Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/British International School Vietnam/1

British International School Vietnam edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Withdrawn by nominator --Philcha (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was unfairly quick failed, saying "it is an advertisement with no independent verifiable sources". It is clearly not an advertisement, as it at no point makes any hint that the school is better then any other, and there are no independent sources available. --Sauronjim (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to look past the bluntness of the review to the material fact: the article is entirely sourced to http://www.bisvietnam.com. It is far from true that this is the only source that discusses the school, as a google search quickly reveals. Even adding a source such as http://www.english-schools.org/vietnam/british-international-school.htm (which may not be very independent) would improve the article. Look for references to the school in newspapers (are there no league tables in HCMC?). I found a reference by UNICEF to the school in connection with the tsunami. Other such nuggets of information are almost certainly available. Geometry guy 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree our policies require multiple reliable third party sources. This is required just to establish notability. Standards for Good articles are higher. Ruslik (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I don't know what league tables are, but I'm fairly confident that there aren't any in Saigon. And while I believe it should be a Wikipedia policy, I can find no reference to the sources needing to be independent on Wikipedia pages. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is this being considered here - I thought this page was to reconsider existing GAs, not to sidestep the GAN process?~~ Ruslik and Geometry Guy are correct, but the other reason for quick-fail was that the article is not neutral. It has a pov spam lead and the actual one-sentence "mission statement" is followed by a whole chunk of spam. The user is a pupil at the school with a clear COI and part of the article is a copyright infringement of the school's website. jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jim, the other use of GAR is to re-examine situations where a GA might have gone wrong. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thouroughly checked the page on the GAR before posting it. This is a valid reason for a good article review. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

League tables means rankings of schools. I would be surprised if this was not the case in Vietnam anymore. It can't have changed that much in 30 years...YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Philcha edit

These are based on the Good Article criteria. For future reference you may find one or more of the guides linked to at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#GA_guides easier to use in the majority of cases.

Coverage edit

Lots of gaps, mostly obvious (I'm not in the education business, and these are off the top)

Who's eligible? Are there entrance exams?
How is tutition paid for? Does the school or any external organisation provide scholarships.
How does it work compare with that of the state schools and of other independent scholls in the locations it covers?

At present the article falls a very long way short of meeting Good Article criteria #3. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure edit

Can't really comment at present because so much needs to be added. --Philcha (talk)

Citations edit

In section "History" only the last para has a citation. With a few very well-defined exceptions, every statement that's not obvious or well-known needs a citation, see WP:V.
All the sources cited are published by the school. WP requires that anything other than important statements by the subject (like the Mission Statement) should be supported by sources independent of the subject. To give an extreme example of why this is necessary, media controlled by Saddam Hussein portrayed him as benevolent, just and wise - but there's overwhelming evidence that he was a monster. In a completely different field, Muhammad Ali said, "I am the greatest" thousands of times, but everyone understands that was just advertising (and he often made a joke of it), and serious assessments of his place in the boxing hall of fame are based on independent commentators. In more normal cases, would you be happy if an article about a commercial or government organisation was based entirely on statements by that organisation?

So this article falls far short of meeting Good Article criteria #2 - we can't tell whether it's accurate, because there is no independent verification. Geometry guy's comment (15:38, 17 May 2009) gives some hints on where to start looking. Beyond these, Google is your best friend, especially Google Scholar, which looks specifically for material from respected academic sources. --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the article is very far short of being a GA. Geometry guy's comment (15:38, 17 May 2009), the Good Article criteria, the guides mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#GA_guides and Google (Scholar) will probably help.

There's another possibility you should be prepared for - there may not be enough material available to form the basis of a GA. I've had that experience a few times in the last few months, e.g. I can't find material to cover the remaining gaps (quite large) in Amstrad PCW, and Next (novel) is frustratingly close but not quite there. I suspect Amstrad PCW is a lost cause, as there will probably be no new sources about this 1980s computer. But if you run short of sources for British International School Vietnam, you can wait a year and look again, as there's a reasonable chance that new material will appear. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally withdraw the request for a good article reassessment. The reason I posted it is because of the fact it didn't just fail, it was quick failed, and I still believe it should not have been failed in such a manor, and also because the article had met all the requirements set by the first good article nomination. As I don't actually know how to withdraw it, would it be possible for someone else to do it? --Sauronjim (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm closing it now as "Withdrawn by nominator". --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]