Talk:The Dragon Academy

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Education Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.

Schools

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Cut and Pasted From My "Talk" Page[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to talk about your irrepressible editing of the page on The Dragon Academy . If it is I would like you to please stop your frequent reversion of the article. Your version is not in line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. It is an add. Silencing the students right to complain about the school also goes against the school's beliefs. Rudkis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudkis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm in agreement with your point that even my abbreviated edit of the article still reads a lot like an ad, but that doesn't address what I'm taking about below pertaining to your version.I have few objections with the idea of someone affixing the appropriate 'need for a rewrite' template to this article in it's original form.

Deconstructhis 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Comments On My Editing of the Article " The Dragon Academy"[edit]

I'm not certain either, regarding what the proper protocol is for dealing with issues like these, but I'd like to suggest that it might be more appropriate if it was taking place on the discussion page of the article in question. By doing that, I believe that it's much more likely to perhaps draw the attention of the school itself so that some other voices might be heard on the matter. I'll try to be as concise as possible regarding the reason behind my "reversions" of the article. Let's look at the part of the text that I find to be most undesireable in terms of it being 'unencyclopedic' in nature and the section you seem most concerned about:

[...]

"Students in the upper forms of the school, however, find this to be an unnecessary impediment to their overall academic success. One such disgruntled student, has hopes for attending university in the United Kingdom, but is worried that because of his lower grades in the seemingly vestigial art and music classes, he may not be able to achieve the required overall average. Another student feels that he would be more successful if his efforts were they more heavily focused on the academic classes in which he struggles and will be required for university application."

First of all, none of this is substantiated in any way, there is no referencing involved at all. If my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, that means, at least in theory, that any editor may remove it at any time based on that alone. Actually, my main concern with this part of the article isn't the fact that it's not sourced, it's that it appears to consist mostly of an airing of the personal grievances of two (former?) students of the place and not much else. Again, my interpretation of the encyclopedia's policy is that Wikipedia should not be used as a "soapbox". The posting of an entire paragraph of the unsubstantiated personal grievances on Wikipedia of two people, appears to me to be exactly that, an encyclopedia article is being utilized to publically complain about something they don't like on a personal level. In my opinion, none of it belongs in a Wikipedia article for the reasons I've stated. Rather than simply wonder about this, I' going to post a 'helpme' request regarding the matter on my own talk page and we'll see if we can get a third opinion on the issue. Deconstructhis 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hello, you've requested for help. What's your problem? Martial BACQUET 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out the contested paragraph for reasons I laid out here. I hope this is going to help resolve the issue. — aldebaer⁠ 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "AldeBaer" for your speedy response in this situation, it's greatly appreciated. Unless "Rudkis" is prepared to substantiate these claims in a reliable way that conforms to Wiki standards, I'm of the opinion that they're battling for a lost cause. Deconstructhis 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deconstructhis 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a serious problem[edit]

Are there any secondary sources for anything on this article? The only mentions on the web I can find for this school are Directory listings, 'rate my teacher' sites and Wikipedia mirrors (even the Facebook page mirrors this content). It currently borders on g11 as long as the issues of blatant self-promotion & non-neutral biased style are not cleared up. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection?[edit]

The page has been vandalized a few times, would semi-protection be a good idea?Rowei99 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted content addition[edit]

I've restored an old version of the page, reverting additions made by Saint Bede the Venerable. There might be some quality content there, but it bizarrely references "Chroniclers" who I guess is meant to be Saint Bede the Venerable (which from inference may be a shared account?) It also contains a substantial amount of POV content, such as making unattributed statements about the quality of teachers and students. I invite Saint Bede the Venerable to read our advice on writing better articles, particularly the section on tone, as well as our neutral point of view policy. – Anne drew 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]