Talk:James Logan High School/Archive 2

Leadership & cell phone rules

"This can be seen as Leadership's greatest contribution to James Logan's history."

This should be deleted, since, even if "sourced," it is simply an opinion. Furthermore, if it is "Leadership's greatest contribution," that doesn't say much for Leadership, IMHO. Try raising a few bucks to help homeless children, discourage drug and alcohol abuse, educate teenagers about AIDS and other STDs, or simply help teachers get books and supplies for their classrooms, and Leadership will make a far bigger contribution to the school. 4.243.149.61 07:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Significant edits

I did some editing, just wanted to fill everyone in on the rationale:

I removed the SPORTS SECTION due to a lack of useful information. It contained

(1) a reference to the school's mascot (already mentioned at the top of the article),

(2) an unqualified sentence about Logan's sports teams doing "relatively well every year." (no reference to which sport or which years), and

(3) a list of notable athletes that attended Logan (information is duplicated under "notable alumni").

There is plenty to say about Logan's sports program, but the section as it was written did not seem to add anying to the article overall. Perhaps a listing of the sports offered, their ranking as compared to other schools in the area/state/nation, etc.

I also removed the REDISTRICTING SECTION as it simply documented a three-year-old rumor which, while rather important news at the time, turned out to be unfounded.

I condensed the FORENSICS SPEECH AND DEBATE SECTION, removed redundancies, and made it more NPOV. There are a couple of facts that, while probably fairly accurate, should probably be confirmed by a reliable source in the form of a citation.--209.155.145.103 23:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added more all necessary citations to the FORENSICS SPEECH AND DEBATE SECTION and more information. Likewise, I have noted additional areas in the BAND AND COLOR GUARD SECTION that need cites.

I brought back the REDISTRICTING SECTION because it wasn't simply an unfounded rumor. This option was actually considered by the school district, and I have added the applicable citation for that. The importance of this section is also exemplified by the fact that splitting up the high-school in such a fashion is a novel approach to overcrowding that few, if any, districts have used.

"In 2003, New Haven Unified School District considered altering James Logan to serve only grades 10 to 12 as part of a redistricting plan. The reason for this was to lower the number of students at Logan and to increase the school's capacity and efficiency. All subsequent 9th graders would have been enrolled in their respective middle schools in the community. Such an option was considered a novel approach to the overcrowding issue - one that few schools, if any, have tried."

Have you ever heard of a junior high school? This was a 7th-9th grade middle school, which used to be the norm in many places (and I'm sure many still exist). A 10th-12th grade school was sometimes called a senior high school. 4.243.149.61 07:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You've made a lot of meaningful edits today- maybe you should consider signing up for a Wikpedia account and editing this article more often. --βig¶ 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

BigP, thanks for the feedback. I actually do have a Wikipedia account... I just hadn't signed in when I made the edits. The redistricting section looks much better. After looking at your revision, you're right - it didn't need to go... just needed to be rewritten as "more than just a rumor." You did a good job with the citations too. --Brianvdb 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To Do List

I've added a to do list as an area to suggest ideas. There are a lot of areas that I don't have the time to research or don't know much about, so I've added them to the list. If you think there are other things that need to be added to the list, go for it - it's just an area to brainstorm and give others' ideas for improving the article.--Brianvdb 08:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization in Titles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but of all the Wikipedia articles I've seen, the title of each section is uncapitalized save for the first word and/or official names. I've taken the liberty to uncapitalize everything in the article that isn't the first word or isn't a proper noun. If I'm wrong about this, please feel free to change it back. --βig¶ 04:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess this one's directed at me. I thought that colour guard was a proper noun, but I guess I'm incorrect. The only other one which I would think that is As for "Forensics Speech and Debate," I don't think that's a term, and should be switched to "Forensics program." (Search on Google: [1])-- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 05:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the first word of headings is always capitalized, all subsequent words are lowercase unless they are proper nouns. So, I don't know if the proper name of Logan's forensics program is "Logan Forensics Speech and Debate Team," but if it is, all words (except 'and') would be capitalized, otherwise just the "F" would be capitalized.--Brianvdb 05:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While Jjjsixsix is right about how forensics by itself is the correct term, our team tags "speech and debate" along to differentiate it from the common notion that forensics is about taking photos of dead bodies. So in this case, Brianvdb would be right about the name being a proper noun. --βig¶ 05:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Teacher Demographics

Just a comment, but is this really needed? -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 18:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is, but not for the same reason that student demographics are relavent. The demographics that I was thinking of were level of education, average tenure, # of adjunct vs. full-time faculty, etc.. These are typical measures of the quality of a school's faculty. --Brianvdb 22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, those demographics. I get it. (I'm so dense.) Are we trying to WP:FAC this? -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too. --βig¶ 05:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a goal to shoot for. At the very least, I wanted to try and make the article as encylopedic as possible (less blog-like, more references, etc.). An article on a public high school in a suburb is a tough-sell for a FAC (there's only been a few "non-university" school articles that have been successful), but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities. I'd say that Logan has a beter chance than many other high schools. --Brianvdb 05:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cell Phone Bill

