Talk:Scarborough Day School

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scarborough Day School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman 22:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll review, it looks fairly straightforward. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't mind if I clean it up a bit more; I didn't know at all when anyone would get to any of my recent GANs.--ɱ (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not in a rush to close the nomination one way or another.

Ok, done.--ɱ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Theater

• I've clarified what Little Theatre is. That said, it's not clear whether Ames designed the Little Theatre, whether he designed both that and Scarborough's, or if Bosworth handed off design responsibility to Ames and Ames had nothing to do with the source structure. You need to reword the second sentence.

Done.--ɱ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Alumni

• You switch between First & FirstLast and FirstLast & FirstLast for the alumni names. (da Silva, Dall)

Done.--ɱ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd reorganize this list entirely. There's two writers, separated by four other people. I'd suggest starting with celeb kids who became notable themselves (ex. the Dalls), notable people with no celeb lineage (ex. Cheever, Menconi), then celeb kids who have yet to warrant a Wikipedia article (Kahn, da Silva).

I have it alphabetically, which is usually the standard except sometimes for birthdate or date of graduation. That way editors will more easily guess how it's sorted, and readers will be able to search for a person more easily too. I could put Cheever with Yates, they actually both lived at the same house on the school's property at different times.--ɱ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• What are Ilyasah and the Dalls notable for? Why have they warranted their own articles? Each should have at least a one-word bio of their career.

They are most well known for their family members, but their independent works also make them relevant enough for their own articles. Ilyasah was an author, particularly on works related to her father. The Dalls aren't too notable for their own work either, but got significant attention while FDR was president, including a ransom threat, which made them the first presidential grandchildren under the care of the Secret Service.--ɱ (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't evident from the current state of their articles. If you have some sources that discuss them in depth, might be worth adding to their respective articles (since notability is a function of coverage in reliable, secondary sources). Anyway, not a GA discussion. czar ♔ 14:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any unique sources, the above writing was merely what I could scavenge on the Internet that could possibly explain their notability. Anyway, I agree with both of your points.--ɱ (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Not sure if you saw my replies yet, so I'm pinging you.--ɱ (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

-- Zanimum (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to step in and pass it since Zanimum abandoned all his reviews, but what's stopping me is a ref issue. I see a few book sources used, but it's just cited to the book without any pages noted. The main one used is 275 pages, so that's a significant amount of text, and in those cases, we need page numbers for the parts used when sourcing. Wizardman 02:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Wizardman: Please do step in. I own a copy of a few of the books used; I'm willing to insert page numbers for them, and most pages should be in one chapter/section, so it should be easier than the Briarcliff Manor article, where the Cheever book is used from back to front all over that article.--ɱ (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost forgot about this. Here are the issues I found:

• The lead, while written well enough, is made up mostly of stuff that is not in the body of the article. As the lead is meant to be a summary, include the lead's information in the body and rewrite the lead to showcase more of the article itself.

Most of that information consists of details of the school that are too few to warrant their own section. I added another sentence, I now feel that the lead incorporates the major details from nearly all the sections.--ɱ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• As noted above, add page numbers for the citations. You don't have to completely re-do the citing, just add the numbers alongside the cite. See Bob Feller for an example of how that's done.

I'm familiar with that citation style, it's pretty easy to use. I'll start on this later today when I have the book again.--ɱ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• " The building, designed for classes of ten, to accommodate 120 children total, was situated" the comma splicing feels a little overdone here. see if you can rewrite it a bit to lessen the comma usage.

Done.--ɱ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is more of a personal preference rather than something based in criteria, but having the alumni in a table with their graduation year/claim to notability would suit the article better rather than the format it's in now.

Well, most 'Notable people' sections are preferred to be in prose, as in articles like Dartmouth College and Harvard University. As well, WikiProject Cities' Guideline indicates good reasons for prose-style notable people sections, which is applicable to alumni sections as well.--ɱ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold as the issues are fixed. Wizardman 22:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be addressing the above points later today or tomorrow.--ɱ (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wizardman: I've fully addressed all concerns save for one; let me know what you think.--ɱ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And now I've added page numbers, thus perhaps addressing all of your concerns.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks good on the article now, so I'll pass it as a GA. Wizardman 02:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much!--ɱ (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)