Talk:Los Alamos High School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP Schools Assessment[edit]

very well done ...tell us a bit more ... alumni - any more.... more pics welcome Victuallers 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas 2007! Nice to see the pics! Yes you are mid importance. ?If you get this well referenced using the ref tag (ideally the cite tag too) and you can then get a B or GA. You can apply for reassessment at the schools ptoject if you want a second opinion (this is not an exact science). Well done Victuallers (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 2nd thoughts .... may be a B now ... apply to schools project for reassessment Victuallers (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics Section[edit]

Hi. This section needs work but it's going to be expanded upon. Since it meets the criteria for verifiability and NOR (or is flagged appropriately) please leave it here for the time being or help improve it. Thanks.

--Ryan Utt 16:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I agree. None of the awards you listed are specifically cited. This is done immediately or Wikipedia is risking potential liability. P-unit 22:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All facts on the page are from the references listed in the reference section. I can add footnotes for any contested material to aid verification. --Ryan Utt 04:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to page[edit]

I'm nearing completion of the article. Only a few things left I want to take care of:

1) Funding -- Los Alamos Public Schools formerly recieved funds directly from DOE. Now they recieve funds from some federal intermediary that also provides some support to the surrounding communities such as Espanola. I wish I could get the facts regarding this situation, but they are hard to find.

2) Extra-curricular activities -- in particular I would like to get a photo of the landscaping work done by X-scape.

3) Campus -- just a few basic facts about the campus including the most key biographical details of the people buildings are named after: Duane W. Smith, Griffith, etc. --Ryan Utt 06:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of LAHS[edit]

From Wiki fair use policy section 1: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available". Since no alternative photos showing the same material are available, then this specific photo does not fail the specific criteria cited by the person who removed it. --Ryan Utt 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Composition[edit]

re: person who replaced "white" w/ "European American" and "black" w/ "African American"

I reversed the changes so that the lahs page reflects the wording of the source material. If you feel really strongly about it then we can talk about how to reconcile the wording of the source with what is an arguably more politically correct wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Utt (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has re-reverted it. I find the term "European American" inaccurate and to be personally insulting, as I attended this high school as a non-American white person (Caucasian if you prefer). Because of the international nature of Los Alamos in general and the high school in particular I think it is inappropriate to use the term if the source material uses the word "white". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.251.62 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth in Los Alamos County[edit]

The source included in the article describing LA as rich is not meant to be authoritative, but merely describe the perception of LAHS by some of its peers. I think this perception is shared by many. It is not true that Los Alamos is the richest county in America. In the most recent census results, Los Alamos wasn't even in the top 25 counties for median income: [1]. However, in terms of per capita income and median income, it is the wealthiest county in the state of new mexico, even though none of the most wealthy new mexicans live in Los Alamos [2].

I'm not sure how much of this information should be discussed in the LAHS article versus what should be moved to the article on LA County. Maybe the best thing to do would be to just state the numbers and leave it at that? Greg Comlish (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements[edit]

This article has got a lot of strengths. For instance, it's got loads of references which is great. But it's missing a clearly organized cohesive framework. It feels like a loosely organized list of facts where distinct items have little connection to each other. We need to reorganize everything for the sake of the reader. New sections should be added to make information easier to find. Summaries should be added to existing sections which are little more than lists (athletics, awards). There is now plenty of material here, but the article cannot improve unless it becomes more readable. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011 Assessment[edit]

I am assessing this article, per a request left at the Schools Project page. checkY ☒N Prior to assessment, I have done a major cleaning. There was a great deal of unencyclopedic information. I hope I got it all.

This article, upon my arrival was classified as "B Class". I am starting this assessment against the B-Class criteria:

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.☒N One particular strength of this article is that, while there is considerable referencing, and it is diverse, there is still a great deal that needs to be referenced. The alumni section, even after being gutted, still largely unreferenced. The future plans for seniors is not only out of date, but poorly referenced to the school itself (that really needs to be independently referenced or deleted). This is hardly a major weakness of this article, but still needs to be worked on. To reach my consideration of "suitably referenced" there shouldn't be any unreferenced sections, and this article has a couple of those. There is also a minor concern regarding the use of references from the school/district to support some important claims that should be independently verified.

2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.checkY I don't see any sections that appear to be missing.

