Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Raul654 01:24, 28 September 2010 [1].

School for Creative and Performing Arts

[edit]

School for Creative and Performing Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bring you another school from off the beaten path. This one has it all: Sex scandals. Arson. Swimming pools, movie stars, and MTV. Behind the drama is a pioneer in school integration and arts education, which I think makes an interesting read and I hope makes a worthy Featured Article. With many thanks to Ruhrfisch for the peer review and Dabomb87 for the MOS review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the people listed under Alumni are indeed notable, they should be red-linked (WP:RED); if they're not, I'm unclear why they are listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should. I've red-linked them. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Minor fixes:-

  • Ref 2 "Vaccariello, 1993", Ref 56 "Vaccariello & Pyle, 1993". Assuming these are the same source, consistency of format required.
  • Refs 5 & 6: not sure about the formatting here. I think there is a "cite case" template, which provides a standard format for legal citations.
  • Ref 8 (Jacobs and Felix): why has this been formatted deifferently from Ref 9 (Griffin)? Both refer to chapters from the Levine and Havighurst book.
  • Ref 10: Link The Cincinnati Post. Look for other required linkings
  • Ref 81 has "retrieved", the standard is "Retrieved" (cap) - check for others.
  • Refs 96, 109: Include Cromwell and North in the citation, for clarity
  • Ref 127: Cincinnati Magazine should be italicised

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of these issues now. Thanks. Refs 5, 6, and 100 use the cite court template. It seems a bit flaky to me, but I am not sure how to format these by hand. Is there a better template? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tinkered with the cite court citations and made them a bit more informative. The WP:Citation templates page isn't much help, but you could use the Roe v Wade example to see if you can improve further. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see the problems now. I tweaked them a bit more and I think they are now all as they should be. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good: all sources problems now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this and almost all of my points were addressed then. I find the article meets the FAC criteria. My only remaining question (which does not detract from my support) is whether it would be useful to give either the year of graduation or the years of attendance for notable alumni. I think this would help provide some context for the reader, and have seen the year used in a similar way in FAs like Ohio Wesleyan University. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ruhrfisch. I agree that the years of attendance/graduation would be helpful, if available. Unfortunately, that information cannot be reliably sourced for most of the notable alumni. That they did attend/graduate is well-documented. When they did so seldom is. Even the school does not include years in their public alumni lists. Feeling that it was best to be consistent and include it for either all or none, in this case, I had to choose none. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I well know, sometimes information is just not available, so I struck my quibble. Thanks for the explanation, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: Save the logo at the top of the page, all images have free licenses. The logo has a FUR that appears to meet policy. I will defer to others on that point, I will also defer to others over any personality rights issues with the two celebrity portraits. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything that I tend to nitpick on (sourcing issues, comprehensiveness of the article) is fine. Kudos to a superb job on this article. It manages to largely avoid succumbing to WP:SOAP (unlike most other school articles I've ever seen written), and provides an incredibly detailed history of the school. Well done! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with the prose yet.

  • Why is "high school" linked? Although "elementary" is North American, in the context a non-American would have to be a dunderhead not to remember it means "primary school" elsewhere.
  • "building, site"?
  • "starring" is a bit rich for a reality series. Puffy.
  • U.S. where the second dot is also the sentence period ... Chicago MOS has just announced that the dots are evil: US now.
  • "less than 20%" ... number vs quantity?
  • "The emphasis of the school is on performance and students in ..."—"The emphasis is on performance, and students in ..."
  • "second highest-scoring public school"—scores second-highest among Cincinnati public schools on ... See Noetica's opinion on my talk page. Often better to rephrase a triple hyphenated item.
  • "A limited number of extracurricular activities are offered; students are expected to commit significant after-school time to preparation in their arts." Arts plural is odd. And isn't the main curriculum devoted to arts? I don't get it.
  • Why the bunched linking here: "the only fourth-through-sixth-grade school". And really, these grades are no mystery to readers of English. Can you avoid the quadruple monster, please? (Put the head of the noun group first (school ...).)
  • "The curriculum centered around art, instrumental music, choral music, dance and drama, and was ungraded to allow advancement as soon as students were ready to assume greater challenges." What does the second half of this sentence mean?

