Talk:Klein Independent School District/GA1: Difference between revisions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am looking forward to reviewing this article. I happen to be an educator in Montgomery County, so I am somewhat familiar with the district. Stedil (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, it's been in the queue for a while. I'm actually a high school student in the district - weird how paths meet here on Wikipedia. MrWooHoo (T • C) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I fixed up a few minor things, but otherwise it is satisfactory. Update: several more issues popped up through the editing process, but I fixed most of them as I reviewed the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead and layout are looking good. No weasel words. Article is fact based. A little too heavy on lists: see below. Update: The list has been replaced by prose, as requested. If you put the previous list in a separate list article, make sure to link to it at the top of the "schools" section.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are references. They are listed in an appropriate section following an appropriate format. Update: make sure you double check formatting after adding references. There were a few error messages, which I corrected as I reviewed the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable, but most are out of date. For example: info about # of students, TEA rating, bond information, and future schools should be updated to reflect the latest (2016-2017) information. The opening two paragraphs under "History" need to be cited. There is some discrepancy between the number of elementary schools. The lead says 31. The 2015 bond lists the building of "elementary school number 33," and List of Campuses says there are 35. Which is correct? Update: great job providing updated information. Be careful on over-reliance on the district's web page, especially for descriptive sections (see below).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers most of the main aspects about the district. More info about student population/demographics, particularly district growth, would be useful. Also, as discussed below, there should be more focus on the connection between schools (feeder patterns). Also, article needs to address the definitions of each school: according to the district, what is an "elementary" school? What is an "intermediate" school? What is a "high school?" What grades attend each? Finally: how is the district performing? The state of Texas collects a lot of data about student performance. A broad overview of these findings would improve the article. Update: You added a lot of new information to the article accross all the main topics. Nice work!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Summarizes sourced information effectively. First rating: yes. Update: You may have actually gotten a little carried away with adding new information. Some sections are a little repetitive. As mentioned before, a lot of information came from only one main source (the district itself). Diversify sources if possible. If not, summarize and be concise.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	First rating: yes. Update: The problem with relying too much on the district itself for information is that it doesn't come from a neutral point of view. Some slightly promotional language crept into some of the passages describing curriculum, the schools, and other programs offered by the district. I fixed most of these issues as I reviewed, but there are some others that need to be addressed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The main things to fix are the long list of campuses, updating of sources, and more explanatory information about the schools. Update: original issues were addressed. However, the article became more unfocused as it expanded. This article is getting closer to meeting GA standard. I'll lay out specific points below.

Since this is a prose article, the list of campuses is out of place and dwarfs the minimal amount of prose about campuses within the district. I think there are enough individual campuses in the district to warrant this information be placed in a separate list article. Perhaps a "List of campuses in Klein Independent School District" article could be created and the current info in this article transferred there. In addition, the "List of campuses in Klein Independent School District" could be replaced with a prose section detailing some general information about the different campuses in the district, such as feeder patterns, a concise summary of the high school articles within the context of their feeder network, and other pertinent information linking the campuses with each other/describing the relationship between campuses. Stedil (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would something like List of Houston Independent School District schools be a good model in terms of creating the article with the separate list of campuses? Thanks for all the comments so far. MrWooHoo (T • C) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of. I actually prefer the table format of the list in this article to the bullet points of the HISD list, as it's easier on the eyes. To start, I think a direct copy/paste of the info in the "List of Campuses" section (with references) would be sufficient for now, with a link to it in this article, particularly for the purposes of improving this article.Stedil (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a more comparable example: List of schools of the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District. The main article and its talk page, Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, are also worth a look. This is a de-listed good article that it looks like has a team of editors who are working to get it up to GA status, like yours. As far as I know, there aren't any good or featured articles about school districts currently. Stedil (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I removed the table of the list of campuses and added a lot of prose about high school campuses and feeding patterns and such. I think the summary is probably too long - comments would be appreciated. Also, I will be just making the article and adding references with a link to the article. MrWooHoo (T • C) 01:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Texas now compiles a lot of information about districts into one report called the Texas Performance Reporting System (TPRS). The latest report is 2015-2016, which is located Here. I think this report will help eliminate a lot of the outdated information and links in this article. The school district's official website may contain some information (like demographic data) that is more up to date, but TEA is the source for official performance and district profile data. Stedil (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of reference priorities:

