Talk:Hillel Day School

Section Heads of school

Discussion

Is list of otherwise not notable (e.g. without their own wikilinks) former headteachers/principals still acceptable in school articles? Guidance WP:WPSCH/AG#OS says "a list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful", and there are quite a few examples of other school articles -- not just some random examples of low-quality WP:OTHER articles, but high-quality articles on the prestigious and well-vetted lists of WP:WPSCHOOLS#Featured articles and WP:WPSCHOOLS#Good articles -- that include a list of former heads of school not having their own wikilink. Asking because John from Idegon removed Hillel Day School#Heads of school section from this article with a comment "→‎Heads of School: lists of nn people have been depricated in school articles". Thank you, Yymmff (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: On 17 Nov 2019 you removed the section Heads of school with an edit comment "→‎Heads of School: lists of nn people have been depricated in school articles". We started conversation on your talk page. Can you please now give the exact location of the policy/ guidance/ ruling/ discussion to which you referred in the edit comment? Thank you - Yymmff (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Content is decided by consensus, not "rules". The Wp:ONUS is on you to convince myself and others that your preferred version is the best for the encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RULES, policies and guidances are already built on consensus. The policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY allows "simple listings ... of ... CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries." The spirit of the guidance WP:WPSCH/AG#OS not only allows but also encourages inclusion of the list of headteachers. Result: many "featured" and "good" school articles have the headmasters/ principals section, where most of the listed heads are not notable in their own rights (e.g. no wikilink). The headmasters/principles -- even the nn in their own rights -- deserve to be mentioned in the school article simply because they are the CEOs of the school, their chief spokespersons, their public faces. Insisting that only notable heads may be listed goes against the spirit of the policy, the guidance, and against the current de-facto practice. Just as a mental exercise, imagine what would happen if we started applying the "no NN headmasters" not just to this singled out article but uniformly to all the existing featured/good/other school articles that presently display the lists of (mostly NN) heads? Below I include for preservation the head of school section; I believe it contributes to the encyclopedic nature of the article and should be added.

Last but not the least, @John from Idegon: please answer the question that I already asked concerning the basis of your original objection to the edits. Where is the exact location in which consensus has been reached regarding "lists of nn people have been depricated in school articles"? Yymmff (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussing the History section

@Onel5969: I am opening this discussion per WP:TALK#DISCUSS guidance that says "If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes."

I recently made a comprehensive change to the History section of this article (see revision 928531053 of 29 Nov 2019). Contained in this change are:

• Organized the section in subsections by periods of school's history for more logical presentation of material and ease of reading.
• Summarized the enrollment trends in each period and sparingly added enrollment figures (with their sources) to prove the trends.
• Added the information about the school's 9th grade (with the sources) that the school had for 22 years and then discontinued in 1988.
• Added information about inflow of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union as a partial explanation of school's growth in 70s-90s, and included a couple of figures of the count of Russian students in school at that time (with sources).
• Edits for style, better transitioning, and flow of the prose.
• All new information sourced to eight newly added and some existing sources.

I made these changes to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article.

You reverted all these changes with a short and generic edit note "Reverted to revision 928413327 by Steven (Editor) (talk): Trivial stuff - non-encyclopedic (TW)". I do believe you had some good reasons, but undoing such a big edit (6,265 characters) looks like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am puzzled and don't know what to do to address your concern! Can you please be more specific? Let me quote a passage from WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which belongs to an essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (sorry for the long quote; I just can't say better than the authors of that passage already did):

"What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how?"

I am undoing your deletion. Please don't delete again but rather explain your specific concerns: what specifically in my edits is trivial stuff and non-encyclopedic, and what policy (or guideline) does it violate? Then, let's work together towards improving this article. Thank you - Yymmff (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss anything with someone who has an obvious conflict of interest. You should be making no edits to the article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK#Sectioning, I've split COI discussion into section #COI tag discussion below. Yymmff (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

COI tag discussion

This topic was split off from #split COI discussion point, above.

