Talk:Avery Coonley School

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I am assessing this article as Start / Low. Even if copyright issues with the text have been resolved, the current article still reads as rather promotional. It should be re-written to comply with WP:NPOV. Further expansion is also needed, see WP:WPSCH/AG for ideas. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am conducting a reassessment of the article, per editor request. This article has seen considerable expansion since its last assessment, and is fairly well referenced. In addition to being stable, it appears to also have a comprehensive overview of the school, and is deserving of a "B" rating. I think there are still a few things that could be referenced, a few things that might need to be removed, and a little further review on the promotional tone of the article. I am bumping this article up to "Mid" importance because of its history, including a patent on an educational innovation, history in progressive education, performance on the state/national level, association with notable architects/landscapers, and being on the National Register. Given my tendency to be conservative, there is a possibility that this article could warrant consideration for "High" importance. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to a request for some tips, here are some thoughts I can share.

1. The word "progressive" is used 21 times in the article, mostly in the first few paragraphs. It is certainly important to establish the roots of the school's philosophy, and in a few cases they are part of the title of a publication. However, perhaps some rewriting to avoid overuse of the word.

2. In the Junior Elementary School section, there is a claim that the school's leaders began publishing a journal (Progressive Educaiton). It seems to me that this is an important point, and as such, it should be properly referenced.

3. The second paragraph of The Avery Coonley School (1929-1968) makes some strong claims about the school attracting educators from around the country, but this does not appear to be referenced (the last sentence looks fine, but the rest likely needs to be referenced or dropped).

4. The section Gifted education (1968 - present) is unreferenced. Especially the first two paragraphs should be reliably sourced. Sentences like: The progressive frameworks established by Coonley and Morse were well-suited to the learning needs of gifted students and the public schools had not yet recognized the need for specialized gifted programs. and At the same time, the school began adapting the curriculum to the address the unique challenges and abilities of gifted learners. seem to be written (unintentionally) from a non-neutral point of view.

5. In Recent additions, the PAC is described as having "excellent acoustics", which is taken from the reference. When I first read that, I thought it was another non-NPOV phrasing ... perhaps putting that in quotation marks will identify this as a referenced claim, not an editor's opinion.

6. In Curriculum, the claim that the school can arrange for high school/AP coursework should be referenced.

7. Under Admissions, there are claims regarding applications (such as 2 applicants for every seat in kindergarten). That really needs to be realiably sourced or removed.

8. Under "Technology, there are claims that the school started using computers in classrooms in the 1970s. That needs to be reliably sourced.

9. The Traditions section should be written more neutrally.

10. With Extracurricular activities, team finishes are not normally noted unless it is a very high finish (say top 4) at the state or national level. That needs to then be sourced. The same can be said under Academic Achievements.

11. In Finances, the tuition should be referenced. I would think that for something like this, the school could be used as a source.

This is a great article! These are merely suggestions, and I am not sure that other editors would agree with them. Please feel free to accept or reject them as editors think. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Avery Coonley School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

Some minor grammatical issues were corrected myself. Some portions are more problematic and need to be addressed by the editors, though. This sentence in section "Avery Coonley School (1929–1968)" runs on and offers no logical connection between the two segments. It should probably be split up in some manner that preserves its meaning:

An additional building was constructed to provide more space, but the school had outgrown its facilities and Coonley purchased a 10.45-acre (4.23 ha) wooded tract on Maple Avenue in Downer's Grove, adjacent to the 83-acre (34 ha) Maple Grove Forest Preserve.

Y Fixed.

In the same section, the following sentence introduces "the board" without any indication of who this entity is. I would have thought it was the board of NCE while reading it, but purchasing a school from themselves isn't very logical.

After twenty five years of partnership, the board purchased the school from NCE in 1965.

Y Fixed.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

No WP:MOS issues found

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

References are well laid-out inline

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

The section "Avery Coonley School (1929–1968)" appears to have some unreferenced statistics:

• To increase revenues, the school launched the Summer Program in 1960, open to all children from the surrounding area, and added a swimming pool in 1961 to bolster that program.