I haven't read further, but this would benefit from an independent copy-edit. Do you know word-nerds who would help? Need to be unfamiliar with the text. Tony (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments. I will address your specific suggestions and the prose more generally in the next couple of days. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your specific comments above now, and made quite a few copyedits throughout to tighten and Polish. While I am shooting for thrilling, I will settle for not bad. ;-) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Leaning towards support by Karanacs. Overall, I think this is a very good article, and very close to meeting the FA criteria. I am especially impressed at the high level of sourcing, which is unusual among school articles. I do think there are a few improvements that could be made.

  • Need a citation for the number of students- The school, with its 650 students, moved into this historic but blighted neighborhood, and its Old Woodward School building at 1310 Sycamore Street.
  • As Tony says, the prose is not quite there, but I think it's fairly close. I thought the history section flowed well, but after that the prose was often clunky or overly verbose. A little tightening - with some strategic rewording/eorganization - would polish up the rest of the article. Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will work on tightening the prose in the next couple of days. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the citation requested and reworked the prose quite a bit to tighten and polish. Is it better now? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not overenthusiastic about the prose, but it is a little better. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Image review issues:

  • File:Waldrip Dickinson.jpg: The OTRS confirmation was not added by an OTRS member. While I recognize that Nasty Housecat is largely responsible for uploading Michael Husman's photographs, I think it would be better (transparency-wise) if an OTRS-authorized editor was to confirm the ticket. An OTRS member could confirm it here.
    As an OTRS member, I can confirm that the ticket is valid, even though the Permission had been added by the uploader himself on Commons-Upload. I cannot look into the (deleted) enWP version of the picture, but guessing from the ticket reply, there it was an OTRS member who put up the ticket. --Guandalug (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Guandalug. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the deleted file and User:Shell Kinney checked the OTRS permission on the English Wikipedia on Dec. 19, 2009. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:SCPA Logo.PNG: Why is it not possible for the photo of the building, which the organization is going to reside in, as the identifying image?

Just the above two. The rest are fine. Jappalang (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I posted a request on the OTRS noticeboard for verification of the first image. The logo is fairly iconic for this school. The building is new and not yet widely recognized. For recognition purposes in the infobox, the logo does work better. However, if there are questions about the logo fair use rationale, I will glady remove it.
The new building will become recognized for the school eventually, but right now the school is in there. The article has no critical commentary about the logo (i.e. no significant third-party comments about the logo), so it does not seem to be used for any purpose other than for identification; this purpose fails because I think such a picture is readily replaceable with the photo of the school. Jappalang (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I am not so sure. To the the extent that the rationale claims the significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey, the logo that has identified the school for 37 years does serve that purpose and the image of the new building would not. I expect the same rationale is the reason nearly all school and university FA's lead with the logo in the infobox (as suggested by the Project Schools Article Guide), including the recent promotions here, here, and here. -Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The project guideline states "preferably with", not "it must be" (there are logos/badges/crests that are in the public domain, hence "preferably with"). The recent promotions of those articles do not assuage my concern (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists); I was not a participant in them nor was this issue fully explored in them either. Jappalang (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. My understanding of WP:LOGO#Uploading non-free logos is that non-free logos may generally appear in the infobox of the organization they represent. I think the issue actually was well explored at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive3 But since there seems to be a good faith difference of opinion here, I have posted the question at WP:MCQ in the hope that other opinions will prove helpful.
In my opinion is will always be fair use to make one use of an organisation's logo in their article in the infobox, whether or not there is any commentary on it because of its value in recognition, which is independent of a picture of their building. If the logo cannot go in the infobox or top, or get commentary then it should not be used as a decoration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of a building to identify an organization is certainly a valid notion (e.g. the United Nations, BMW, etc.) In this case, however, I'm not sure the SCPA building(s) would be distinctive enough to fill that role. In the same vein, however, I have to wonder how many people in Cincinnati have even seen this logo before (i.e. have the prerequisite familiarity for it to be of any value in terms of recognition). Even further, how many people in the US have seen it? In the world? The notions that the free prose (NFCC#1) of "The School for Creative and Performing Arts (SCPA) is a magnet arts school in Cincinnati, Ohio" is not sufficient to identify the organization and that organization logos get a "free pass" do not reconcile with policy. If the logo were indeed meaningful, wouldn't there be source-able discussion of it? Where, for example, did the information about the author and symbolism currently in the image summary come from? Could that be sourced and expanded upon in the article? Alternatively, has any investigation been done as to whether this is free (e.g. as a logo created in 1973, it was likely published before 1.1.1978 - did such publication occur in compliance with US formalities?) Эlcobbola talk 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. To answer your questions:
    • The logo has been used exclusively as the public-facing brand of the school since 1973 and appears prominently in all public communications, which, given the performance activities of the school, are many. It will be recognizable to anyone who has ever has contact with the school. It would be recognized by most people in the greater Cincinnati area, most people in the arts education community, and was seen by anyone who watched the MTV reality series.