• Update number of students enrolled in the district. You can include some of the numbers currently in the article to show change over time. Y I've used a in the infobox for all of the data in the infobox from the 2014 TAPR...is that sufficient or would i need a whole entire section on student growth?
• Update the TEA performance rating in the lead to the most recent evaluation (2015-2016).  Done
• Update the district's progress at completing the 2015 bond initiative.  Done
• Update the progress toward completion of future schools in "Future Schools" section.  Done
• Opening two paragraphs under "History" need to be cited.  Done
• Fix discrepancy in the number of elementary schools, then source where mentioned.  Done

Stedil (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of priorities under condition 3a, "Broad Coverage":

• Student/population demographics: number of students in the district, change in enrollment over time, racial diversity.  Done
• Feeder patterns: you don't have to go school-by-school (that would be more appropriate in the list article), but explain the method the district uses to place students in schools in general. (i.e. what are "attendance zones" and how are they used?) Are there exceptions where the student attends a different school from the one they are zoned to? If so, what are the exceptions?

 Done

• Related to the above, define the terms, "elementary," "intermediate," and "high school" within the context of this school district. These terms mean different things depending on the district. Which grades attend each?  Done
• Performance results: refer to reference under "District Information," located above.  Done

Stedil (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Curriculum: explain any district-wide programs or initiatives, particularly those that may be unique to this district.  Done

Stedil (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I"m going out of town on the 6th - i'll try and get as much of this done as possible, but I will not be back by the 19th. As I complete changes, I'll be marking it with  Done. Let me know if anything else comes to mind in order to have this article meet the GA criteria. Thanks for the in-depth review! MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources you may find useful:

• How Spring ISD and Klein ISD scored in TEA's New A-F rating system.
• Klein ISD plans new $1.5 million agriculture science building.
• Work continues on Klein ISD's newest high school campus.
• Schools continue with technology upgrades.
• What Did Klein School District Spend $100 Million On?

Stedil (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I've finished all of the critiques you've given above. Let me know how they look. (Also: I found out this would be the second district that would be GA, Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District is the first one) MrWooHoo (T • C) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've made a lot of changes to the article. However, a few other issues have now appeared that will need to be addressed. I'll update below and in the rating table. Good work so far.Stedil (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the update on information concerning completion of the 2015 bond. However, I think the article provides a little excessive detail regarding the smaller projects in the bond, starting at, "Another project being completed is the new Northcrest Agriculture Facility," and including everything in the final paragraph. It comes across as simply being a list in prose format, with details about bond construction that the average reader won't care about. Here's a sample format: "Other projects currently being completed include: x, y, z, etc." and "Projects awaiting initial construction include: a, b, c, etc." Estimated year of completion may not be necessary on these minor projects. Stedil (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo:I did some more cleaning in the article that eliminated most of the issues (diversity of sources, neutral tone, article focus) I raised in the updated review. Once the minor details in the bond section are cleaned up, I'll list it as an GA article. To clarify: you don't necessarily need to completely eliminate reference to the minor bond projects, but just condense the information so it can be read more quickly and easily. Stedil (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stedil: I will take care of this as soon as I get some time. Thanks so much for doing so many changes (honestly I should've done them myself)..I will take care of that bond issue ASAP. MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a "List of Klein ISD schools" article is written, then the information about the High schools would be more appropriate in that article. Without it, this information is appropriate for GA standard and should be left as is. Stedil (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing up a draft for the List of Klein ISD Schools article (located here) and will transfer that information when I move the list article to mainspace. For now, I' mjust going to leave it as is if that's okay with you. MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]