Ballah4life
I'm not sure what you're trying to add to the article by adding your statement that "However, Fairmont has not won the award in subsequent years (it is possible for a school to win this award multiple times)". I agree that this statement is true, but only a small fraction of American schools have ever won the award, and a minute fraction have won multiple times. If it had won twice you could just as well indicate that others have won three or more times, or you could pick any other aspect that Fairmount has to show for itself and state that some other school has done it more, better or faster. True, perhaps, but what is added? Before I revert your change again, I do want to try to understand the goal of your change. Alansohn (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- My goal is to add clarification to the "awards and recognition" part of the article. the article is written as if a school can only win the award once because there is a large gap of time between when it was won (about 17yrs ago) and today. My addition is not a criticism of the school, it is just a simple clarification on the award due to the fact that the award was won many years ago.
- The link to the Blue Ribbon Schools Program is available to anyone who wants a better understanding of the award. If you listed the percentage of schools that have ever received the award (4% of all schools in the US) and also listed the percentage that received the award multiple times (A small fraction of that), then people might have the details to pass judgment on winning "only" once. Without that, it adds text to the article without shining any light on the subject. Has the school gotten worse, the same, better? I don't know, but that it has not won a second time is extraneous. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)