Talk:Uncommon Schools

message: Unfortunately almost all the content is a copyright violation of http://www.uncommonschools.org/usi/aboutUs/.  I've removed the text that was cut and pasted from that site.  Toddstreat1 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Now that the copyvio issue has been settled with the OTRS ticket, I've gone through and trimmed a bit. An OTRS ticket is not an excuse to include spam links, promotional language or weasel words. All policies such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI still fully apply to this article, and it also must still comply with the WP:MOS. As such, I've removed the spam links, removed the hype and weasel words, and added fact tags to claims which beg independent confirmation. I've also conformed the headers to the MOS, and moved the article to conform its title to the MOS. I also caution any and all editors who are connected to this company that our COI policies will be enforced. You can be of most help by finding independent media references that back up the claims. I would also suggest that you post those on the talk page, rather than the article, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral, independent source of information, and that information is primarily supposed to come from independent 3rd party sources, and so I ask that you respect these principles. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as what is added conforms to our WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV (with an eye to WP:NPOV#Undue weight), editors with a relationship to the institution may post directly to the article. Good faith should still be assumed, but they will be scrutinized more closely due to the undeniable relationship that they have. -- Avi 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: De-spamify

message: The following passage:
Led by Norman Atkins, CEO, and Evan Rudall, COO, its schools repeatedly outperform their district counterparts. 
Failed verification and is being deposited here until further info can be provided.  Uncommon Schools Inc. is not mentioned in the article.  The article is 3 years old, so past tense (not repeateadly, present tense) is in order. The article refers to North Star school which is one school - not "schools" implying more than one.  Nowhere is repeatedly mentioned.
Here's a link to the citation in the passage above.  
I'm adding  to the article - this article requires verification if not deletion.
Toddstreat1 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simple way to handle it was to write the statement in the past tense, which the source undeniably supports, instead of removing it. -- Avi 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the information has been verified; only the blog needs to be removed as of now, I believe. -- Avi 22:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The statement said " its schools repeatedly outperform" - if it was written as "one of it's schools ouperformed in 2004," I would agree. Toddstreat1 22:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point, I've restructured that section a bit to place the reference specifically about North Star. -- Avi 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed Verification, NPOV 

message: I've added  to two citations: the OP-ED citation and the School Reform Blog as they seem dubious, especially in light of my finding above.  The blog cites a press release and Op-Ed seems to fail WP:Reliable Sources by definition - as an opinion piece.   Toddstreat1 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree re: the blog, and re: the Op/Ed, it depends on how it is portrayed. USA Today in general is a reliable source. -- Avi 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure USA Today is reliable, but opinion pieces are just that no matter where they're published, not necessarily fact - and should not be cited as supporting claims. Toddstreat1 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been good enough if it was brought as a fact and not an opinion, but it's not even in the piece: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-28-our-view_x.htm. Perhaps another link was meant? Regardless, the statement now requires sourcing and is noted as such. -- Avi 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Sources 

message: Yes, it is true that a member of the school has been editing. Why do you think I'm checking every edit. Remember, COI does not prohibit such editing, it just requires excess care. Which, again, is one of the reasons I have watchlisted and am checking this article. As it stands now, there is no undue weight being given to the organization's own view of itself, and I do not see any NPOV violations. Thus, I'm removing the tag for now. -- Avi 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, this is looking pretty good now.  Thanks for getting it here.  Toddstreat1 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you too! -- Avi 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COI notice

message: It has shown multiple mentions in mainstream press, I think that's acceptable. Thoughts? -- Avi 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so.  Toddstreat1 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a crack at reformatting the results section to make it more readable and less like a press release list. Thoughts? Rjp422 (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reformatted the results section to (a) be more narrative in nature, and (b) be supported by third party sources. I used news references and government data to support. Removed the add'l sources tag accordingly. If anyone would like to chime in, feel free to do so here or on my talk page. Rjp422 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformat Results Section

message: The link to the "B" Grade from the NYC schools report card is for Williamsburg Charter High School, not Williamsburg Collegiate Charter School.  WCHS is run by a different organization and has no affiliation with Uncommon Schools, so it was removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Erroneous reference