    • There are no source-able discussions of the logo that I have been able to uncover.
    • The logo was published in 1973. No copyright formalities were followed.
--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further research, I have confirmed that the logo was first published in 1973, without notice or registration, and is therefore public domain in the US. I have tagged the image PS-US-No notice and moved it to Commons. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on. How was it published? Note that US copyright law defines "publication" as "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." (p. 5 United States of America: Copyright, Law, as consolidated 2009) The emphasis on "copies" is mine. The point is creation does not equate to publication; examples of publication of the logo would be: printing it in reports, creating badges/accessories of it and selling/giving them, etc.
Please provide information on the first publication of the logo; this helps us to verify that said publication did occur at that time without the copyright notice or registration. Otherwise, the logo remains unpublished and is copyrighted until 70 years has elapsed after the passing of its creator (Erv Raible as you say), which would not be anytime soon.[2] Jappalang (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jappalang. I do understand the distinction. The logo was used, without notice, on school "spirit gear" (clothing, rings, buttons, etc.), on school brochures, and on posters, playbills, programs and other performance memorabilia, examples of which are memorialized in photographs taken before 1978 and/or which indicate the year, for example File:SCPA Spring Festival Poster 1976.jpg. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good find; the 1976 poster helps to show the no copyright publishing. There is only the matter of providing a source for this image; see WP:CITE#IMAGE (where this image was obtained should be clearly stated). Once that is done, there would be no issue for this logo. Jappalang (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Must have gotten lost in translation. I've re-added the source and copied the full description with PD copyright rationale to the Commons version. The WP version is flagged for deletion. I think we're good now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right in practice, but under "Permission" is the unlinked text "PD-US-NO NOTICE". Should this not be a link to a notice, or the insertion of a notice? What was the intention here? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to the license type, namely, Public Domain because published without notice. It is more fully explained in the License section where the template of said name resides. Commons Helper added the Permission line automatically when I moved the file. If it does not belong there, please delete it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the template instructions and fixed it. Should be squared away now. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I have stricken the copyright concern as the logo seems to be verified as published without copyright notice. However, the logo at the source (and poster that was referred to) is an inverted version of the image here (black and white are reversed). Is this intentional and accurate? Furthermore, neither source nor poster has the text "School for Creative and Performing Arts" below the logo. Should the article not be using an exact (what the school actually uses) representation of the logo and not a derivative? If this inverted version is also an official logo, then it should be explained and sourced (to avoid any disputes). Jappalang (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a new version, freshly snipped from the official website, sans the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an SVG of the logo and put it into the article. Feel free to edit or revert it if it is not accurate enough or such.
No issues with the images—all verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Support Word choice: "The curriculum centered around art, instrumental music..." How can it center around something, especially numerous things? It should center on it. Punctuation: "The school competes athletically in Cincinnati's Independent conference in boy's and girl's basketball, boy's baseball, and girl's softball." Careful with the apostrophes. Aiken (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've made the corrections.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift response. Aiken (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick driveby note: "center around" is perfectly correct grammatically as a verb. OED: to centre (or be centred) about, around or round: to have (something) as one's or its centre or focus; to move or revolve round (something) as a centre; to be concentrated on, to turn on (see TURN v. 3); to be mainly concerned with. First recorded use Freeman, Edward A., The history of the Norman Conquest 1868 – iridescent 19:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But for multiple things though? Aiken (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the resolution regarding the image, and the prose, while not the best at FA, I think is now sufficiently in order. I'm impressed with the level of scholarship and sourcing for the type of article (a high school), so: well done in that regard. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have seen Sandy's comments, I have to oppose at present. Sandy sets a high standard in some respects, but the need to make thorough use of the Ohio State Education dept scorecard, and address issues that it raises, would be a deal-breaker for me. This is a major source that should underpin an extensive range of facts i think - student numbers, demographics, performance etc. I also mustn't have paid attention by the time I got to the end of the article - I agree that a search should be made for sources more reliable than Imdb re alumni. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the demographics and ACT exam performance are already sourced to this report (as ref 98). Do you have other suggestions? I will address the deficiency question in the SandyGeorgia thread, but my feeling at this point is: having now read the whole report card in context, what do you think it should say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for including the data based on the scorecard. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions

This nomination looks about ready to wrap up, but I have a number of questions to be resolved first. Many of the sources are not online, or fee required, so I'm not able to resolve some of this myself (which may leave our readers in the same position). SandyGeorgia

  1. External links lists this as the school's webpage (which says it is a K–12 school), but that page is under construction and contains no links to additional information (which makes it harder for me to resolve some of my questions, and leaves readers nowhere). On the other hand, information from their website is still available, but not linked from the new website page. What gives? Can't we direct our readers to some of the info still on their website, or is all of that info considered outdated?
