Talk:Rowan-Salisbury School System

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Middle school#Canada and the United States|middle schools]] The anchor (Canada and the United States) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Assessment

I'm assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A#R. I'm giving this article a rating of B / Low, and my thoughts are as follows:

Lead: Needs to be longer for an article of this length, as it should summarize important information in the entire article. See WP:LEAD for guidance.
District information: This seems to be an alternative lead, since the entire article should be information about the district. A lot of this could probably go into into history and demographics should possibly have its own section. On demographics, it would be good to briefly discuss how this has changed over time (if it has?) if the sources are available.
History: This is generally a well developed section, although there may still be room for further developed - the issue of segregation and desegregation could perhaps have more details. On the side note "but many opposed to racial integration still put up a fight." seems a little too informal for an encyclopedia. It would be better to say there was opposition, and just give specific individuals and organizations, rather than use terms such as many - see WP:WEASEL. Similarly, further on the sentence "The process leading up to the merger was difficult and almost not approved several times." is too vague to be useful. Difficult to whom?
Governance and funding: Generally well written, although are there more details on the funding issue?
Member schools: Lists are okay here, but really it would even better to have a summary of the school article if the school has an article, or a brief review of the school if it doesn't. I understand this would make this article very long, although it could be split into a sub-article if need be. Horizons Unlimited also seems to deserve more details.
Athletics: A bit too much focus on recent events here - this section needs to cover more from the past if possible.
Achievements and awards: Good.
References: Generally well organized and formatted - remember to fill in as many fields in the citation templates as possible.
Pictures: A healthy number of pictures. File:Rowan–Salisbury Schools logo.jpg may be simple enough to be tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}.

Overall, this is one of the best district articles I have seen in a long-time and it certainly has the potential to achieve Wikipedia:Good article status. I will add it to the potential GAs list at WP:WPSCH. The next stop beyond my suggestions is to receive the opinion of more editors, for which listing the article at Wikipedia:Peer review may be appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 18:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice and the compliments. I will work on the suggestions above and then possibly put up for peer review in March. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]