Y Fixed.

• By 1964 enrollment had increased to 200 students, which brought additional, much needed, financial stability.

(c) it contains no original research

All clear

Y Fixed.

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

The following sentence in section "Academic program" leads the reader to think "what is 'Bass in the Class'" without any way to investigate:

Experiences in the outdoors enhance the science program, examples of which include adopting personal space in the adjacent forest preserve, participation in the "Bass in the Class" program sponsored by the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources...

Y Fixed.

This was "fixed" by removing the content about "Bass in the Class". It seems OK without it, but that's really for an expert to decide, not myself. I'd just like a little justification for my own peace of mind: is this really off-topic for this article, or should it be put back in with some explanation? My initial comment wasn't to make it sound like it should be removed, just that we need some way to tell the user what exactly that means. Is it a prominent title for students? Is it a tradition? Etc. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you were correct that the name is not self-explanatory (although it is just what it sounds like -- they raise live bass in their classroom.) I think the important point is the students' involvement with public nature programs and the detail of this program might be to much for WP:SS. It is neither prominent nor traditional. The program is here: http://www.connectforkids.org/node/335, so it would be easy to reference, but I think it would distract from the main article. Let me know if you disagreeNasty Housecat (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After reading the source I agree with you that it's just another average activity that doesn't really merit discussion. With that, I think we can mark this section  Resolved.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Related content well-discussed without going off on tangents.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Well-written

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No evidence of instability.

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All are free, confirmed by OTRS

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

All images are very relevant to the topic and improves its quality. All with captions.

General comments

No major issues. It just has a few things to tweak, but a definite GA candidate.

Overall

On hold while the above issues are addressed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed all the identified issues. Thanks for the careful review. Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes look good. Please check my comments in 3a. Thanks. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

With the improvements to the article, I'm happy to pass this article for GA.

FAC suggestions

• Place information about the windows, sold at auction, to a separate notes section to appear as a footnote.
• This is my personal idiosyncrasy, but lose the GoogleBooks links. My second go-round in the article will look at your cite methods.
• Include examples of new pedagogical theories as espoused by "Francis Wayland Parker, John Dewey, and others" and the Kindergarten Education Association. It appears the teaching methods of the school are as much a topic of the article as the building itself. where children learned from experience and social interaction as opposed to what? What kind of education preceded these theories? What did John Dewey say about the ACS in his book? A sentence or two about his opinions?
• These theories, for which the school was a proving ground, You haven't really named or identified new theories, just described some ways that education at ACS was different.
• It became the leading professional journal of the movement, this is vague. Has the movement been identified by name yet?
• As non-Americans cannot relate to 2nd grade, 3rd grade, and such, I included the ages relative to these grades in traditional American education. However, since Coonley wanted a k program for younger students than 5, it's worth stating if grade promotion was based on age or other factors. Could students skip grades?
• Why were larger facilities deemed necessary: for space, for some other purpose? For student demand?
• Hartman's descriptions of ACM...include some. See Mary_mcleod_bethune#School_in_Daytona.
• Morse died in 1940, after 34 years at the head of the school, leaving a vacuum in leadership. Wasn't Coonley also a leader?
• Any examples of findings or results from the Institute for Educational Research?
• and the school believed their non-traditional frameworks, harking back Coonley and Morse, The school really didn't believe this. People did. The board that ran the school? Headmaster? Teachers?
• well-suited to the needs of gifted students Again, be more specific. What does this mean? Academically accelerated courses? Free thinking no-desk classrooms?
• special challenges and abilities of gifted learners like what? I encountered many people who considered gifted ed an elitist program for rich and pampered children. What needs do gifted students have that are generally not met by regular ed curricula? And how does ACS meet these needs?
• The traditional school projects and annual events What are these?
• and is a stopover for several species of migratory birds nesting? mating? feeding? For how long? During what season?
• Who called Jens Jenson that father of Chicago park system and dean of the Prairie style of landscape architecture?
• interesting water features WP:PEACOCK. This is someone's opinion, yes? State whose.
• His original landscape design was restored in 2006. What happened to it that it needed restoration?
• Include highlights of Prairie and Arts and Crafts Movements that are present at ACS.
• Lots of funky redesigns of classrooms were prominent during the 70s, that drug-soaked decade that enacted all kinds of nuttiness without any evidence that redesigning classrooms actually did any good. What is the reasoning behind putting students in wooden honeycombs? What is it supposed to do? Does it actually do it?

