Talk:United States Academic Decathlon/Archive 1

Article Vandalised

Ascalanes High School vandalised the article, removed it.

Trivia Cleanup

Is there really any need for the snippet about Friendswood? It seems more related to Friendswood ISD than USAD. Also, the J.J. Pearce bullet seemed like it was written in an almost biased tone as I read it, but that could be me reading to much into it. Any opinions before I make an edit?

Super Quiz

I actually still am a decathlete. In fact, I have a competition on Saturday. At my regional and state competition last year, students went up by division (Honors, scholastic, varsity). All the official competing students (2 with 1 alternate) in each division go up at once. Thus, there are separate rounds for each division but not each ~~team~~ student. Is that different from your experience? Superm401 - Talk 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very different. I'm just one year out of Decathlon, and I've actively participated in organizing/judging events this year, and what we would do is that every student in each round (let's say, the Varsity 7's from each team) would go up at the same time, then Varsity 8, Varsity 9, Scholastic 4, and so on... eventually, the last student left would be Honors 3, which had the hardest questions. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there's really only one student per team up a time? That seems very time-consuming; there would need to be 9 rounds. How many questions are there? We have 10 per round. Superm401 - Talk 03:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nine rounds, but only 5 questions per each round. I've been a Super Quiz proctor too, so it actually isn't that bad, unless there are problems during the administration of the event. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Academic Decathlon policy, including Super Quiz, is left to the state chairperson outside of national competition. For instance, in Nebraska, there is no written Super Quiz, and two of the three competitors from each division take a ten-question relay. Thus, only six students total must do Super Quiz. This creates odd combinations where one student can specialize in Super Quiz, whereas another can focus on the other nine. This whole scenario is simply the decision of the state chairperson. This does not apply only to Super Quiz, either. For instance, also in NE, the mathematics test is still only 25 questions, despite USAD officially changing its curriculum to a 35 question math test in April 2005. --Aekarn 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationals

There's been a fair amount of edit-warring over whether to include the nationals location. I'm not sure why that is (I support keeping it), but before changing it again, please explain here. Superm401 - Talk 02:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. It's verifiable information, and certainly relevant. Leave it outside the table if necessary, but include it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Materials

The paragraph "There has been some debate, however, regarding the production of these materials. At one point, these third-party companies did not exist, and therefore the students were the ones who needed to interpret the USAD resources. With other companies doing the work, students simply need to study the materials that they produce, creating a much less competitive playing field" seems to be the opinion of the editor,and thus original research. No one should replace it without providing sources. For example, where has the "debate" been? Who says it is less competitive? Superm401 - Talk 03:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit. After these materials were introduced, scores peaked higher than ever, and are still higher than those prior to the production of these materials. Notice how Taft High School has the highest score currently, and 1/2 of their scoring members wrote Power Guides for DemiDec. Another fact: those who work for DemiDec also have access to more resources than the people who buy from DemiDec.

Again, we need external sources, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Superm401 - Talk 06:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, but can you really attribute the difference to DemiDec and Acalon? As a former Decathlete, I know that the material they provide is often wrong, so it isn't as helpful as it seems. The team members that worked for DemiDec would certainly have higher scores, as they get the chance to review more, but that is mostly due to the extra reviewing required for the testing companies, not as a result of having used the companies themselves. Besides, any change like that would require to come from a reputable source. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole point of AcaDeca was to encourage students to learn a broad range of topics. If the DemiDec and other 3rd party materials help the students to learn better/faster, than is it not good?

Images

Anyone have a image of the event in action that's not copyrighted? And a plot of the scores could make a nice addition to the "extra metrail" section, presuming that it showed the peak mentioned above. Not that we could actually say that there was a correlatin in the text, that would be WP:OR, or course. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 03:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably upload my scores, but that would definitely break WP:OR. I do have an image of my medals laying around somewhere, let me look for it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently a Decathlete, and have plenty of medals from scrimmages and regionals. I could take a picture of a bronze, silver, and gold and upload it if you need it. Jfing ers88 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm have only cell-phone images of events (not usable), but can take pictures of my medals (scrim., regional, or states) if that would be useful. Superm401 - Talk 06:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have pictures of my team receiving medals and studying.Cowbellallen 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

I suggest the abandonment of the history section, despite what the peer review said. It seems no more history beyond the lead has been published; thus it would be very difficult to create a verifiable section. Superm401 - Talk 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP as a source.

USAD currently uses some Wikipedia articles as sources in some packets, including the music and economics resource guides. Just thought it was an interesting fact. Jfing ers88 19:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present Tense?