    Two more: what about http://www.thenewscpa.org and it looks like all the links in the sources to their website are copyvios. Per WP:EL, we should never link to copyvios. Do they have permission to scan up all those articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. On the topic of it being a K thru 12 school, I am left completely befuddled in the "Admissions" information as to how admissions will be determined for K thru 3 grades, particularly with respect to auditions (overlapping the "Arts" section). We're not told much about K thru 3, and that is a very young age for students to be subjected to the rigors of a performing arts school-- surely those ages will be handled differently? Also, we just aren't told much at all about what the education of a K thru 3 student will look like, relative to the older ages.
    Struck because it appears there is no more info from reliable sources, confusion due to the recent merger of the two schools; this should be added as info becomes available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional info added by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On that topic, I can't locate any info about continuing attendance should a student's artistic ability be determined inadequate at some point after acceptance. What happens to a student accepted in kindergarten who doesn't continue to show professional artistic potential as s/he advances thru the grades? Is continuance/advancement to the next grade in all grade levels guaranteed, or do students have to demonstrate ongoing potential in order to stay in the school? Can students be "uninvited" as they can in other pre-professional performing arts programs if their potential isn't up to pre-professional levels? Must students justify their continuance annually or bi-annually as in some pre-professional arts programs? In general, admissions vs. continuance and wrt each grade and auditions is not well explained here.
    I see the evaluation policy for continuance is included in the 2009-10 handbook; that could be included here. (I still can't find more recent tuition anywhere online, though.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Text added by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Because a number of the sources aren't available online, I'm unable to understand the scope of some sentences (samples only):
    • Of the approximately 350 arts schools in the United States, SCPA is one of the oldest and most prestigious and has been cited as a model for both racial integration and for arts programs in over 100 cities.
    • The technical and production aspects of performances are handled entirely by students, an unusual level of responsibility even among arts schools.
    Corrected by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    These are samples only of a confusion I have throughout the article; does the article refer to public (magnet) arts schools, or do these statements also purport to cover private pre-professional arts schools? If they do, they don't seem correct to me, so I'm interested in seeing the exact text from the sources. Could you please put a quote here of the exact text from the sources? Or do we need clarification by adding the wording "public schools"? That is possibly an issue throughout the article.
  5. I'm finding serious underlinking everywhere. Off the top of my head, there is a Supreme Court case mentioned but not linked, a 1965 civil rights suit, "the award-winning Crest Hills Year-Round School", "international contests like the World Piano Competition and the American High School Theater Festival", and many terms relevant to the arts are unlinked (I recall seeing stage management, for example). A linking review is needed-- I saw a lot but can't remember all of it.
    I addressed this, pending review by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Passages like this one are very confusing:
    • SCPA students and faculty perform with professional companies and in major venues including Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center. Students perform with every major local arts company, including the Cincinnati Opera, Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, and the Cincinnati Ballet, and appear in local television programs and commercials. They have performed on PBS with the Cincinnati Pops and toured with Broadway productions including 42nd Street and The King and I. Students on tour continue their studies at "set school" and rejoin their classmates when they return.
    Some students? All students? A few select students over the years (which is more typical of pre-professional performing arts schools). This passage gives us the idea that all students do this routinely; is that true? Similar is found throughout.
    Corrected by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As of last night, this page showed a deficient state report card (school not meeting minimum state academic standards and some other state requirement), but the page is gone today. What gives? This is not mentioned in the article, but since the page is gone this morning, I can't elaborate.
    Found the State Report Card on another site. It they in fact have a deficient report card, how is this possible? " On standardized tests, SCPA ranks second among Cincinnati public schools".