• Go through the article and watch for the use of "the school". I saw it so many times I cannot pick it out any longer.
• I don't focus on architecture, but ask User:GiacomoReturned to look at the article and make suggestions. Similarly, if you're interested in what might be improved for the preserve parts, ask User:Ruhrfisch to give suggestions.

Brain fried for today. Must go look at lolcats or such to restore concentration. I will return to copy edit the rest of the article tomorrow, however. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nasty, just a note to say you have exceeded my suggestions so far. What I've been copy editing are mostly MOS issues that no reasonable person could ever anticipate, yet somehow become monumental problems at FAC. As long as you have not heavily borrowed your prose (read: plagiarized), after a couple more read-throughs, this might be ready to re-nominate. I'm going to read the rest of the article from Curriculum to the end tomorrow if I have time and give you my thoughts. So far I am very impressed with the additions and responses to my suggestions above. So placate me and assure me that you have not "borrowed heavily" in your wording and sentence structure. I get worried when I read writing this proficient. People will check it at FAC. I see the OTRS tag at the top of this page. Do you mind if I ask how much of the prose today remains taken from the ACS website? This might be a question at FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Moni, thanks for the edits and comments. I can assure you I have quoted everything I copied verbatim and cited every source I consulted. My first attempt at this article (which was my first attempt here, period) was a nightmare of rookie copyright mistakes and close paraphrase problems. I got a thorough (and painful) schooling in how not to do that anymore from User:Moonriddengirl. She rolled everything back and I redid it. I have been scrupulous in avoiding that kind of self-flagellation again. That's why I got the OTRS permission for the website (she suggested it). To my knowledge I have copied nothing from the website text. There was a minor list duplication in the Extracurricular activities that was caught at the last FAC, but I have re-done that section completely. Nothing here now has been copied. The writing is all mine. Cross my heart and hope to die. -- Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Moonriddengirl would be the one to ask for this sort of checking. I also had a quick learning curve. Not in borrowing heavily, but it was steep nonetheless. I hope my standards have risen since then. --Moni3 (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments As requested I took a look at the whole article and am reviewing it as I would at WP:PR, with an eye especially to the park section. I agree this looks pretty good, but here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to the next FAC. Many of these are nitpicks, but part of FAC is making sure all the details are taken care of.

