Wikipedia:Peer review/Lubbock High School/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lubbock High School[edit]

I am hoping to one day achieve featured article status for this article. Any and all comments are appreciated. --Myles Long/cDc 17:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a few problems:
  1. There must be references.
  2. Most of #1985-present "paragraphs" are one sentences.
  3. WP:LEAD should be expanded. It's a bit short. Just a slight expansion.
  4. A source should be cited for Image:Lubbockhigh.jpg since it's copyrighted.
  5. A source should be cited for Image:Lubbockhighlogo.jpg—even if you did just get it from their website.
  6. The infobox for the school should be the first thing in the article; the image Lubbockhigh.jpg should be moved downwards.
  7. It is generally too small. An overall expansion would be good.

KILO-LIMA 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I know it still needs work, but I've addressed your comments.
  1. I've included references now. Please let me know if these still need work.
  2. Still working on this one...
  3. Still working here, too...
  4. Done. Actually, I replaced this image with another one that is CC licensed and noted its source in the image description.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Working on this.
Thanks for the comments. --Myles Long/cDc 20:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Myles, your article is a very nice overview of the school, but it doesn't feel complete. It offers a collection of one sentence news tid-bits and then stops, leaving the reader wanting to know more. For example, "the Lubbock High Academic Decathlon team made national news when its victory over J. Frank Dobie High School in the state championship competition was disputed in court [4]." Why was this disbuted? I saw the link to the NPR blurb, but it doesn't answer much, and more detail should be put in the article itself. Another example, "In March 1909, a fire set by students destroyed the building." Was this on purpose? An accident? -- All the facts are there, but these and other facts should be expanded upon. Right now, it's more of a timeline than an article, but after additions are made and sourced, it will become a much better read.
  • I hoped this was helpful. Best of luck with the article! --Ataricodfish 06:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I'll work on expanding it in the near future. --Myles Long 15:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]