    Also appear to be deficiencies at the primary school level.
    Report Card info added by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A WP:MOSNUM check is needed throughout-- numbers greater than 1,000 should have commas.
  9. Prose:
  10. It's 2010; why are we citing 2006 tuition? "Tuition for the 2006–2007 year was $6,309 for out-of-district students and $9,654 for out-of-state students ..."
    It seems nothing else is available in reliable sources (this should be updated as info becomes available). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Extracurricular activities and sports: does Ohio have physical education minimum requirements? How are these met in this arts school? For example, do dance and theatre movement classes count towards PE requirements? Or is PE a regular, state-mandated part of the regular curriculum?
    Responded below, apparently there are no reliable sources to resolve this, not a big issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't understand this:
    • Advanced students study up to two hours each day in their major. Forty percent of the students stay at least two hours after school for rehearsals, private lessons, and productions.
    Two hours each day is low relative to private pre-professional arts schools-- this makes no sense to me. And why aren't the other 60 percent also involved in productions each day? That is standard for pre-professional private arts schools.
    Struck because there is apparently no more info in reliable sources, but this is not indicative of a top-notch, "prestigious" arts school on the national level (see neutrality concerns elsewhere in this discussion and the talk page here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prestigious" removed by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. There is no mention anywhere of how SCPA students do (college admissions, academics, for example) or comparison to Walnut Hill School, Interlochen Center for the Arts, or other private schools. Is there nothing in the sources? I'm surprised if there's not.
    Struck because there is apparently no info in reliable sources, but further concern about neutrality relative to claims SCPA is a "prestigious" school on the national level, when all of the sources show a troubled institution with a deficient academic record and a less-than-stellar arts program relative to others. It seems they were elevated to national prominence via one alum and MTV, and then compromised their admissions process to ride that train to success. I don't see them having either alum, an arts program, or participation in prestigious competitions or events beyond what is common for all arts schools, and they aren't nationally known. Are there any national level sources that accord acclaim to this school? See discussion below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prestigious" removed by Nasty Housecat.
  14. On neutrality, I'd like to see the full text supporting this statement placed on talk here, including any other critism from that source (or others) of the school.
    That source is quite old; is there nothing newer? Is there no other criticism in any source? Personal opinion alert: I'm somewhat horrified at the notion of 10-yos being exposed to such a competitive audition process, considering the ego issues involved in the performing arts. What is fine for high school is less fine for 10-yos, IMO. I'd like to know more in this area, and if there are no other sources, and whether this article is neutral wrt criticism. I'm even more concerned if that competition is extended to kindergartners.
    Found this from a source already in the article (I'm beginning to worry about neutrality, particularly since I can't access most of the sources): "But, Wyant-Zenni admits, there’s no guarantee that all of the students have a passion for their magnet school’s mission. Despite the fact that SCPA seniors netted $8.5 million in scholarships and grants this year, she estimates that 40 percent of the 200 students she sees every day aren’t serious about artistic or academic performance. “A lot of us [teachers] end up being a babysitting service,” she says." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - there seems to be a lot of material in this reference, not all of it covered in the WP article. Could be used more extensively, including in respect of the point identified by Sandy. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree- there are remaining issues of neutrality here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try to work it in, but have been hesitant because the article is a profile of one teacher and the statements are her opinions. I am sure some of what she says is true, but would like to avoid the "according to one SCPA music teacher" thing. Allow me to think about that problem briefly before I deal with this. I am open to suggestion. --Nasty Housecat
    I have added additional commentary from that source. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sourcing: it was my understanding that IMDb is not a reliable source, except for the barest minimum of basic info. I believe notable alumni should be better sourced.
    Also, quite a few of the notable alumni citations do not cite that those people attended SCPA-- perhaps the page links are wrong, but they need to be checked-- I couldn't find most of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Comprehensiveness: college scholarships are mentioned, but what about scholarships for students at SCPA? What percentage, average, etc?
    Nasty Housecat answered (below). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This source mentions that most of the MTV students were new, accepted via late auditions (August), and that parents of current students were upset (regular auditions were held earlier).
    Balance added by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. It's not clear to me what ["National Winners". Alliance for Young Artists & Writers. http://www.artandwriting.org/awards/NationalWinners. Retrieved 2010–08–03.] is sourcing. The source doesn't mention SCPA, and another source gives the name of a student that is not mentioned in this source.