• I read for comprehension, but noticed some typos etc. Just in the lead for example there is a word missing here: From the 1970s on, [the] mission of Avery Coonley has been the education of gifted children.
• The lead seems a bit sparse to me, especially the second paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but as one example "Junior Elementary School (1915–1929)" does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in the lead.
• At the same time, there are parts of the lead that are somewhat repetitive. The first sentence says it is an independent, coeducational day school serving academically gifted students. The last sentence of the first paragraph says From the 1970s on, mission of Avery Coonley has been the education of gifted children. The last phrase of the first sentence of the third paragraph seems overly repetitive The progressive legacy is still evident in the modern curriculum, which was adapted in the 1970s for gifted students.
• The lead should either be cited like everything else, or have no references except for direct quotations and extraordinary claims. The current lead is a mix - the last two sentences of the first and third paragraphs have no refs, despite the direct quote ("dumbing down") in the third paragraph. Most people seem to prefer a lead with minimal references, but it is your call.
• I am troubled by this claim (my bold) Morse and Krum had attended Elizabeth Harrison's Kindergarten College, one of the first teachers' colleges in the country,[16] where they had studied the educational theories of Francis Wayland Parker, Dewey, and others. The article on Normal schools says the first was founded in France in 1685 and in the US in 1839. It seems a bit of a sweeping claim to attribute to a 1915 Guide to Schools, especailly when we later learn the school taught theories ... opposed to more traditional pedagogical practices of the day, which makes it sound like more of an upstart than one of the first.
  • Aha, this later became NCE, then National–Louis University - I think this should be clarified. In any case it was founded in 1886, decades after the first Normal Schools.
• The whole National Historic Landmark (NHL) issue is fuzzy and needs to be clarified. The main Coonley House is a NHL, but the cottage is not. WHat is currently written makes it sound as if the cottage is a NHL A small cottage on the Coonley estate—now a National Historic Landmark[21]—served as the first incarnation of the school... Perhaps something like "A small cottage on the Coonley estate served as the school's first building; the estate's main Coonley House is now a National Historic Landmark." (incarnation seems a bit odd too)
• It might be useful to mention the Quuene Ferry Coonley started a second kindergarten in Brookfield, Illinois - see here, which was designed by Drummond and is now on the Historic American Buildings Survey and see all materials on it here
• Needs a ref In 1916, the Cottage School was closed and a first grade program was launched at the Downer's Grove kindergarten, which was renamed the Junior Elementary School. To accommodate older students, a second grade class was added in 1920 for students around 7 years old, a third grade in 1926 for 8-year-olds, and a fourth grade for 9-year-old students shortly thereafter.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Francis Wayland Parker isl inked twice in the body of the article, for example
• awkward ...and it was renamed The Avery Coonley School, in honor of Coonley's then-late husband. perhaps ..and it was renamed The Avery Coonley School, in honor of Coonley's late husband, who had died in YEAR.
• The last section of History "Gifted education (1968–present)" does not cite anything later than 1980, which is 30 years ago. I realize some of this is covered later in the "Recent additons" section, but it seems odd to have a section that goes to the present not mention any date more recent than 1980.
• Images - I realize these are mostly covered by OTRS permissions, but some of them seem like they could be replaced with better quality (higher resolution / larger) images. For example, the lead image, gatehouse, and cloisters images are all tiny, but each looks like it would be pretty easy to replicate (once the weather is better).

Without question. The school archives has offered to share larger and better quality images for the page. I'm in process of chasing those down. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would also make sure the information for each image is as complete and consistent as possible - links to the actual pages showing the image would help (the cloisters image is at http://www.averycoonley.org/?page=mission, and the lead image and several others are at http://www.averycoonley.org/?page=acshistory I would also make sure that the OTRS ticket image is hsown clearly - in some images it is just a link.

OK, more later (finsihed History) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the careful review and thoughtful comments. I've gone ahead and addressed some of the more straightforward things and will come back to the others later. I look forward to your thoughts on the rest. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, here's the rest, starting with some new sources for Maple Grove

• For the adjoining forest preserve, although we don't know the exact date it was established, we do know it is one of the oldest and that the DuPage Forest District was established in 1915, so I think it could be something like It borders Maple Grove, one of the oldest forest preserves in the DuPage County system, which was established in 1915. The preserve protects the last of the once-vast maple forests that covered the area...
• I was hoping there was an Audubon guide to Maple Grove - there is not one online that I found, but this resource gives a lot of background on the area's ecological history. I know you want to foucs on the school, but it might help to mention that this was once prairie and forest (and that the name "grove" in Downer's Grove comes from forests like the one preserved in Maple Grove.)
• I note that the official Maple Grove map has a few things that might be added to the description in the article - 1.1 miles (1.8 km) of trails, small creek, hawks, trout lilies, violets, picnic area. There is even {{cite map}} if you need it for the ref ;-)
• In an article like this aimed at a general reader that is not primarily about the preserve or its flora and fauna, I usually do not provide the Latin names if there is a common name (although it is fine by the MOS if you want to). I think whatever you do you should try to be a bit more consistent, so Black Maple could be linked as a species, or if you are going to keep Latin names, Trillium should be consistent with the other plants (though "...Trillium (Trillium)..." does look funny). I think from a Google search that upland maple is just a kind of sugar maple here - see this, but you might want to contact the forest district and see if they can clarify that.
• Needs a ref The design reflects the Prairie School in its horizontal lines .... and visible craftsmanship in the tiling, brickwork, ironwork, and other details.
• The basic unit of the Learning Spaces in the photo appears to be a Truncated octahedron (as it has both hexagonal and square faces) - a true octahedron has all triangular faces.
• The use of "group" in the caption Interconnected "Learning Spaces" in the third group classroom, designed in 1970 and patented by the school[60] is before the concept has been introduced later in the article. The text next to it uses grade instead of group The original structures were still in use in the third grade classroom in 2010.
• A bit unclear In the late 1980s, increased enrollment and the need for more space led to another new addition in 1992.[2] How about something like Increased enrollment in the late 1980s and the need for more space led to another addition in 1992.[2]
• Academic Program - I think this needs some sort of "as of 2009" qualifier to place the program described into context for the reader (assume it will change and has changed with time)
• I want to see a photo of all the students in identical brown capes silently building a cornucopia of food!