3. The article has a defined structure.checkY There may be minor tweaks needed, but there is nothing close to a major problem here.

4. The article is reasonably well-written.checkY I don't see any major issues here, especially with the more peacocky language has been deleted. It is hardly perfect, but not too bad.

5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.checkY No problems here.

The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.checkY Again, no problems here ... I don't think there was any inside language or material that the average person wouldn't understand.

The three big things I would caution on:

1. Keep out non-notable alumni, students, and staff. They should generally only be noted if they meet the general notability guideline. 2. Avoid the colorful language that is too self-promotional of the school. See WP:PRESTIGE. 3. Not only does there need to be a little more referencing, but make sure not too much of it is from the school itself. If the article claims that over 85% of the student go to 4 year colleges, that needs an independent verification. State championships need referencing the alumni need references which support that this person actually attended the school. The music stuff needs referencing (not sure if that should even stay ... it should really only be state championship level achievements. 4. Be careful about not adding external links that don't belong.

I wish you the best of luck ... this seems to be a fairly important school, and it seems very close to moving up to "B" and then beyond. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing is clearly improved in all sections. I will head off a request for reassessment and bump this to the "B" class it clearly deserves after a lot of hard work. Keep up the great work on improving this article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Chronically Unsourced Material[edit]

There are a number of claims that have had {{fact}} tags for too long. These need to be separately from the article to maintain quality. The claims are:

  • The Girls Cross Country Team was ranked first nationally among high school teams in the pre-season ranking for the next year.{{citation needed|date=February 2011}}
  • All four LAHS choirs received superior ratings at the District Large Group Festival in 2009<ref name="LAHS_CHOIR">{{cite news|url=http://www.lamonitor.com/content/support-lahs-choirs|title=Support LAHS Choirs |publisher=Los Alamos Monitor|date=2010-01-20|accessdate=2010-12-17 }}</ref>. Two of these choirs also received "Best in Class" for Class AAAA schools.{{fact|date=December 2010}}
  • LAHS Wind Ensemble Band nearly always receives a superior rating from the New Mexico Music Educators Association Large Group Festival, placing 1st in 2008 and 2009.{{fact|date=December 2010}}

These claims can stay here until somebody can source them. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Los Alamos has the highest number of Ph.D.s per capita. This is a "fact" that I have seen in several places, but have never seen any reliable demographic support for it. The first time I saw this in print was on a postcard in the 1980's, but I had heard the claim before. I have tried and tried to locate a source for this claim, but have reached the conclusion that it is just a bit of local folklore. Note that the Wikipedia article for Madison, WI makes the same claim for that city. You cite a source, but it is just a newspaper article that makes the statement without any citation. 7minus1 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PhD claim is cited in Business Week, a reputable source. Note that Madison WI is not a county and therefore could not be the county with the highest PhDs per capita. Greg Comlish (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business Week might be a reputable source for business news, but not for demographic information. Did they conduct a census to find out which county has the most Ph.D.s? I have seen this claim for years, but have never seen a study that backs it up. 7minus1 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business Week is regarded as a reputable source for its content, both business news and not. Like most news organizations, they don't conduct their own demographic studies but verify claims using published works such as the American Community Survey by the US Census. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. All I want to know is what demographic study did they verify this "fact" with? As far as I know, the American Community Survey doesn't break down counties by how many Ph.D.s they have. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me that this is a piece of folklore that has been repeated so often that it has taken on the aura of truthfulness, although it has never been carefully verified. I am sure you could find other "reliable" places where this factoid is repeated, but that doesn't make it verified. 7minus1 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask Business Week where they get their information. My only claim is that the citation is sufficient to meet the criteria for verifiability stated at WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I wish you luck in tracking down the original source of the information and I'd love to hear what you come up with. Greg Comlish (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Class Plans[edit]

The following information has been relocated to the talk page until we can find an independent source to verify

2004 Survey<ref name="grad plans">{{cite news|url=http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |title=Class of 2004 Statistical Overview|publisher= Los Alamos High School|year=2004|accessdate=2006-01-01|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20060117225533/http://lahs.laschools.net/forms/047profile0405.pdf |archivedate = 2006-01-17}}</ref>

  • 4 year college: 86.4 %
  • 2 year college: 3.7%
  • Technical / Vocational School: 3.2 %
  • Military: 4.3 %
  • Undecided: 2.3 %
  • Nothing: 0.2%

Greg Comlish (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

The main question to ask when reviewing information and deciding what to include is "does this really help a reader get a good understanding of the subject?" Most of the finer details don't and in school articles, it's always tempting to include a plethora of awards and accomplishments that may seem important to the school, but in reality aren't that significant. For instance, getting a good rating for the choirs at a district competition really isn't that significant since most schools accomplish that. Same with the mention of the bands; most of those competitions mean absolutely nothing to the average reader. Even as a music educator I haven't heard of them, plus I know that there are tons of music competitions that schools can enter all over the country.

