Balboa High School (California) was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Balboa High School (California):
Priority 4
|
All (potential) article editors should peruse Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:About, and especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Zedla 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The following IPs have consistently edited the mock trial section with weasel words in regards to a "controversial" mock trial season last year or "inevitably" losing: 69.85.188.175 and 69.85.188.91 Quixotic Rick 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
GA pass. I like this article, pretty good for a school with relatively few students. Good under [[WP:WIAGA}], but ensure non-notable information that people who are not associated with the area would not understand stays out of the article. Also, unless it's where it's at for a reason, the infobox should be moved ahead of the lead photograph. I'm also removing {{ Talk header}} from this talk page per documentation for that template. Phoenix Two 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a current student and can find anything in regards to academic resurgence to expand it seeing as it is on the to-do list. I was just wondering if there were any specifics that any regular editor and contributor of this page had in mind. Also, I'd like to let the regular contributors of this page know that I will be fixing up the JROTC section to meet NPOV. Quixotic Rick ( talk) 09:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Quixotic Rick ( talk) 06:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 13, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
This article needs a comprehensive re-write to bring it anyway near GA standard. I am de-listing it, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
(?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$)
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Balboa High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://balstaff.org/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on Balboa High School (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?archiveDate=2001-12-20&storyID=9088{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport.cfm?id=2301912005{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://portal.sfusd.edu/data/epc/DI_Handout.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The link to Williams v. California -- and a new page -- were added because of the case and settlement's increased significance in California education system policies.
See https://www.google.com/search?q=eliezer+williams+v+state+of+california LoneStarNot ( talk) 13:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Citing the names of individuals is an an undue weighting. Citing "California", "Californians" or "the State of California", etc, adheres better to Wikipedia:DUE. It is only significant that the 40M citizens of California set a policy through their state government; who was in a particular office at the time is not significant. Those seeking info on an individual can go to that individual's page, where particular actions may or may not be catalogued, based on Wikipedia:DUE.
A state governor not vetoing a law is not noteworthy. An award grantor or recipient name may be noteworthy; but a nominator name is not. Public officials executing routine tasks, part of their jobs, is not noteworthy. For such usual, routine actions of public employees, citing individual names is inappropriate aggrandizement and distorting personification -- a tragedy of the reputation commons which diverts credit from the group to the individual, inappropriately narrows readers' focus from groups to individuals, and distracts from understanding the need for groups, not just individuals, to effect such actions. By shifting attention and esteem from groups to individuals, such distortions feed cult-of-personality trends.
For example, it would violate Wikipedia:DUE to cite Jimbo Wales regarding every action of our legion of editors. LoneStarNot ( talk) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)