Talk:Park School of Baltimore

message: The "Park Philosophy" section is a fine statement of admirable principles. But shouldn't this section give some attribution, considering that it is such a lengthy and comprehensive description of the school's mission? It's fine as it is, but shouldn't we get an external link, or a book reference, or a declaration of authorship by someone in authority at the school - something to indicate that this statement represents the school's actual policy? Or maybe I'm just a kvetch, I dunno. MdArtLover 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that the 'philosophy' statement comes from the school's website; therefore I have included that info in the article itself. MdArtLover 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The quantity of copy and pasted material under "philosophy" and "objectives" concerns me. As I mentioned in the WikiProject Schools assessment, it may be in violation of copyright. Additionally, the section in question is not written in a neutral point of view, and fails to present useful, encyclopedic information. The copied material should be removed, the lead changed into a History section, and proper sections (Academics, Curriculum, Extracurricular) created. --Jh12 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Park Philosophy" section: needs attribution?

message: You don't have Lakin on there and this only shows Upper School teachers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.57.211 (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable Faculty" is a bit biased

message: Take a look at the article about the Manhattan Country School. Notice that in its categories it lists "Private schools", "Private schools in the United States", and "Private schools in New York". 
Notice that, to a certain narrow cast of mind, the first two categories are unneeded. The last one alone should suffice, since all "Private schools in New York" are also "Private schools", and they are also necessarily "Private schools in the United States". 
Yet clearly, it is useful to have the article listed in all three categories, and there is nothing wrong with the article including all three of these categories. MdArtLover 17:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories for Park School of Baltimore

message: I attended Park School from 1960 to 1963, in what was then called Primary III and Intermediate I (third and fourth grades).  More than 40 years later, I still recall it as the best educational experience I ever had.  The sense of inclusion that every kid felt, the synchronicity of the faculty in promoting a more progressive way to excite kids about learning, and the accelerated level of teaching all combined to make me wish--to this day--that the parental divorce and geographical relocation that followed hadn't prevented me from spending the following eight years there as well.  But I still remember all verses of the alma mater--and who could ever forget teachers like Mrs. Terrell, Mrs. Salabes (and her menagerie), Ms. Carsiotis (a/k/a Miss Jenefer), Mrs. Trumbo, Mrs. Graham, and my very own Miss Reed?  These are memories that'll last a lifetime.  Stevekluger (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a Thank You to Park

message: After reading the challenge course section I don't think that it meets wikipedia's standards at all. 
The Park School's Appalachian Challenge course is an Initiative course (the marines would refer to it as an obstacle course) located on Park's campus. It is entirely run, built, and maintained by students (under the watchful eye of the program director, Mr. Howard). Completing the Challenge Course is a fun activity that is required for all Middle School students. There is a quarterly newsletter published by the Appalachian Challenge team.
According to our own article the course is "fun." That certainly isn't encyclopedic. 
What's up with the Mr. Howard reference? Couldn't it just say, 'maintained by students and overseen by Mr. Howard.' leaving out the "watchful eye part." 
Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate for the Challenge Course section to quote from the school's website when the text clearly has a marketing twist. It isn't objective. Why don't we quote from one of the articles written objectively about the challenge course.
Eli H 03:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenge Course Sectiion 

message: There's just so much promotional fluff spread throughout the article, along with using more self-published sources than third-party sources.
A Very Purple Ostrich (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for 'rewrite' template