Talk:Creighton Preparatory School

Rivalry

Westside Highschool

Jesuit Education

i see no need for this section. if someone wants to find out about it, they can go to the section of the article of Jesuits

Talk

I was surprised to see Gutzon Borglum listed as an alum. What support is there for this assertion? --TheJeffMiller 10:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"In 1884, when Gutzon was sixteen, the family moved to Los Angeles. His father, unhappy in California, soon returned to Nebraska, but Gutzon stayed behind." - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rushmore/peopleevents/p_gborglum.html Although he may have attended the school, he certainly couldn't have graduated by age 16, and isn't an alumnist. --jakealator 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As your own source says, though, Borglum "liked to tinker with his own legend, subtracting a few years from his age, changing the story of his parentage." PBS's study is based on one archival document. According to the state of Nebraska (http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/notables/borglum.html), Borglum "moved in 1874 from Idaho to Fremont at the age of seven. Educated in Fremont and Omaha, Borglum showed an early aptitude for sketching." This account completely contradicts the PBS report. Again, according to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9080743), Borglum "was raised from age seven in Nebraska." The state of Nebraska's website offers further insight: He stayed in Nebraska at least until he was 23, when J.L. Brandeis purchased his painting "Staging in California" at an Omaha art show; it was later donated to the Joslyn Museum. Sometime after this, he studied in San Francisco, where George W. Lininger sent him to Europe. This time frame, keeping him in Omaha until 1890, then gives him over 10 years to study in San Francisco and Paris, which is all anyone ever claims he did before 1901, when he moved to New York. No other story can explain how that painting could have gotten into the Joslyn; indeed, PBS claims he was in Europe at the time! It is certainly possible that he attended and graduated from Creighton College in all of these sources. Jeannie Brayman, a member of the Creighton Prep Hall of Fame and educator at Prep for nearly 25 years, was my first connection to the possibility that Borglum is an alumnus; I don't know her source, though. If this isn't enough for you, then take him back off, but there is no basis to end the claim entirely. --aekarn 16:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional Information

I would like to see more information on the academics of the school. Such as mentions of block scheduling and maybe the curriculum. I think that the concept of community period should also be mentioned because it was fairly specific to Prep. Also, I didn't see anywhere that mentioned tuition, additionally the statistics of students who are receiving financial aid. I would appreciate the addition of these facts because the article is so focused on athletics I think that balancing it with academics would do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcswim2019 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section

Okay, we need to avoid another edit war. While this section does reflect poorly on the school, to remove it is not appropriate behavior simply because of this. These were high profile incidents that occurred in 2014 and 2018, therefore, they do have enough relevance to remain on the page. If you have objections to this inclusion, state them here, otherwise this will remain part of the article from here on out. Mac507 (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not looked at those particular incidents, but there are certainly many problems with the way Creighton Preparatory School#LB 586 and stance on LGBTQ+ individuals was written. Quotes from an individual that are presented as official Board statements, quotes from an article someone wrote reflecting on having been asked to speak to faculty at his former school presented as what he actually said to the faculty, cherry-picked quotes, unsourced claims, etc. I'll be looking at the rest of the controversies for similar problems once I finish with this. Meters (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The earlier incident was even worse. Meters (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed a chunk of the Creighton Prep Birdcage section too. This was clearly being slanted to make the school look bad. Unsourced claims, cherry-picked quotes that are taken out of context, a major reference that barely mentions this school, etc. I am not impressed. Meters (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Creighton Preparatory School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahaib3005 (talk · contribs) 07:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It definitely meets the GA requirements. Nothing bad about it.Sahaib3005 (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Making a quick scan of short reviews, I would like some investigation into the scope, neutrality and sources. This is a 300k+ article on a high school, which sends red flags immediately. The school has a long and storied history, this is true, but the first issue is that the article is basically unreadable due to its length. I would recommend splitting off relevant sections, and also question the depth given to some topics. Next, is the management of promotional tone; it is not awful in this regard, but worth some attention. Of course, attempting to achieve neutrality in the (lengthy) controversies section is another issue - handling this with the possibilities that there are editors wanting to make the school look worse/better may even disqualify by stability. Also, relevance and depth. Use of primary sources needs more attention, too. Not GA. Kingsif (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer needed

I've changed the status of this nomination to "second opinion" in the hopes that a new reviewer can be found that way, since the original reviewer has withdrawn after the premature passage was reverted. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion by Femke

I agree with Kingsif that this article does not meet the GA criteria, and I believe it needs to be developed quite a bit further before it meets the criteria, and advice the nominator User:Etriusus to seek further help of a peer review if they're interested in learning more. Just a few examples:

• Most importantly, there are NPOV violations as described by Kingsif, with too many primary sources. For instance, the company executing drug testing is used as a source to say it has "successfully" been implemented, whereas secondary sources would probably touch on why drug testing is problematic.
• It contains non-encyclopedic information such as " These include A, B, and C day schedules with their own designated classes"
• There are BLP violations, with a police report used as a reference
• The see also section has external links. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)