    Removed by Nasty Housecat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. A deadlink has appeared (tagged). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Karanacs is recused, if these concerns (and the outstanding image issue) are resolved, I may need to punt this FAC up to Raul654, since I've now substantially reviewed the article. I've numbered my concerns so that responses can be placed below my post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending resolution of the sourcing on alumni, and clarification that Jappalang and Hamiltonstone are satisfied, I am close to support. Raul will have to close this nomination, which may involve some delay, due to his announced travel plans. If Nasty Housecat has another FAC to put forward, an exemption from the "more than one nom at a time" would be in order, in the event of any delay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
I can answer a few of these: #1: The web site was commissioned over the summer, and scheduled to go up on September 1. It is now delayed at 'any day now.' #3: Students must pass grade-level-appropriate practical examinations, called 'boards,' in order to remain in a major. Students who fail two boards must either gain acceptance to a different major or leave the school. This should be detailed in the school handbook, if my memory serves. #7: The secondary was ranked 'effective' by the state of Ohio, which is a passing ranking though not the highest rank available. The primary school was ranked 'excellent.' Both of those scores are from the 2009/2010 school year, when the two were separate schools. School report cards are also available at the state board of education web site. #11: Ohio does have a mandatory PE requirement; dance students are exempt. #12: Not all of the school's majors require participation in theatrical productions: creative writing, for example, and visual arts. In any given production, not all students in eligible majors who audition are accepted into the production. #17: There were two seasons of "Taking the Stage." The first season starred mostly people who were already students at SCPA; the second season made the change of starring mostly new students, which did result in the criticism you mention. For whatever all that is worth... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! On #1, yes, I see that is causing some of the problems; I'm wondering if this FAC is premature, since this is the first year of the combined schools, and we don't yet have full info? #3 More info of the type I was inquiring about is in the 2009-10 handbook, and might be added here. #7 There are five rankings according to that website, and SCPA landed in the third group, so how is it one of the top schools in Cincinnati? Also, another site shows problems at the elementary level as well. #11 Can we find a source and work in some info that dance students fulfill their PE requirement in their coursework? What about acting movement classes? #17 Some of the criticism of the late acceptances for the second show might belong in the article. Thanks again, I see Nasty Housecat is already at work on this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just putting this here for the record, although I don't see any problems and am glad FisherQueen added that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness. My article inspires the reviews of both delegates. I do not know if I should be flattered or afraid. :-) But thank you for your comment.s I will try to answer them as best I can:
1. The school website is apparently being updated to reflect all the changes associated with the move (presumably including the information regarding the K-3 curriculum). If it is correct to EL the old pages, too I am happy to do so. I've replaced two of the newscpa.org scans with online sources and deleted two of the links where online sources are not available. Archival coverage of more recent Cincinnati Enquirer articles is unfortunately spotty.
I think it would be helpful, and not violate EL, to add some of the old website pages to EL for now, and remove them once the new page is up and running. We need to somehow direct our readers to something in the interim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link to the old site. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Schiel program (K-3) was apparently open enrollment, but does not say so explicitly. (See here). There is no indication how or if that will change in the K-12 format.
OK, I guess there's not much we can do there except possibly work in some info about open enrollment for those grades? We need to somehow indicate if those very young children are being subjected to rigorous auditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I found a news source on the open enrollment and added it. Fun fact: apparently people used to camp out overnight to get a spot. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. I added a few lines on the proficiency review to the Arts section. I can't find any more recent tuition information, either. The most recent application packet says to call the CPS Treasurer for information.
Struck that, good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have added quotes to the citations for the claims you mention. The sources for these and similar claims to not distinguish between public and private schools. It seems safe the assume they mean all arts schools.
It doesn't seem to safe to me, and some of the statements in this article compromise neutrality. On the national level, and in terms of the national press, and relative to other arts schools, SCPA is simply not a "prestigious" institution, even if one Cincinnati-based journalist thinks it is, and I submit that info does not belong in the lead, rather attributed as one local journalist's opinion within the body. Unless there is some national-level coverage supporting this institution as "prestigious", my personal information says it's not, the article is POV, and what I see is a very troubled institution being promoted via a redevelopment of the area in the local press. We need national-level sources to make some of the broad claims being made in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the prestigious claim. Are there other claims you think are POV or not sufficiently sourced?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was a major sticking point to me, as it was one of the first things I saw in the article, and it caught my (negative :) attention. Other than that, there is a bit more criticism (identified above) that needs to be worked in for balance (I've caught up on striking now), and I still don't understand the academic deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have linked the terms you noted. The court cases are all cited in the references. My last FAC got dinged up for overlinking, so I am admittedly link shy. It would genuinely help if you could point out specific things you think are not common terms.
