Talk:Arrowsmith School
Article based on English Wikipedia
This article or parts of it were created based, in whole or in part, on this version of the English Wikipedia article. The complete history of the article can be found there. Pure Evil (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
In Use[change source]
What good is an in use template is people ignore it and do whatever they want to the article without assuming the good faith that the article is being worked on.. after 3 edits in 5 minutes.. No I did not walk off and stop editing.. This is just slowing the editing down to a crawl to work around the (unneeded) edits of others. Unlike some, I try to fix broken references that en tends to keep. Pure Evil (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, I have changed it to Simple English as required--Serener (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, you did the exact opposite. Using the same method as given below you took if from 8th grade to 12th grade. There are also the issues that you made it so it needs to be wikified and there are now NPOV issues as there is no balance of opposing thoughts on the school while these opinions certainly exist. Pretty much every thing you did makes it a worse article. And a minor note: You are not the original author - 0x38I9J* created the original. The version you created here was deleted. This version was originally based on the version (which you did contribute to but in no way created) that was created by 0x38I9J* and has nothing to due with your deleted version. Pure Evil (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Come on. What you entered is a carbon copy of the main English Wikipedia, which contrasts the Simple English requirements of this Wiki. Secondly regarding "neutrality" if that really was an issue, you would have brought up issues on the main English Wikipedia. All citations I put and individuals I mentioned are from an academic source, not my own selective bias. Lastly when i wrote, original author, I meant as in it was my idea to create it. I am not claiming any copyrights, but my intention was creating a Simple English version, which I did. The regular English copy you created is not acceptable for inclusion here because we adhere to Simple English. Most of the issues you brought up here should have been brought up on the main English Wiki. It's no less neutral than the main English Wiki and uses reliable sources, just slightly different citations. It even cites the one main supporter Norman Doidge. It seems an "issue" has been made of a non-issue. I don't have time to deal with it right now as I am only a part time user. But hopefully in the coming weeks/months.Serener (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- except the article here is at a readability level that makes is suitable for 8th grade readers while what you wrote is at 12th. The English version on several scales is double your version and 3 times beyond the version I put up. A straight comparison of the versions with my name in the history of show how the article changed from the en. version it was based on. It shows changes in vocabulary and structure that is not in what your added. It shows wikiying that you seem to completely overlook with only one link on the entire page. In a ref. 6 terms in just the first 2 sentence need linked and one should be a different term. To preach to me about what is Simple English.. my 100K-ish edits over 17 years across two accounts.. versus your 15 edits over less than a month. your complete lack of understanding on what is Simple English is comical.
- As to NPOV , how did you miss the issue being covered on the En article? There is an entire section labeled "Skepticism, evaluation and criticism". That section was also given adequate but not overpowering space here. until you decided to remove any negative opinion of the subject. Your version is extremely one sided and certainly not neutral. The near lack of decent references only adds to this issue. The first 5 refs are useless in this form and the other 6 need to be done correctly. Pure Evil (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of that section but just because this version is not broken into sections does not mean it is any less neutral. This article is a shortened, summarized version of that one. Serener (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- All I'm going to write regarding that is it's not just about vocab and "sentence structures", but proper wording which was too much like regular English. This is simplified English is what the article needs to be. Like any other entry on Simple English Wiki. I've even seen articles here (can't remember their names) that were deleted because they're mere carbon copies of the regular English version. Let's avoid that. Serener (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, please. lets not avoid that. Follow through with that threat and put it up for quick deletion under A3, Let an admin decide if it was a copy paste. I know the quality of my work here. I do not fear them choosing to delete as I know it is not a copy paste. Pure Evil (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The quality of your work Pure Evil has never ben questioned here. fr33kman 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, please. lets not avoid that. Follow through with that threat and put it up for quick deletion under A3, Let an admin decide if it was a copy paste. I know the quality of my work here. I do not fear them choosing to delete as I know it is not a copy paste. Pure Evil (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Come on. What you entered is a carbon copy of the main English Wikipedia, which contrasts the Simple English requirements of this Wiki. Secondly regarding "neutrality" if that really was an issue, you would have brought up issues on the main English Wikipedia. All citations I put and individuals I mentioned are from an academic source, not my own selective bias. Lastly when i wrote, original author, I meant as in it was my idea to create it. I am not claiming any copyrights, but my intention was creating a Simple English version, which I did. The regular English copy you created is not acceptable for inclusion here because we adhere to Simple English. Most of the issues you brought up here should have been brought up on the main English Wiki. It's no less neutral than the main English Wiki and uses reliable sources, just slightly different citations. It even cites the one main supporter Norman Doidge. It seems an "issue" has been made of a non-issue. I don't have time to deal with it right now as I am only a part time user. But hopefully in the coming weeks/months.Serener (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, you did the exact opposite. Using the same method as given below you took if from 8th grade to 12th grade. There are also the issues that you made it so it needs to be wikified and there are now NPOV issues as there is no balance of opposing thoughts on the school while these opinions certainly exist. Pretty much every thing you did makes it a worse article. And a minor note: You are not the original author - 0x38I9J* created the original. The version you created here was deleted. This version was originally based on the version (which you did contribute to but in no way created) that was created by 0x38I9J* and has nothing to due with your deleted version. Pure Evil (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, I have changed it to Simple English as required--Serener (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Readability[change source]
With out the word Arrowsmith off-setting the numbers (3 syllables x 24 added to complexity), the article dropped from grade 9-10 to mid 8s on all measured scales. Pure Evil (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality[change source]
I looked at it again. There's only two paragraphs that discuss it's reliability. The and they are reliably sourced. The rest is about the program and history. I think this is the best version for a Simple English Wikipedia. Serener (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)