Talk:Saint John's Preparatory School (Minnesota)

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.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

While reading through this, their self-promotion of the PLAN, SAT, and ACT seemed to be the really only controversial point on the page. The rest of the information seems to be accurate and neutral. Frndlyfriend (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frndlyfriend (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and with the removal of recent schools graduates attended, the page seems to be even less controversial. 152.65.43.81 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, someone made a rookie mistake with the graphs and PLAN/ACT/SAT data. The rest of it is neutrally acceptable, and I think it would be quite safe to remove the neutrality tag and advertisement tag. 152.65.137.96 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article, and at its current state it seems neutral and cleaned up, so I removed the tags. --Muhandes (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the neutrality (and have restored the tag). I still think it reads like a brochure and this is due largely to the fact that there are almost no third-party references. Almost all of the references are primary sources. TN X Man 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a lack of third party references, which calls for a primary tag. But a neutrality tag claims there is a problem with presenting a point of view, and I don't see text which is blatantly one sided. However, I am not going to argue on this. I did my best to clean the non-neutral claims and that's as far as I'll go with this article. --Muhandes (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint John's Preparatory School (Minnesota). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090429033455/http://www.advanc-ed.org:80/schools_districts/school_district_listings/? to http://www.advanc-ed.org/schools_districts/school_district_listings/?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]