6. I tweaked it to make it more clear.
7. The school failed to meet one AYP goal, namely, math for students with disabilities (p.4) and so got slapped with a deficient rating, but standardized scores are excellent (p. 2), which supports the claim.
I'm still not clear on this-- we have several sources showing academic deficiencies-- clarification still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm the one not clear. We have a state report card showing high scores and a deficient rating despite AYP in all but one subject. It is a notable fact of the school, oft noted in press coverage, that its scores are among the best in the CPS. How should I work the deficiency in without overstating it or undue weight? The other site points to pre-merger Schiel scores, which, while around the district average, don't call out a deficiency. Did I miss something? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The part I'm not clear on is why we're adding:
  • On standardized tests, SCPA ranks second among Cincinnati public schools",
without mentioning that they have a third-level ranking in CPS and deficiencies? Are schools in Cincinnati all that bad? Why are we highlighting one area in which they excel, if there are deficiencies? Worried about balance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously not seeing the third-level ranking you refer to. Can you point to it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From this page, we learn that Cincinnati public schools have six report card rankings: Excellent with Distinction, Excellent, Effective, Continuous Improvement, etc. (see the left-hand side of the screen, just above "State Indicators"). SCPA only ranks third (Effective), yet other text gives us the idea that it is one of Cincinnati's top schools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the report card, "Effective" means the school either met less than 94% of the indicators (it got 19 of 24), or has a Performance Index less than 100 (it got a 98). Yet on page 1, it clearly shows that all indicators in all categories are far above the district average. So I don't see any tension with the widely published claim that the school historically had some of the highest test scores in the district. There is no direct comparison table, and it seems to me an exercise in OR is required to determine how to interpret these ratings. If I were doing the OR, I would say that the graduation rates and 11th grade exams alone justify the claim that it is one of the best schools in town. But I am not. To claim that the school is merely "deficient" overstates the case, since we know it was technically deficient in one thing, and that thing only. Where there is more to the story, we should tell it. But I clearly have to surrender on this point. So what do you think it should say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm off for the evening, Hamilton may have better ideas, but how about just a straight statement of what is on that page: In a CPS rating system of ... blah, blah, blah ... SCPA was ranked "Effective" in < year >'s Report Card. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works. So changed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Saw one and fixed it. Did I miss any?
9. Fixed all.
10. See above. They don't publish it anymore. The alternative is to delete it, I'm afraid. Would that be better?
11. Great question. Sources do not say. I know anecdotally that dance at least at one time counted for PE credit, but have not seen that in writing.
12. The source only says at least forty percent do, and for at least two hours. I, too, expect that it is more, but I have no source to that effect.
13. There is no league table or other direct comparison. I am loathe to synthesize the comparison for fear of OR.
14. I have added the quote to the citation. Criticism regarding neighborhood objections to the school, serious mismanagement, and the series of sex scandals is faithfully reported, as is criticism of the visual arts program. I added a line and a note in the citation on the rationale for the grueling audition process. To the personal note: there is other commentary in the sources to the effect that the school feels learning to deal with rejection is an important part of preparation for a real-world arts career. It seems they start that training early.
I also came across mention of one young girl being murdered as she was walking home? Seems significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Esme Kenney was murdered while jogging at home (see here). She was a student, but it cannot be construed as reflecting on the school. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks-- I encountered it in one of the sources, but then couldn't find my way back to the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. I researched the IMDb question extensively, and while not finding a definitive answer on WP:RSN or elsewhere, was satisfied that the consensus allowed it as a source for mere film credits. The question is, IMO, murky as all get out, so I am open to more expert correction on that point.
There are a ton of IMDb threads on RSN-- it is not reliable beyond basic stats-- it is user-submitted info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed or replaced all the IMDb refs.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. There is no indication that there are any scholarships at all for SCPA students. It is a Cincinnati school and out-of-district students have to pay up. The sources talk about scholarships for private lessons, but do not say how much or how many.
Struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image issue is in fact resolved. Jappalang and Hamiltonstone are both satisfied now.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late here, I'll get on the rest tomorrow. We seem to be on opposite time schedules! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. I have noted the MTV criticism.
18. I deleted that claim.
On the other points:
  • I don't think the lack of detail on K-3 admissions and curriculum make this premature. The article is as comprehensive and current as RS will allow. Details on that question were not available even before, and can be added as (and if) they are published, as with any other article.
  • The claim is not that the school "one of the top schools in Cincinnati", but that it ranked first on elementary school tests. That is what source specifically claims, and the report card shows scores well above the district average, which tends to support that specific claim. I did address the reportcard question above.
  • I just don't have a source on the dance / PE question. If FisherQueen knows of one, that would be excellent.
    I've left dance / PE unstruck for now, pending feedback from FQ, but it is not a major sticking point for me. If we can get the additional criticism (mentioned above) added in, and the academic deficiencies issue resolved, IMDb removed, and linking corrected, I'll be Supporting. Nice work so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Fixed the dead link.
I'll look in the morning when I'm fresh, but for tonight, the linking issue might give you something to work on. See WP:MOSLINK for guidance, and WP:RED. There has been a focus lately at FAC on WP:OVERLINKing, but we've moved too far in the wrong direction here. There are still numerous things that should be linked, even if redlinked, including the court cases, any orgs that meet notability (to encourage article creation), all of the relevant arts terms (you still need lighting design, set design, costume design as examples only-- the idea is to focus on links that enhance the article, give readers info relevant to this topic-- overlinking is when you link terms that the readers of this article will never want or need to click on. I'll review and strike more tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll have to work on that later. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed most of the linking; are you happy with it? I saw some more missing hyphens, but those sentences would have to be recast to address them-- check again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing remaining for my support is that many of the notable alumni sources do not source that they attended SCPA-- could you review all of them? There are still some hyphenation problems, and the dance / PE issue, but neither of these impact my suppport. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources that link all the alumni to the school. Where I couldn't find one offhand, I just deleted the name for now. I'll dig around later. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are some of the web citations there duplicates to establish notability? Some of them still don't verify SCPA, but in the case of double citations, perhaps they are in the offline source? I can't tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are to verify notability. Most of them are verified by 136 (Sams is on page 3). The Cincinnati Magazine sources are offline (but generaly available on Google Docs for the deeply curious).--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm moving to support now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Dance/PE thing isn't in the school handbook, I don't know of another reliable source that would verify it- I could go ask a dance teacher, of course, and would be happy to do so, but I don't think that meets Wikipedia's requirements. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. And the workout. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1

Needs scrutiny throughout, especially after the top. A spot-check of small portion of the prose in the middle revealed glitches.

  • "Noted for its 106-foot-high (32 m) rotunda and 110-foot-long (34 m) mosaic murals depicting the history of Cincinnat". As the MoS suggests, why not reverse the order to dispense with the double hyphenation? "Noted for its rotunda 106 feet (32 m) high and its mosaic murals 110 feet (34 m) long depicting the history of Cincinnat".
  • "The plan was approved in April 1975 and due for completion for the 1976 school year." Should there be a "was" before "due"?
  • "Jewish Community Center 1⁄3-mile (0.54 km) away". If the software makes simple fractions larger than life, let's not use them please. And why is a fraction converted to a decimal? Why not feet (meters)? And why is there a hyphen with "mile"?
  • "The Union Terminal project derailed when the"—can't be intransitive, can it? was derailed? Maybe I'm wrong, though.
  • "Once one of the largest German-American neighborhoods in the United States and a famed entertainment district in the 19th century,"—So does "once" refer to "the 19th century"? If so, we don't want both items. And I see 19th century spelled out a little later.
  • "Underground Railroad": I guess the R alerted me to the possibility that this might mean something other than steam transport. Do we need to divert to the link to find out? Tony (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the hyphenation problems are because I didn't know how to recast the sentences to avoid them (I agree the 1/3 is clumsy, but also couldn't figure out how to remove it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you "Supporting" if you're responding (or not responding, as it appears here) to reviewers' issues? There's a conflict here. Tony (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What conflict is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These specific issues have now been addressed and other minor glitch-fixing has been done. I have asked for help from other editors in making a (hopefully) final polish, which help I expect will be forthcoming shortly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/School_for_Creative_and_Performing_Arts/archive1&oldid=1138470900"