Check the "faculty" number. Faculty means actual teachers, so unless there are 256 teachers for 1,200 students, I'm guessing that should be "Staff", which can mean everyone who works at the school. You can also use both Faculty and Staff with Faculty being full-time teachers ("Teaching staff" is also an available parameter on the infobox) and "Staff" being for support staff like janitors, aides, secretaries, and administration.

There is still lots of promotional language and several one-sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should have at least 3 sentences. I'd also recommend removing the "Recent awards" section and including the most notable awards in the history section. "Recent" will be dated pretty quickly. Along with that, removing the huge list of clubs would be a good idea too. I don't think it's bad to list some of them in prose, but a huge list that simply duplicates what one could find on the school's website doesn't really help is much. Lastly, remove the images section and move all public domain images to Wikimedia Commons in a "Los Alamos High School" category. That way the images can be stored in a gallery that is linked through a template on the page. Images that are stored on Wikipedia and then are orphaned will eventually get deleted; this is not true on the Commons. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Promotional Language-- The key is the sources and how it's all presented. A lot of it seems to be in introductory sentences. "Nationally ranked" isn't promotional if it has valid reliable sources from neutral third parties, though it would need more clarification. Don't forget to also make sure these rankings are presented with dates; i.e. when was it ranked in Class Struggle? It really isn't accurate to say the school is nationally ranked if the last time they were in the rankings of a particular publication was a few years ago. This is on top of the fact that many publications have rankings. "Strong academic reputation", however, is point of view, meaning it is a view not necessarily shared by everyone and is subjective. Who says it has a "strong" academic reputation and when did they say that? Why is their opinion valid? Most statements like that are better left to the reader to decide by simply presenting solid, sourced facts.
The statement "Unlike many other exemplary public schools, LAHS is not a magnet school" is not supported by its source. The source merely confirms that LAHS is not a magnet school; it says nothing about any other "exemplary public schools" or that most of them are magnet schools with admissions requirements. My experience with school articles and rankings is that there are quite a few "exemplary public schools" that are traditional, non-magnet schools. "Any student living in Los Alamos is free to attend"; this goes without saying since it is a public school. Another word that shows up frequently is "diverse". "Diverse" is more of a point of view term as well. For instance, the statement "LAHS has a diverse selection of directed musical groups, many of which are offered as courses for academic credit." First, to remove POV, simply say it has "a number of" instead of "diverse". Most schools the size of LAHS have these kinds of and number of programs. Second, the latter half of the statement implies a student can take a performing arts class not for academic credit. What exactly does that mean?
Remember, everything needs to be able to be sourced, not just an editor's opinion. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I thought of is be sure to read WP:SYN. I've seen a few instances where statements are sourced, but the source only confirms half of the statement. I already pointed out one (regarding "exemplary public schools") that you took out, but even the idea that the school's strong academic record (again, "strong" is a POV term because it is opinion) is connected to the sourced fact that Los Alamos County has the highest number of PhDs per capita. That is a form of synthesis that since A is true (Los Alamos county has the highest number of PhDs per capita) and B is true (the school has been recognized multiple times academically), therefore C must be true (B is the result of A). I think the info about the PhDs would be better served as part of a demographics section rather than making an unsourced assumption that the school's academic honors are directly caused by the per capita total of PhDs in the county. While I don't think the general assumption is out of line or incorrect, rather than make an unsourced statement, let the reader make the assumptions from the sourced data provided. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A previous version of the article probably ran afoul of WP:SYN, but the most recent version of the article only said that county had the highest number of PhDs in the USA. It did not associate that claim with the academic performance of the school in the lede. That association won't be resinstated until I can get it sourced, but the claim about the number of PhDs, however, is both accurate and sourced; It should be restored to the article. Greg Comlish (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of PHDs is correct, but there's no relation to the school. Even if there is, it isn't ledeworthy material. The lede should summarize what is in the article, not provide content that isn't discussed elsewhere. See WP:LEDE. tedder (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Middle of first paragraph of the Academics section: "The strength of LAHS's academic record is largely attributed to the academic nature of Los Alamos County, which has the highest concentration of PhDs per capita in the United States." There is an unsourced connection here (who "attributes" this?) along with 2 unsourced POV statements ("strength of LAHS's academic reputation" and "academic nature of Los Alamos County"). If nothing can be shown to adequately source the connection of that fact to the school, why does it need to be in this article? It's already sourced in the article on Los Alamos County, New Mexico, the article it is directly relevant to. Remember, just because something is notable and sourced doesn't necessarily follow that it should be in a particular article. Without a solid, sourced connection, the info about PhDs is tangential at best and is borderline trivia at worst. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a quote in the Education Weekly source you could use that verifies the statement it is attached to? You can add that to the citation by using |quote= |. Because it is a subscription-only site, it makes it somewhat difficult to check that and being a rather bold and outstanding claim, the more references it has the better. My one concern is that it's from 1996, so it's 15 years old. It's not exactly a recent source, and the article seems to suggest it is a present occurrence (which it very well may be, but that has to be sourced). "Largely attributed" gives the assumption that several reliable sources have stated this. Perhaps changing it to "has been attributed to" or something "smaller"? --JonRidinger (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The "educational success is attributed to PHDs" again, but I really don't think it deserves inclusion in the lede. The lede is very paltry and covers odd parts of the article. tedder (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tell me what you think should be in the lede? Because from my reading of WP:LEDE we should be including the most notable details from the rest of the article in a summary style. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I have some time in the next few days I'll try to write a lede. tedder (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WP:WPSCH#Featured articles and take a look at some of the relevant articles (i.e. other high schools) there. Also check out the lists below that for A-Class and GA-class. Those articles will give you a general idea of not only what a lead should look like but the article itself; some things to use as a base model for this one. If I were writing the lead, I'd have the basic intro of what type of school it is and where, then a little summary of the history, mention some of the academic accolades, then a paragraph with recent enrollment numbers, some of the most notable or unique courses and programs available along with a mention of the athletics (like the team name). Basically, at least a sentence from each section of the article; more sentences for larger sections. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jon. I'm following your direction and looking at Stuyvesant High School on WP:WPSCH#Featured articles. In the first paragraph of the lede the article declares "Stuyvesant is noted for its strong academic programs, having produced many notable alumni including four Nobel laureates.[1] U.S. News & World Report ranked it thirty-first in their 2009 list of America's best "Gold-Medal" public high schools.[2]". This example is emblematic of the ledes in WP:WPSCH#Featured articles.Greg Comlish (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to bear in mind when looking at FA's is when it became FA. Articles that recently achieved FA status are far better guides than older ones as the process has become far more refined and stringent in the last few years. This one was promoted 5 years ago and reviewed 3 years ago. Also, just because an FA article has something doesn't mean every article should also have the same or needs it. In regards to your specific commonalities, note that it dated the accolades rather than simply saying "is nationally ranked". I stated above that the rankings could be in the lead for LAHS provided they are in proper context of the summary of the article and are specifically dated since rankings are only valid for one year and can change drastically from year to year. I would actually remove "strong" in that lead because it really isn't needed. In fact, looking at the article, it needs a lot of touch-up work. When I went to check the sources for these claims, I found most of them either don't work or don't have the quote listed. The lead in that article could also be a little longer and if it were reviewed today that would be a fault (believe me, I've taken articles through FA...ugh!), but do note it does have a basic 3-paragraph structure and in a VERY basic way summarizes the article. I personally like the Amador Valley High School article lead as it highlights some achievements without using overly promotional language. The article was promoted to FA status a bit more recently too (November 2009). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you object if I added a specifically-dated ranking of the school in the lede? Or would you feel this alone would lack "proper context"? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the purpose of the lead is to give an introduction to the article; basically a very general summary. If all you add is a ranking, then yes, it will seem out of place and serve not as a summary but a "look at how great we are" kind of thing. I would add it in a general sense, like "LAHS has been recognized as a top U.S. high school by..." To see how I did it, see the lead at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio). That school was also named in a report by US News in 2010. It's a very general mention. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder, you suggested that you would rewrite the lede for this article. Is this still on your agenda? Greg Comlish (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added my rewrite. tedder (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Stuy FAQs". Stuyvesant High School. Retrieved September 17, 2007.
  2. ^ "Gold Medal Schools". U.S. News & World Report. November 29, 2007. Retrieved January 11, 2008.