Should the things that talk about the 2007 year be changed to present tense, instead of the future tense that they are now in? Just seems strange to me, considering it is now 2007. Silver seren 23:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past Topics

Can someone add a list of past topics for the entire Decathlon? Not the Super Quiz, like Climatology, but the entire thing, like China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.251.10 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can add a few, but I don't know that far back. Know where I would find a list? Maybe the USAD website?Silver seren 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. I've been trying to find one for who-knows how long, and to no avail. If you can find one, then poke me at my talk page, so I can help filling out the details here. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

There appears to be a mistake on the 2007-2008 curriculum topics page on the USAD website. The descriptions of Super Quiz and Social Science appear to have been switched. Anyone familiar with Academic Decathlon will agree.69.141.251.10 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was, then its fixed now. Social Science is on diseases and Superquiz is on the Civil War in general. Was this what you were thinking it was or not?Silver seren 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, though. It is more like Super Quiz to be about diseases and have a case study and social science to be the history. Then of course, I've only been on one year and only seen the China resources. BTW, my score at PA states was 6623.69.141.251.10 23:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it should be that way, your right....but its not. I guess they decided to do it differently this year. This was my first year as well. You beat me in score. ^_^ Silver seren 14:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It changes from year to year. In 2003-2004, Lewis and Clark was the Super Quiz and Botany was the Science. In 2004-2005, Ancient History was the Social Science and Astronomy was the Super Quiz. In 2005-2006, Renaissance History was Super Quiz and Anatomy was the Science. In 2006-2007, Chinese History is the Social Science and Climatology is the Super Quiz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfingers88 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Another mistake is in the levels section. In Acadecatholan, there are FOUR levels of competition (at least in scrimmages). The fourth level is 'Novice'. This category is used in Nebraska (I am unsure if it's used in any other states). All sophmores (which is the first year high school students can compete) are required to compete in the Novice category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.14.14 (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not a mistake, but rather an intentional omission. I competed in Nebraska (03-04 and 04-05), so I do know the system that you are talking about. However, Nebraska is one of only a couple states that separates students based on age (Texas and a couple others do, too). As the article is meant to apply to all states, including the idiosyncrasies of all the states would make it (the article) lose scope. - Yohhans^talk 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Vandalised again by La Salle College HS

This time, LAC HS changed the 1989 winner (Taft won it) to their school name. This is getting ridiculous, and I request a protection level increase to prohibit unregistered users from goofing off on this article, as the edits by the folks at La Salle are unregistered users. I have since reverted the edit, and added the snippet on Friendswood again. The reason why I believe it should be there (and I am not a student of Friendswood, I attended Holmes High School in San Antonio) is that very few teams can win that many divisional titles in a row. Westwood (a small school) did a four year run that got broken up this year (I think), but 15? Now that's noteworthy. I also added that they won the 2004 State Championship under some very unclear circumstances, and I may try to back that up with articles at a later date.

Respectively yours, DynamoJax 22:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-deleted the Friendswood fact. Not only is it unimportant, it is not a record. come schools (Whitney Young, for example) have captured their state's title some 20 of the last 21 years. Also, I believe Eisenhower (of Oklahoma) has won the last 14 state competitions. Academic decathlete 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Academic decathlete[reply]

Misplaced?

For some reason, the trivia thing on Moorpark High School was put on the bottom of the SuperQuiz deifnition. I removed it. It should only be on the trivia part and nowhere else.Silver seren 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Longer Valid?

Should the trivia on J.J. Pearce high school be changed slightly, considering that El Camino Real has now won 5? The part on the hat trick can stay, but the first part should be deleted. Do you agree?Silver seren 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd be OK if all the trivia were removed... what does everyone else think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck the trivia. Most of it has no importance anyway. Jfingers 88 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Silver seren 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to removing the trivia section? It has degenerated in a listing of who has a better record than whom, which is highly unencyclopedic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say leave it until all relevant facts are sufficiently integrated into the article. - Yohhans (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's gone. I integrated it the best I can while leaving out a couple things that the reader can infer for themselves (e.g. that ECR and Pearce have the most Nat'l wins). I thought it prudent to leave the fact about Wisconsin in the Nationals section, but if people think this isn't relevant, then by all means, take it out. - Yohhans (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that one is fine. I'm not 100% sure whether it's not possible to merge it in prose or not, but it's not a big deal. Awesome job with the article, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I'm interested in hopefully one day turning this into a FA. It needs a lot of work, but I think it's a lot better than what it was. A history section needs to be (re)established, although it would need a lot more information than what the lead has. Additionally, there's a lot of fleshing out that needs to be done as well as some copy-editing and improving diction. I agree with what Superm401 said that it would be hard to find enough sources, but I think it can and ought to be done. Academic Decathlon is a great program and needs more recognition. - Yohhans (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D II and D III Titles

How does everyone feel about adding the Division II and Division III winners of each nationals to the article? Academic decathlete 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Academic decathlete[reply]

yes yes yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.130.122 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Division 1 teams sweat blood for decathlon, while division 3 and 2 teams take nothing seriously, slack off, and get medals/trophies anyway. They are a disgrace to the intellectual community. 75.2.217.153 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.220.164 (talk) [reply]

That has nothing to do with the article. As for the D2 and D3 tables, add them if you can find the available information. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered adding D2 and D3 champions, but was wonder if that would make the article feel too list-y. Also, how would they be incorporated? Just create one monster-sized table? If you can think of a good way to add them to the page, I'll do it. - Yohhans (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Park City! Beat Army! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.254.91 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small and Medium School Competitions

No mention of it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.37.125 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Just added the badly-needed history section. The prose is rather shoddy, so I encourage people to make it flow better if possible. Additionally, feel free to add more relevant information if possible, preferably not something with internet sources... I've been trying to find paper sources for most things, but it seems, given the nature of the topic, they just don't exist. - Yohhans (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links etc.

