Talk:Richmond High School (Richmond, California)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
image edit
can somebody put in an image of the school?Cholga 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
cleanup and copyedit edit
the article still has structural and formating and gramitical and spelling errors, more bodty would be nice, poorly refernces, citations needed, correcrt citation for ==References=== section reference.Cholga 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
expansion edit
can somebody add more content to this article?Cholga 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
>I've just added some data from their current SARC report. It is perhaps helpful for folks trying to undertand the recents events there. It is natural to ask whether the student base is mostly middle-class, children of privelege, or rather (as the data suggests) a highly challenged environment. I left out some other details in the SARC, such as 11% learning disabled, or the dropout rates.
I think that in light of recent events, this specific, cited, officially published information from the school itself... is at least as important/relevant (if not moreso) as the fact that it was the basis for a semi-fictionalized movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy222 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Importance assessment edit
I have changed the importance rating from High to Mid, as the Richmond article better meets the Mid criteria of "Adds further depth, but not vital to encyclopedia", than the High criteria "Very much needed, even vital". -- Lissoy 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
bystander effect edit
I removed that because the sentence is highly POV. saying it garners national attention from a single link by cnn is innacurate. Can't prove it has gained national attention with a single link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattsyaros (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Added media since these are not professional opinions of actual psychologists rather members of the media who really have no business interpreting the bystander effect.Pattsyaros (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- professionals have said it is possibly bystander effect. its in the linked-to article Richmondian (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyeditor passing by edit
Aside from making grammar and tone changes, I've cleaned up this article of original research claims without citations and dead links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)