Middle class[edit]

If you aren't sure what to put, I think you can easily just remove that sentence. Keep the median income and other key statistics from the county and, as I've said for other things, let the reader make the decision about middle class. Middle class doesn't have a clear definition (there isn't a government definition like we have for poverty). Remember too, if you have "is considered" or "can be considered" that needs a source that actually uses that terminology ("middle class"). You could (and should) also put the racial and gender statistics into prose with the rest of the paragraph. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rival School[edit]

I eliminated the section designating Espanola Valley High School as a "rival" school. In my opinion, it's just not a clear and meaningful designation, and I don't think it's even symmetric relationship. LAHS has several rival schools depending on which sport/activity you are talking about. Most of LAHS's state titles are in Swimming and XC, and in those sports the big rival would be Albuquerque Academy. And competition with Academy might be bolstered by some sort of populist/ anti-private school sentiment. But does Academy see LAHS as the big rival? On their article, all they talk about is St. Pious. So beyond issues of verifiability and NOR, I'm just thinking that it's a problematic classification since LAHS and so many other school have so many rivals. And there's no LAHS traditions to institutionalize a rivalry with EVHS. It's not like they have the annual "big game" with EVHS or floats in the Homecoming parade with a besieged Sundevil or anything. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the only time rivals should be included is if they are well-sourced, such as a newspaper article about the long rivalry between school A and school B. Otherwise it ends up like musical genre warring and becomes a target for original research. Having said that, significant rivalries are usually written about at some point in the school's history. tedder (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both that rivalries need to be sourced. If it is significant and a long-standing rivalry, local sources can be found. If not, there is no requirement to have anything about rivalries in the article. My only difference is that I would include it as part of athletics/sport instead of history since rivalries are usually manifested in sports. That could vary too though, depending on the school. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, generally in the sports section and the infobox. tedder (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this will come across as jerkish, but my cite tagging is usually procedural. I fully understand that there can be notable, independently verifiable rivalries in high school sports, but they are the exception rather than the rule. I completely agree with JonRidinger and Tedder. Additionally, Greg Comish has the right thinking on the whole rivalry thing: the basketball team's rival isn't necessarily the volleyball team's rival. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it is appropriate if sourced; not appropriate if not sourced.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Greg Comlish's comment on LAHS Rival School being Espanola Valley High School. I happen to know a rival school when I know one, it may be unsourced, but the point of your comment of: It's not like they have an annual "big game," its actually the most attended game all year. Griffith Gym sells out. I go to LAHS, I will find references to it and prove it. Actually I already know where it is. Espanola Valley and Los Alamos rivalry is very well known throughtout Northern New Mexico. I will get the reference from the LA Monitor, but oh wait you people wouldn't know that because you don't attend LAHS! LAHS Class of 2014!! Atomic Energy505 (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[http://www.lamonitor.com/content/boys-basketball-la-take-its-arch-rival-tonight-big-2aaaa-game LA Monitor Article on Espanola Valley Rivalry, forgive me not rivalry, ARCHRIVALRY!!} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic Energy505 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source. Even if we did attend LAHS, we'd still need a reliable source for the rivalry as we have no way to prove that an editor is from a school and "knows" a rivalry when he or she sees one. Are there any other sources that talk about the rivalry? This source confirms there is a rivalry, but not enough to justify even a paragraph about (just a mention in the infobox and in athletics). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me point out another article that cites the "deep rivalry" between Los Alamos and Academy: [3]
MS: When doing an interview with Rob and Kathy Hipwood of Los Alamos, they said they had a great friendship with you. How did the friendship come about, and how is your relationship with the Hipwoods during the season when your AA team is a deep rival with Los Alamos?
AK: In high school, Rob and I went to rival schools. I say rival schools, but in reality his school was my schools rival and my old high school (not Academy) was his schools punching bag. Not much different than how it was between Rob and I in races I guess. I'm glad it is our teams that are racing now instead of the two of us. I've seen too much of that skinny rear end up in the distance. After college, Rob and I both became coaches, him at his old school and me in paradise here at Academy. So, ten or twelve years ago, we were both young-buck coaches trying to make a name for ourselves. We pretty much broke onto the high school coaching scene at the same time. We shared stories and became good friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Comlish (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cross country rivalry with Albuquerque Academy is worth mentioning, particularly the boys. The state meet has been a battle between LA and AA for years, with no other schools taking the #1 or 2 spot since 1998. Both teams have had their share of national attention, indicating that this rivalry is far more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.29.174 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessment[edit]