Brianvdb, your last few edits regarding the campus are great! However, it seems kind of odd to put the information about the cell phone bill in the campus information section. This tidbit is definitely important enough to put in this article, but where? --βig¶ 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree... I looked at that and scratched my head when I moved the sections around - I figured that I'd dedicate more thought to it the next time I did edits. Maybe a new section called "Logan in the news?" ... or possibly under "Student demographics?" Don't know... what does everyone else think? --Brianvdb 22:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I started a new Trivia section to place tidbits like the cell phone law and traffic jams. Let me know if this is appropriate for a school article. --βig¶ 00:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of items labeled as "trivia" is a practice typically frowned upon by the Wikipedia community (for what that's worth). The idea is that if something is truly "trivia," then it does not belong in an encyclopedia article - if it is more than just trivia, it should be worked into the prose somehow. I think the cell phone bill information should be worked in some other way.

The information about the traffic congestion doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me, though. Traffic congestion is common at many large schools, even those that are not high schools. Unless this problem has been reported as "especially bad" by a neutral source (i.e. The Argus, in school board minutes, etc), I'd be in favor of leaving it out.--Brianvdb 03:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Any source of information is opinionated whether it comes argus.com or joesblog.com. The traffic is notable even if it is something common to large schools because not many schools are large. In fact, a lot of the things in this article right now are common to large schools. I had my reservations making a "Trivia" section, which I thought was OK because I've seen it on other articles before, but I think the traffic is worth mentioning. --βig¶ 05:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As far "The Argus" vs. "Joe's Blog"... see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

If you feel strongly about keeping the reference to the traffic congestion, then might I suggest moving it to the "overcrowding" section?--Brianvdb 09:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "Logan in the news" really the best idea for the cell phone bill info? About half of our references are from newspapers, so Logan has been in the news countless times. Such a section seems a bit redundant. --βig¶ 00:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I just wanted something different than "Trivia." This effort resulted in a fairly significant piece of state legislation, so it's not all that trivial. Any ideas on a different title? "Student activism" maybe?--Brianvdb 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Campus description

The campus description section seems to be a bit much. Pretty much every high school campus has classrooms, a cafeteria, media center, snack bars, student store, teacher parking lot, etc. While the list is certainly complete and accurate, listing each of these out doesn't seem particularly noteworthy, or neccessary.

The fact that half of the campus is "across the street" differentiates it from other campuses - I think that it would be interesting to leave a list of those facilities that are not part of the "main campus."

A listing of notable campus buildings (particularly the ones that are named after people) might be a nice addition - especially if it included the reason for the building's dedication.--Brianvdb 03:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the buildings across the street are still typical buildings that you'd find at any other high school. The only reason why this school needs to reside on such a huge property (one even divided by a road) is because of the much larger amount of classrooms that it has in comparison to other schools. So if anything, the buildings that are unique are really the classrooms.

Also, because I'm pretty sure your intention behind making the "Campus description" sections was to actually describe the campus, it seems like a good idea to describe what it is like now, not just talk about the campus' history. --βig¶ 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the campus needs to be described, but not to that level of detail. What I had in mind as far as a campus description was a notation of the size of the campus, notable facilities, and any unusual characteristics of the campus that differentiate it from other high schools. The section just seems unneccesarily long and dry.

I've shortened the list a bit, combined a few items, eliminated a couple of non-notable items. I think that it accomplshes what both of us have in mind for this section. If not, let me know, and we'll work through it. --Brianvdb 09:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Student population issues

The "Administration" section needs to be separate from all the others (in a "Overcrowding" section) because the House system and lunch scheduling were not answers to overcrowding. The rationale for the House system was to increase efficiency in managing students. I'm going to revert it back to two subsections of "Administration" and "Overcrowding." --βig¶ 05:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. The way I read it, it seemed as if "Student population issues" and "Overcrowding" were synonymous (which is why I made the change that I did). How about simply making "Administration" and "Overcrowding" into seperate main sections rather than trying to combine them under a common heading? I'm thinking that any good high school article should have a main section on its administration (whether it's huge or tiny).--Brianvdb 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've placed the administration subpoint under student population issues because everything that's written under administration only has to do with the fact that Logan has a huge student body. If we can find any other information about the administration that doesn't have to do with the school's population, then I think the administration subpoint becoming it's own main section is justified. --βig¶ 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations for criticism