@Onel5969: on 24 November 2019 you added {{COI}} template to article. The template documentation Template:COI#When_to_use recommends "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Feel free to do it here. Yymmff (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing the {{COI}} template due to lack of discussion of what is non-neutral about the article. Yamfri (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability tag discussion

On 17 November 2019 Kingsif added a 'notability' maintenance tag but hasn't provided rationale when asked on his TP. I believe the subject meets WP:NSCHOOL and seek a consensus to remove the notability tag. Thank you - Yamfri (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

So saying "having sources doesn't necessarily make something notable" isn't a rationale? The article still relies on a majority of sources from one minor community newspaper, with a handful of primary sources, thus not indicating wider notability beyond existing. And even for schools, just existing isn't notability. Nothing's changed in a year, I'm afraid, besides a giant paragraph about COVID-19 being added and bringing DUE into question. Kingsif (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for raising WP:DUE (or did you mean WP:RECENTISM?) regarding the giant COVID-19 paragraph; I've reduced the paragraph size. Hope this addresses your valid concern.

About the notability criteria WP:ORGCRITE. You are right, most of the references about this school - 37 individual articles spanning from 1958 to 2020 - come from in-depth coverage by the single source, The Jewish News (JN). I am aware of WP:AUD that says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary"; unfortunately, WP:AUD doesn't explicitely define what is local vs regional source, instead it wikilinks regional to the section "Local or regional" in the mainspace article (i.e., not a WP guideline) "Newspaper"; and that section doesn't draw any line between "local" and "regional" either. Thus, it's up to the WP editors to establish consensus in each particular case whether the source is a regional or a local.

The article does have references to articles in hyperlocal news sites Patch West Bloomfield, MI and Patch Farmington-Farmington Hills, MI and local paper The Oakland Press. These sources are truly local because of much smaller distribution area and readership numbers, and only carrying local news (city, county, local businesses, etc.). Articles in those sources cannot extablish notability and are cited for additional texturing information about the subject.

In contrast, the JN is a regional paper: 1st, because of its large print distribution area (Metro Detroit) and readership numbers; 2nd, because of the range of the issues it covers (it cares about national and international issues). As a regional source, and because of in-depth coverage of the school from its founding in 1958, the JN provides a strong indication of notability of the subject.

Then, we have to satisfy WP:MULTSOURCES. The subject had non-trivial coverage in national sources The Forward (link), NBC Connecticut / Associated Press (link), and regional sources Michigan Education Report by Mackinac Center for Public Policy (link), Detroit Free Press (link 1, link 2), Fox 2 Detroit (link). Thank you - Yamfri (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing the {{notability}} template due to lack of discussion. Yamfri (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yamfri: I notice you haven't edited since 7 July of this year. Could you confirm that you are still around and able to respond to suggestions during the GA review; say, in the next week? Thank you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I will respond within 7-10 days. Thank you! Yamfri (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok! I'll start reviewing the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a quickfail (see WP:QF). The primary issue leading to the quickfail are the examples of copyright violations given below, but the article also has a severe structural issue in its almost exclusive on a single source, therefore making it a long way off from meeting GA criteria #2.

Thank you for your hard work on this article. I recommend you give it a rework and consider the level of detail appropriate so that it does not have to rely so heavily on a single source. Make sure there are no copyright issues. Make sure it remains neutral and free of promotionalism and overdetail. Good luck with editing this and other articles, but I just can't pass it as it currently stands. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Occasional grammar mistakes, overuse of contractions - nothing too major.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article relies *heavily* on the Detroit Jewish News; almost exclusively, in fact. Given this, the importance of establishing both the independence and the reliability of that source is paramount. Essentially, this is a topic only really regularly covered by a local newspaper of a particular community. While the Wiki article is relatively neutral, the tone of the actual newspaper articles I checked is not at all neutral, clearly supporting the school and its strong Jewish values/educational principles. That suggests a non-neutral source to me. This is a major problem for the article given its sourcing.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	At least 3 clear copyright violations found by Earwig (1, 2, 3)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See 3b, below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Unclear level of detail. History section is adequate, but more information on the founding of the school and its context in Detroit's Jewish community would be useful. Over-coverage of recent expansions and changes due to recentism.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.