It has been asked that I re-assess this article; I think the ratings are fine as they are, but I can provide give some tips for GA.

Firstly, I took the liberty of cleaning-up the images on Commons and deleting the duplicate uploads left behind here. These images are an asset to the article and go beyond what would be needed to pass the WP:GAC. The image quality is good too, though a colour version of File:JFK Memorial.jpg would be great. Given the amount of images, a gallery on Commons might be appropriate at commons:Los Alamos High School to in order to supplement the category, see commons:COM:GALLERY.

Both non-free images used have rationales, though what is the purpose of File:TheTopperman.jpg? It doesn't seem to be supporting any content, and on my resolution it creeps into the references section resulting in ugly white space to the right of the references, which should be avoided if possible. If this image is to be kept, it should probably be moved to a more appropriate section of the article, with such a section created if needed. Note that GA reviewers will check non-free images against the WP:NFCC, and I could hence see this image being an issue in a GA review due to criterion eight of this policy ("Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") - a criterion that, while open to interpretation, can catch a lot of non-free uploads out.

The current lead is good but it is a little short for an article of this size, and will need expanding. A finished FA article would have a lead of two to three paragraphs, see Amador Valley High School as an example (this school also has a Commons gallery example) and WP:LEAD for guidance. The history section is detailed and well written. While this is trivial, when using piped links make it clear to the reader where they will end up when they click on the link per WP:EGG. So in this case, if Cold War is going to be linked, then Cold War should probably be stated in the link (e.g. in order to counter a rising Soviet threat -> due to the Cold War). There appear to be some gaps in the referencing still, such as in the curriculum section. Really for GA everything needs a citation except the absolutely obvious per WP:V, even if this means citing the school website.

Finally, I would suggest looking at WP:WPSCH/AG for further guidance, in particular WP:WPSCH/AG#S for suggestions on possible missing sections and the standard article layout. CT Cooper · talk 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

Along with the above (all great suggestions), I tagged the sentence about the "newly remodeled" R-wing for clarification. Be careful to avoid statements that can quickly become dated. How recently was "newly"? Best thing to do here is state when it was remodeled "...the R-wing (previously the cafeteria), which was remodeled in (insert year or years here)." That way the sentence will always be true no matter how much time asses. Also I removed one instance, but watch out for using seasons to identify dates, like "the work will be done in fall 2011". "Fall" is first a mostly American term, but even more so, it is a POV term. Autumn in New Mexico isn't Autumn everywhere in the world. Use the month (or even date) wherever possible. If that's not available, simply using a phrase like "late 2011" is appropriate. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a good point. I also removed the word "new" from the discription of the school logo on its file page on Commons for similar reasons. CT Cooper · talk 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Bjorklund[edit]