I'm at a loss in terms of proving that criticism of certain school policies exist. This is all from anecdotal evidence- I've heard grumblings from teachers and students around school. I'd love to write a letter to the editor for the Argus just so I can cite it on Wikipedia, but that just doesn't seem to change the state of existence of the criticism anyway. If anecdotal evidence isn't good enough, let's say the criticism originates from me. This will mean that the criticism just has to exist because I just said I was thinking it. --βig¶ 06:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And that totally violates NOR... I don't know, honestly. I've seen that stuff all over the place, unsourced. The problem is that if we want to FAC it, sources must exist. And blogs don't count. (For ref: Caulfield Grammar School is a featured article. It contains no criticism, just the facts, straight up. No praise, no critiques, no nothing.) -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 06:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the goal of FAC will have to overshadow Wikipedia's fallacies. Then let's get rid of information about opposition. --βig¶ 06:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A letter of the editor would probably not be considered by most to be a credible source for an encyclopedia article - nor would an article in the editorial/opinion section of a newspaper or a blog. Wikipedia is not really the place to publish opinion on current or recent events, anyway (see WP:NOT). <opinon> If historical criticism is noteworthy enough to need to be included in Wikipedia, then there should be no shortage of sources. If you are having problems finding reliable sources, then the criticism probably doesn't belong here. </opinion> --Brianvdb 08:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nominee

So, I've put it up for that. There's a huge backlog for it at present, and not likely to get promoted anytime soon. I've figured that it's not good enough to be featured yet, but reading over the good article guidelines, it's close. So, we'll see. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 01:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you guys think it's too early, feel free to remove it. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for James Logan High School/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason:

This article is full of trivial, unencyclopaedic detail, starting with the address in the intro. Please give it a very critical read-through, considering what readers are likely to want from an article about a school. Think about what you would be interested in knowing about a school in a country on the other side of the planet from where you are, and what you would consider trivial detail. Worldtraveller 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you care to give us some examples? It would help a lot more in pointing us editors in the right direction. Thanks. -- ßίζ·קּ‼ (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I apologise in advance if I come across as a little bit harsh here, but while I can see a lot of work has been done here, I think much more needs to be done to make this article encyclopaedic and good quality. Here's a few examples:

1. James Logan High School consists of two separate properties, totalling approximately 70-acres, divided by H Street - the area of the school is not important, and no-one who is not already familiar with the school will know what H street is. The ensuing description of what is on which side of H street is also largely meaningless to most readers.
2. James Logan High School is known for a great collection of faculty and curriculum - this doesn't seem to make sense, but seems to be opinion rather than fact.
3. The school has had its share of academic awards - what is its share? Who is judging that it's had its share?
4. This tentative schedule for the 2006-2007 school year will address issues with Department of Education instructional time requirements. - a tentative schedule is of extremely little use to a general reader.
5. The James Logan Forensics team is coached by Tommie Lindsey, Jr. who has appeared on Oprah[18], won the prestigious MacArthur Award[19], and received many other awards from organizations such as the NAACP - this sounds like something from a local newspaper report rather than an encyclopaedia article.
6. because James Logan is located in a working-class community, Tommie Lindsey strives to make sure everyone has a chance to compete - this is unverifiable promo-talk.
7. many of its current members and alumni describe the program as "not only preparing you for public speaking, but preparing you for life." - I doubt that many of them use those exact words.
8. Ramiro Barrera directs the James Logan Marching Band...The Color Guard is directed by Mark Metzger - not relevant.
9. James Logan High School has adopted unique provisions - they really don't sound at all unique.
10. James Logan has had to adjust the number of houses as student population has fluctuated - this is just not very interesting or relevant.
11. James Logan also implements a 2-period lunch where half of the school has lunch one period, and the other half has lunch the other period - again, not interesting or relevant. The details of how a school arranges its lunch hour are simply not encyclopaedic.
12. Lots of tables showing the demographic breakdown of the school's pupils are really not encyclopaedic, unless they are going to be discussed and are relevant in some way to why the school should be interesting to readers who know nothing of it.

Generally, the problem is that the article seems to be written with people who know the school already in mind. Not enough is done to explain why the school should be of interest to someone like me, in another part of the world and with no knowledge of the school or the area. The articles is extremely bogged down in trivial detail that would put most people off ploughing through it. Parts are good, and begin to make a case for a general reader having a look through, but a lot of it is not good. Worldtraveller 23:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Academics

I have a comment on the following statement:

"Although recent years have seen many successful graduates, the community has been battling a low 40% of graduates going to college."

The California high school average going to college in 2004 is 43.7%. Isn't Logan closely within average of the average California high school rate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.10.63 (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Nate Robinson

Nate Robinson is NOT a Logan alumni. He attended Rainier Beach High School in Washington. [2] In other words, please stop posting that he's a Logan alumni! (This is the second time I've seen Robinson on the list.) Sstrieu 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)