Talk:Benet Academy/GA1

Benet Academy GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing this article's GA nomination. -Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks like a very good candidate and I am happy to be doing the review. Here are a few things I noticed on my first read through:

* The lead is a bit long. Only the longest articles warrant four paragraphs. You could probably work the athletic info into the previous paragraph.

This suggestion conflicts with a peer review comment. What do you think I should do? Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. And WP:LEAD suggests 3-4 paragraphs for articles over 30k characters, but you really don't see it except on articles twice this long. The last paragraph is very short (2 sentences). I think it would read better if you could work it in to the rest of the lead, if you can.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to somewhat satisfy both you and Finetooth, I have summarized the History section in one, shortened lead paragraph, and I have added a summary of performing arts to the last lead paragraph. Does that solve your concerns? I'm very reluctant to combine athletic info with academic info; I just don't think they belong together. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that works. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

* The Jaeger image and the infobox sandwich the first section. That's a layout problem. You could move/delete the image or reduce the infobox. I would lean towards the latter. There is a lot of info in there that you repeat elsewhere.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

* The ACT table is a bit much. You talk about the scores in the text. The table seems like more detail than you need.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

* You have a few broken links: High School Placement Test, Illinois State Scholars, Western Suburban Catholic Conference. Check for others.

Are you suggesting that I write articles for those broken links? Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Just don't link to articles that are not there.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

* Admission "mostly relies on test scores." What else does it rely on?

Extra stuff added. Benny the mascot (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

* The link at 66 is dead.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

* The captions are ok, but could be more descriptive. Why are the images are interesting or important? What should we pay attention to?

Interesting captions added. Benny the mascot (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

* I wonder if there is not more you could add to the Academics section. The accreditation and course requirements are probably pretty similar to other local schools of its kind. Are there interesting/unique/superlative programs offered? What makes it different than all the other Catholic schools around? Why do people want to go there?

I've already provided info about the Sun Times and US News and World Report studies. That should, in my opinion, differentiate Benet from other high schools in the area. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely good stuff to mention. It just seems there might be more to say about the program itself that would give a better view into the school. Look at Amador Valley High School, Baltimore City College, or Stuyvesant High School for great examples of how people expand on the academics. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

More info added. Is that enough? Benny the mascot (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I like what you added and think it rounds out the section. I made some edits for flow, etc. Again, if I broke something, feel free to undo it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't want the bell schedule? You didn't mention that in your edit summaries, so I'm just wondering... Benny the mascot (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI discourages including them, so I reflexively deleted it. Did not mean to be heavy-handed. Sorry. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind whether the schedules are included - I was just trying to imitate the Amador article you linked above. Perhaps that article is more of an exception than an example. I'll just leave it as is...thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some minor editing issues that I will fix as I go if the rest of the issues are taken care of.

The biggest issue is that you rely pretty heavily on the Communications Office document for the history sections, an in some places are (certainly inadvertently) either directly copying or too closely paraphrasing the text found there. Check to make sure you are always using your own words in that section (and everywhere else). It would be better, too, if you had some more -- and more independent -- sources.

- Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for taking the time to review this article! I'll get started on fixing the issues you've identified. As you continue your review, it might be helpful to look through the peer review comments I got recently, so that you don't repeat things that have already been said. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have and saw that you addressed most of Finetooth's comments. As an aside, you will probably want to close out a peer review before you nominate an article for GA or FA, to make sure people are not commenting on the same thing in two places.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added additional independent sources, and more is coming. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good stuff. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Review complete

I've completed the review , and overall it looks good. With some quick attention to the items above and a few additional comments below, it think it should be ready for GA. I will place it on hold for seven days so you can keep working on it.

Additional comments:

Chicago * The new location for the Jaeger photo solves the infobox sandwich but causes a new sandwich with the satellite photo. One suggestion might be to keep either the satellite image or the campus map and not both, but there are other ways to fix it.

Satellite image removed. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress

• Why was the commercial program dropped?

I haven't been able to find that information, unfortunately. Do you have any suggestions? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. I was hoping the school might have something to say on the question. You could always add "for reasons that are now unclear" if you want. It is not a major point. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

* What does "recognized for teacher certification mean? To certify teachers? * The St. Joseph Hall photo also squeezes the text on my screen. Moving it up one paragraph would solve it.

Ok, I moved it. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Admissions * "Benet normally hopes to accept . . ." Not sure what this indicates. Do they sometimes accept more? Less?

According to the source, "Larger schools like Benet hope to accept about the top 40 percent of the approximately 650 prospective students..." Unfortunately it doesn't go into anymore detail, but your comment actually brings up a previous discussion on the talk page that has since been left unresolved. Benet Academy claims here that over the past five years, 70% of applicants have been accepted. There is clearly a conflict in the info provided, but I'm not exactly sure which one to cite here on Wikipedia. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could use them both: "While Benet hope to accept the top 40% of applicants each year, between 2004 and 2009 70% of all applicants have been accepted." The Daily Herald article also has some good stuff that answers the "what besides testing" question. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

New info added. Benny the mascot (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

* What is the High School Placement Test? Is it something Benet devised? Can you say what it consists of? * When would Benet be appropriate for a very low scoring student? Can you say?

No, it is not possible to determine exactly how appropriate Benet (or any school, for that matter) is for the applicants. I would say it's purely subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The sentence just kind of hangs out there, though. Maybe you could tie the paragraph off with something like: Applicants with siblings already enrolled at Benet may be admitted with scores above the 50th percentile on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with the faculty and family." A suggestion only. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

New text added with some changes. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics * You don't have to include it, but it would be interesting to note what percentile an ACT of 30 represents. 80%, 90%, higher? * What is an Illinois State Scholar?

Illinois State Scholar explained. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sports * Is the Redwings a member of the ESCC or the school?

The Benet Academy Redwings is a member of the ESCC. Does that answer your question? I'm a bit lost as to what you're getting at... Benny the mascot (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It reads very strangely is all I am getting at. You have not introduced the team name yet, it is the school that belongs to the conference, and how does one conference sponsor the other? Maybe something as simple as "Benet competes in the ESCC, which is part of the IHSA" and later "the team name is the Redwings" would work. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. Are you ok with the revision? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Much clearer now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

References

• Some of the newspaper articles will be available on line (the more recent ones are probably still free). It would be nice to include the links where you can so readers can click through to verify the citations and get more information.

Not to imply you haven't done this. Some have them, some don't. The more, the better is what I meant to say. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could find those sources only via library database. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Final pass

It looks like you've addressed most of the issues in the initial review nicely. Good work! I need to double check the paraphrasing in the history section (I think it's ok now) and the references. Then I will make a final pass and make minor copyedits if need be. Give me a day or two to get through that, and we can wrap up the review.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! There really is no rush on the review - I myself have a few more edits I want to make (or a lot more if I want FA... :)) Benny the mascot (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have finished my last minute edits, which were primarily made to "dilute" my reliance on the Communications Office source. Feel free to continue the review. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review passed

All of the minor issues have been addressed and I am happy to say this article passes  Done the criteria for a Good Article.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Benny the mascot (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You have put a ton of effort into this article. Thank you for all of your hard work and contributions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It certainly was a pleasure working with you; I hope we meet again sometime in the near future! (FYI, I've added this article to the GA page for you.) Benny the mascot (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Generally well written

   B. MoS compliance:

   No MOS issues

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reliable sources

   C. No original research:

   No original research.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Broad in coverage of major aspects.

   B. Focused:

   Well organized and focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral in tone and POV

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable. No edit wars, etc.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are appropriately tagged with good FUR where needed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Captions are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well researched article that meets all GA criteria