a go' at the page (under the username BalbyCarrWiki) and their only response was to vandalise it by removing true and sourced statements - labeling aspects 'untrue and factually innacurate' that are in their OFSTED report - such as their disgraceful staff turnover for example; or their support for a teacher involved in a relationship with a pupil; or statements about the attitudes of their own staff from a survey they commissioned; or branding information 'out of date' which clearly isn't.

In light of this, I respectfully request that the 'unbalanced' tag be removed as it obscures and discredits an article that needs to be in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbytruthbringer (talk • contribs) 06:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion of lots of negative things about the school without any positive items to provide a good balance is definitely not what we should be doing. The article is slanted while it should be written from a [[WPNPOV|neutral] point of view and it had undue weight given to the negative aspects. You appear to have a conflict of interest here and attempting to stack every possible negative story about the school into the article. Unless there is a balance then the negative items needs to be cut back to base essentials. We are not a site for knocking organisations but of providing balance. Keith D (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


All I - and others - have done is simply present the facts about the school. I would dearly like to include some positives I assure you but it is very hard to find any. Will try my best, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbytruthbringer (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Right some positives have been added by myself and HariboStateEmpire can the 'tidy up' and 'unbalanced' tags now be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbytruthbringer (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would prefer if the site remained marked as unbalanced as i feel it still unfairly points to mainly negative aspects of the college, especially with the use of broad sweeping and unfair statements such as highlighting Doncasters childrens services plight in an article about one secondary school in the borough. If you are to do this on this page it would only be fair if you did it on every other Doncaster schools' page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirestateharibo (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


My concern is that EmpireStateHaribo is obviously connected with the school and thus has a vested interest in discrediting this article. Just because the article is broadly negative about the school does not mean it is not true. Is there a problem if someone writes a broadly negative article about Hitler example? Does that then get tagged unbalanced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbytruthbringer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


On another point, I wonder if EmpireStateHaribo could please clarify what a 'satelitte' school is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbytruthbringer (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already tagged this article and action needs to be taken before I get the scissors out much of this information is coincidental and not directly relevant to the school such as sections on red light district which need to be culled. Keith D (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I find your statement 'before I get the scissors out' extremely and unnecessarily aggressive. You too seem to have a vested interest in protecting this institution from truth and fact, your attitude certainly doesn't seem to be impartial. (----)


Action does need to be taken to remove many of the biased additions to this page as made by 'Balbytruthbringer'. This individual obviously has a conflict of interest and is more interested in attempting to damage the reputation of the school and the wider Balby area than to provide a true and balanced view of the school. Using outdated information and broad statements about the village of Balby and the town of Doncaster as a whole and information that is not directly relevant to the school, should not be tolerated on wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a tool in an individuals crusade against any institution.

Clean Up Urgently Required

[edit]

There has been a request by the school to look at this article at OTRS #2010100710006121 and I can understand why. This article is an utter mess of aggregated complaints without and structure or theme. Please can this be fixed asap. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am writing because I am very concerned about what has been done to this article. It seems that there is very little information in it at all. Yet a while ago when I read it, there was a wealth of useful information giving a fuller account of the school. When I checked back in the history, I saw that I was correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balby_Carr_Community_Sports_College&diff=389592285&oldid=389590758

Now it seems that there was a bit of a negative slant in the previous, fuller article. But it also seems that the 'baby was thrown out with the bath water'.

No, information regarding homosexuals meeting on the fields and the proximity of the school to immoral practices such as soliciting may not be useful information. But links back to OFSTED reports and summaries of exam performance over the years are.

I agree that wikipedia should not be able to used for someone to push a negative point of view. But at the moment, there are only limited positive statements about the school and that is not satisfactory either. Parents like myself in the local area need sources of information on this school.

Comments anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbyscum (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Balby Carr Community Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information from ip user, a witness at the school

[edit]

We have great students but you might see people that just walk into your class. S1=Warning, S2=Another warning, S3=Have a word with a teacher or sit somewhere else in the class,S4=Detention and go to another class until the end of the lesson, S5=Go to isolation (a room where you do nothing) and do an 1 hour work after school finishes.

ip user wants to add this- which breaks many of our rules. I would like that user to write a lot more about the school here on the talk page, so we can show her/him how to find references and do it all properly. That could be really useful, and shows the ip that he hasn't been ignored.ClemRutter (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's totlly unacceptable as is. Besides, it's just referring to a well-known disciplinaey procedure that's used by schools all over the world and has no particular significance in this school. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astrea_Academy_Woodfields&oldid=1199114670"