I'd like to get other editor's opinions on this. Repeatedly one anonymous user has been removing (what I deem) to be relevant information from the article.

Consistently relevant links have been removed with the rationale that they aren't affiliated with USAD. This is not the reason for their inclusion. They are here because they they are useful resources related to Academic Decathlon. Per Wikipedia:External Links, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain ... other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their accuracy." I feel that this fully applies to the three links that are consistently being removed.
Additionally, information about specific people have been removed with the rationale that they should not be included because "specific names" were used. I find this a flimsy, if not ridiculous reason to remove information from the article. If it is felt that the information is represented in a biased manner, then I encourage people to edit accordingly. However, I feel that the complete removal of relevant information is unwarranted.
The history of Academic Decathlon is not just peaches and roses. There is controversy in its past. I feel that this should be adequately represented in the article. This means keeping the information about Alvino and Burke. It is not slander, but merely a retelling of history. Yohhans (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 3rd party link should be removed, but have to concede that the other two links may make sense. I don't think that Yohhans is privy to private inforamtion concerning Mr. Alvino's exit from USAD as that information is confidential so any reference is simply hearsay and should not be included. The same for the information regarding John Burke. Again, I don't believe that Yohhans has inside information regarding that situation either so any information included is simply gossip as with Alvino. Unless you have undisputed facts that are not contested by USAD officials, I think you should refrain from including them. User: Llamapacos —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included nothing about private information regarding Alvino or Burke. Neither of the comments made about them were slander. I was merely retelling history and providing sources to back up my information. As to confidentiality, I don't think the information can considered private if it is freely accessible via the various newspapers that covered these controversies. It is not gossip or hearsay if I get my information from reputable sources. You say that these facts are disputed by USAD officials. I would be very interested in seeing your sources on that. The only official statement by USAD about Alvino's resignation I could find is an press release from their old website. It does not mention that he resigned due to the controversy, but it does not deny it either. However, Alvino himself said, "I think that misunderstandings surrounding that article helped precipitate these actions" (found in the article I used to justify my inclusion of that comment). Regarding "undisputed facts that are not contested by USAD officials" for Burke, the first sentence of the article I quoted/cited states, "The state Academic Decathlon organization broke its silence Friday on Catholic Memorial High School coach John Burke's discipline, alleging that abusive behavior, false charges and continuing attacks on another team's students were behind the board's decision." (Seen at JS Online) This is an official statement from Wisconsin AD, so I do not understand how you can call the information I included, "hearsay" or "gossip". Again, I am not looking to slander these men or mar their reputations. I am simply trying to make the article as complete as possible. In any case, regarding the Burke information, I was only seeking to expand the cheating section with verifiable information (which I feel I did). So if you can replace it with something else, by all means do so. - Yohhans (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Academic Decathlon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA on Hold

This article has been placed on hold as there are some issues that need to be sorted out before it can be promoted to good article status: -

The USAD is a competition for US schools yet in the history section teams from other countries are mentioned, I think this needs explaining. Was it that year only, or a regular thing?
The section on the E nationals needs explaining to describe their purpose better and why they are being run as well as the traditional event.
The accusations against Burke need clarifying. It seems unclear to me why he was reprimanded for wanting the results checked.

This article will be watched for seven days and if after that time no significant improvement has been made may be failed. Good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a statement in the history section to address the issue regarding competitors from foreign countries. Hopefully it is enough to sate the curiosity of you and other readers because I cannot find much information besides what I have presented. The reason the Small School e-Nationals section is so short is because there is not much information to be found on it. I've added USAD's reasoning for having the competition, but that's the best I could do. Hopefully it is enough. Regarding the accusations against Burke, I've reworded almost the entire paragraph. Hopefully it now is more understandable (and is still NPOV). Let me know if you think it still needs work. Thanks for taking to the time to review the article! - Yohhans^talk 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Pass

Congratulations, this article has passed and is now listed as a good article! The article provides an in depth history of the competion and describes the various aspects very well, as well as remianing neutral. Part of a GA review is to put forwrd ideas to improve the article even more. The article is starting to get long (see WP:Article size) and I suggest the list of competion winners be split into a separate article in order to keep the size down. Secondly, having a fair use image of a medal is not ideal. What this image does is illustrate the reward that participants recieve for winning, if possible a free content image of participants recieving their medals would be better though I understand this maybe hard to come by. Finally, the E schools national section does still need expansion if possible.

Well done and keep up the good work! Million_Moments (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]