Talk:2000 SQA examinations controversy

Untitled

Starting with the provocative title, there is a lot on non- neutral comment in this and a lack of any reference to publicly verifiable sources. It shows a lack of understanding of what the problem was - incorrect certificates, not wrong results - and refers to leaks and thoughts rather than evidence. This was a hugely embarrassing incident for the new SQA but needs to be reported more temperately and with some reference to data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony164 (talk • contribs).

This article is wrong in many ways, the title is only one of its problems. Fourohfour 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my judgment, given the heading, we need a couple of paras explaining what the controversy is about, incorporating "one the one hand" and "on the other hand" statements. And avoiding the tendency to rant. And the time line section, while useful (1) should not be virtually all there is and (2) really needs, in a perfect world, an individual source attribution for every event and not merely a handful of source notes hastily chucked in at the end. I am not volunteering. I know next to nothing about it (even after reading the entry ... as it stands). But since the subject appears to be an important one, and seems to involve education, there is surely someone, now that the summer term is over, with the appropriate combination of education, relevant knowledge and a spare evening able to convert this into a decent informative article. And please. Charles01 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

State of the article

All I can say is yikes. This feels like a WP:TNT case if ever I saw one. The bullet point list needs replacing with prose, claims about ministers resigning and statements about errors need sourcing, details are extremely scant and the sourcing that is there is heavily focused on the law case. There's also some questionable language such as "crisis" and "fiasco" CiphriusKane (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks pretty bad. I'll try to resurrect it. Logie1 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@CiphriusKane and Logie1: I think this may just be WP:JUNK and I'm not sure the topic is greater than WP:SEMI-N anyway. Probably worth being merged into Scottish Qualifications Authority#Controversy. Clyde1998 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)