Talk:Del Norte Unified School District

For the record

The following concerns were brought up as reasons to reject the draft as of October 14, 2019:

There is no school named "Sunset High" in this or any school district. Use the proper name for the school.

I believe the reviewer wants the article to say Sunset High School instead of Sunset High, although I'm not sure why they referenced this school in particular. For this purpose, I added the word "school" to all of the school names.

The article should use NCES as references for demographic data instead of cde.ca.gov

I noticed a large difference between the racial demographic numbers, especially in the Native American section. I'm unsure what the reason for the difference is. It concerns me because it may be greatly underrepresenting the native american population.

There are no reliable secondary sources cited.

I don't understand the point on this one. Which secondary sources should I be citing, or is the topic not notable? I presume it is.

—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the draft, hope that's alright with you, Naddruf. It could still use some expansion before you decide to re-submit. The topic is definitely notable; however, almost all cited sources are from the United States Government, the Government of California and the district itself. It would be helpful to add a few more from local news organizations or other secondary sources mentioning the school. A history section would be ideal. Anaglyphic (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to add to it if I find antything else. However, there is an error in one of the sources you added.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The error was listing the source as "nces-sch" rather than "nces-dist"; Template:NCES District ID automatically creates a source titled "nces-dist," while the equivalent template for schools creates a source titled "nces-sch." Fixed some other stuff too; hope you don't mind me changing the date format, i'm just trying to maintain consistency (and I generally think that "dd Month yyyy" is much more readable than "yyyy-mm-dd"). Anaglyphic (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content

@John from Idegon:: Please explain why you removed the content about the language taught in the schools and the lawsuit. The fact that it is one of the few schools that teaches this language is significant. If you have a source that tells when the district was founded then you should add it. Otherwise this mention is totally irrelevant.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I got interrupted while writing the edit summary. I meant to also cite WP:RECENT. Our job as editors is to neutrally summarize what available (note that doesn't mean easily located) secondary sources say about the subject. The subject is the school district, not the language program. This section puts too much emphasis on something clearly controversial without any other content to provide a balance and perspective. The bit about the Summer Food Service Program is, well, mundane. SFSP is a longstanding program that is available virtually everywhere in the US. It isn't always provided by the education authority but a significant number are. The fact that it is might be a small piece in a complete section covering the current picture, but again, unless you've got enough sourcable material to make a reasonably complete section, there's no place to put it. Note please that it is fine to source a simple list to the school district website. Long story short, that's just not history.

The language stuff should be discussed in a much more complete history section (in less detail). We just cannot have the only content in the history section being fairly negative (which being sued by the ACLU is, unquestionably).

In the alternative, the language program could also be mentioned in a section on the current picture. It's existence, with appropriate wikilinks. The claim of rarity needs better sourcing (think national publications and academic journals). can likely be stated (with the LAT source) as a fact, but not the lawsuit.

As far as the foundation date for the high school, how can that be irrelevant in a discussion on the school district's history? Yes it isn't sourced in the article, but given the history of the city and the development of public education in the United States, it's very reasonable. You could remove it from that article as unsourced, but I wouldn't. As I said, it isn't unreasonable, no claims of significance are being made about it, it's important and generally noncontroversial content and it gives a researcher a place to start.

WP:BRD applies here. You wrote this stuff. It's up to you to convince other editors the content you prefer improves the article, not the other way around. The criteria for passing AFC is will the article in its current state demonstrate notability well enough to pass WP:AFD. The reviewers will sometimes help with some cleanup, but generally they only review the verifiability of the content. It's suitability is another story. Editors involved in the school project have become a bit more active on AfC lately, but there's not many. For that, I apologize...not that I could fix it. Everyone here is a volunteer and not every editor cares to coach and mentor. John from Idegon (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove everything in that section because you don't think the section contains enough information.

I wrote the article, and I never found information about when a school was founded, otherwise I would have included it. Given that you found this information, it would have been more helpful if you had added it rather than using the fact that it is missing as a reason to remove other things, which doesn't make sense. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 13:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent properly. Sorry you are not following the nuance of the arguement, but the argument is not that the foundation date would fix it, but that the negative nature of the single piece of history you added violates WP:NPOV. That bit could be written more neutrally, but still, on its own, provides an incomplete picture of the history of the district. Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. But when you start a landscape painting, you don't paint in the bushes, people, animals etc. in first, you paint the background. Unless the school district is only a few years old, something that engendered a change 11 years ago is at best a person in the foreground. Gotta have the background first. Nothing is a better choice. If you are motivated please do more research. Did the high school predate the district and the district formed around it? Is the current district a spin off of a larger district, or was it a consolidation of smaller districts (or neither)? All these things are parts of the bigger picture, and before we can talk about something recent and negative, those details need to be here to frame it in the proper perspective. John from Idegon (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily negative, as they resolved the issue. Are you saying that the section should not be called "history"? There's no reason this can't be added to the lead of the article. It is possible the foundation of the school district was not covered in reliable sources, whereas these other things have been covered. I am under the impression that short articles should be expanded with other information from reliable sources, they should not be limited so that the article cannot be expanded unless it "provides a complete picture".—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Then where does it belong?—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)