The source for Lynn Bjorklund doesn't establish that she went to LAHS, it just states she was from Los Alamos. "The 3,000m record of 9:08.6, held by Lynn Bjorklund of Los Alamos, N.M., was set back in 1975..." While that's my first concern (living in Los Alamos does not guarantee she attended the school), the second is notability itself. Setting a high school track record is cool and all, but unless there are some other sources and notable achievements, I really don't see how this person will ever meet the notability guidelines as setting one record (particularly at the high school level) does not automatically make the person notable. The point of these notable alumni lists is mainly to connect articles that wouldn't otherwise be connected. The lists really aren't a good place to try and establish notability; that should be done in an actual article and then added to the list. Too often, especially high school articles, "notable alumni" is translated into "successful alumni" and people who have done well, regardless of notability, are included even though notable is different than successful. Remember, having a source does not establish notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon. Take another look at the source. In "Running Times" High School news they nearly always refer to the name of the high school without the redundant term "High School". Saying Lynn is from Los Alamos is equivalent to saying that she is from Los Alamos High School just like when they said "West Windsor Plainsboro North" they are actually referring to the high school West Windsor-Plainsboro High School North. It's the same convention that United States high school national records in track and field used when they cited Lynn's record fromhere. Regarding notability, a 36 year old unbroken national athletic record likely qualifies because it has been duly noted by numerous publications. She also has some other long-standing records for some well-known races like Pikes Peak Marathon. Plus Lynn was profiled in depth in Reader's Digest after at 18 mile run that saved two people's lives, so there's that too. Not sure which one is more notable, although maybe a more general label might be appropriate. Greg Comlish (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did take another look and while I see your point, there are several uses of "High" or "Academy" with a school name ("...national 800m champion Ajee Wilson of Neptune High in New Jersey...", "...Chad Noelle of Greene High in New York...", "...Matt Jablonski of Loyola Academy in Maryland."). When the state name follows a city, the author is referring to a place ("...at New Balance Nationals in Greensboro, N.C., in June."). The instance of West Windsor-Plainsboro North uses "of" New Jersey rather than the same way "Los Alamos, N.M." is used. So, yes, I think the author is referencing the city of Los Alamos rather than the high school. All I would want is another source to verify, like a yearbook or some other reliable source. But again, if you're certain this can pass notability the place to assert notability is in an actual article, not this list. Holding records, again, does not automatically confer notability. Remember, notability is not temporary, so two mentions in the 1970s likely doesn't meet notability. And it's not just passing mentions of a record; I'm talking about instances where Lynn has had articles written about her, her career, her life, etc. over an extended period of time or by several different media outlets. Setting a record is a remarkable achievement, but that in itself I don't think will meet notability. What would happen if it's broken? Would we ever hear about this person ever again? I would definitely try and see if you could request an article at WP:RA, write one yourself, or see if someone else can from WP:WPBIO. The same is true for Steven Preeg. Yes, he has a great accomplishment, but is there anything else about him that would make him notable? Not everyone on every movie crew is notable, even Oscar-winnning teams. It's similar to bands that are notable, but the individual members really aren't on their own. Doesn't mean they'll never be notable, but it does mean they currently aren't. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, the second source that Lynn Bjorklund went to LAHS is here. And, as noted before, Lynn has had ongoing media exposure including an article on her life in Readers Digest ("A run for their lives" by Maynard, Lee, 1998), so that would appear to satisfy your personal criteria for notability. Yes, the article could and should convey that notability in a better fashion. Lynn should have her own article given the significant media coverage she has had, and that can be addressed in due time. I'm also going to disagree with you on Steve Preeg. The guy won an Oscar. That alone makes him notable. And he wasn't just another "crew member" -- you make him sound like he was an extra. Preeg was one of only four people on the crew to get the award. Look at his entry on IMDB [4]. He looks like he's one of the more accomplished and established special effects guys in Hollywood. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional source. Personally, I would use that source in this article to avoid any confusion. You can also use both (you could have one citation with a "see also" link attached to the main citation), but definitely have one that specifically mentions LAHS. As for "my criteria", they're not my criteria. Please make sure you read Wikipedia's policy on Notability, in particular, the General notability guideline and Notability is not temporary sections. Be sure to also read Subjects notable only for one event and the section for WP:NTRACK which addresses Track & Field athletes specifically. I'm not totally sure she would qualify for #7: "Has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body." but it's worth a try in seeing if she would since she holds the US record (she also holds records for the Pikes Peak Marathon so that will help too, see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575427561884547420.html). I'd be happy to help get a stub started or at least inquire. Notability applies in creating an article and in list inclusion. Again, the place to assert that notability would be actual articles on each individual, not on a high school notable alumni list. It wasn't your explanation in this article that made me question notability, it was the red links on the names and the sources provided. Lists like this should contain a link to the article on that person and a very brief sentence/statement or two as to why they're notable (i.e. not a paragraph that needs to explain in detail why they're notable), because the subject of this article is the high school, not the individual who happened to go there. For examples, you can see what I did at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)#Notable alumni. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jon. I added a few extra details to Lynn's article. I'll try and get a stub going for Steve Preeg too. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Los Alamos High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Alamos_High_School&oldid=1203757222"