Talk:Cary Academy

Assessment

I am assessing this article following a request at WikiProject Schools. I'm maintaining the exciting low-importance rating, as I don't see enough evidence at present to justify higher importance. In order to get WP:BCLASS the article will need to pass all of the B-class criteria, which it unfortunately does not at the moment, and hence I am retaining the existing C-class rating. Referencing does not need to be perfect for B-class, but the current article has large gaps in referencing in places which need to be filled. The lack of referencing is also impacting on the content itself, for example "Cary Academy has a few unusual schedule features." is stated in the schedule section. Unusual in comparison to what? A source is needed to back up such comments; really everything needs a reference except the most non-controversial statements per WP:V. Some parts of the article do also come-off to the reader as rather promotional. Per WP:NPOV, the article content should be factual in nature, with any opinions given backed-up by sources and who made them identified (WP:YESPOV explains this more). For example, the speech and debate section states "Cary Academy is also known for its strong Speech and Debate Team, participation in which is available to Upper School students." Known by who, and in comparison to what? Sources for such content should preferably not be from the school itself (use as greater variety of sources as possible), and any reliable sources which disagree with that view will need to be provided also per WP:NPOV. The lead needs to be expanded to be better summarise the article per WP:LEAD, and I would recommend re-organising the article to follow the standard section layout at WP:WPSCH/AG#S. On format, try to keep lists to a minimum, since prose is preferred, and always uses bullets (*) for vertical lists, or commas if it within a sentence. Never use dashes/hyphens (-) for lists. On external lists, please keep them to a minimum per WP:EL and avoid bare URLs. CT Cooper · talk 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Rework

I have reverted back to the much longer version of the page, with hopefully most of the promotional-esque parts removed. I think working off of this is better than just deleting all of it and giving up. Correct me if I'm wrong though. JonoJ (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You are and I did. John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)