Me too. Sadly, no video or photography is allowed. I am looking for some pictures from and older -- and less uptight -- time. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 87 is missing the publisher (Trib)
• It sounds like a wonderful school - is there any criticism of it? Some might ask for such to try and be more NPOV.

Perhaps surprisingly, there is no WP:V criticism in any of the many sources in the article. There are only halfhearted claims of elitism in one article, which the author himself then immediately dispels. In WP:OR, the criticisms would be that it is too rich and too white, the first of which is broached in the article and the second of which is refuted. I would be happier if there was more bad press so I could rest easier on NPOV, but there simply is not. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I made a few edits to fix typos etc, please revert if I made errors.
• Usually Notes are separated from References by a (sub)header of some sort

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch reviews like this, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mascot

The mascot seahorse File:Avery_Coonley_Logo.PNG. It's a none free image. Maybe it is not required for this article? Does the OTRS ticket perhaps cover the image anyway. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is a non-free logo, which provides the required detailed fair use rationale and correct image copyright tag. It is perfectly fine to use here. (See WP:LOGO).

It is also, as you suggest, covered under the OTRS permission, which applies to the entire website and all text and images without restriction. There should not be a problem.

I see that you deleted the image and then undid it. In the future, it might be better to wait for a reply on the talk page before deleting potential problem images, especially when they are correctly tagged. Thanks.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Given what you say about the OTRS permission then it appears the media requires amending so it is free use. Regarding editing, the Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. See also being proactive. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that when there is more than one valid license available, the uploader may choose. In this case, since the image is used correctly under either case, it should not much matter. There are specific policies about potential copyright violations, which include discussing them on the talk page first (see WP:COPYVIO#Dealing with copyright violations), and about reviewing non-free-content (see WP:FUR) when the fair use license is in question. But no harm done here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Check WP:COPYVIO again, "Do not add content to Wikipedia if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation". What I did was remove questionable content. The rational on the media is currently in an illogical situation, it's claiming that 'almost certainly no free equivalent', but it seems there is a free equivalent version - itself with OTRS permission. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created - so for now the image in the article does not comply with that policy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is NOT a copyright violation. It is not even questionable as a copyright violation. It is valid under logo fair use, and as I explained to you yesterday, could be claimed under free license anyway. So your issue seems to be with the license claim on the image, namely, that it could be licensed EVEN MORE validly than it is right now. If so, you should (a) discuss it on this page (per WP:COPYVIO#Dealing with copyright violations) and (b) if still not satisfied, take it to WP:MCQ. I would welcome either. In the meantime, I am replacing the image and will ask you not to remove it again without consensus. If nothing else, the fact that this article passed WP:FAC within days, which includes review of acceptable image use (see WP:FA? criterion 3), should create a presumption that everything is fine unless proven otherwise. If you think there is a problem, discuss it, but the image should remain until you do.

I did not claim it's a copyright violation. What I did say is that the image does not comply with the Non-Free policy due to it's illogical invalid non-free-use rationale. What does not comply should be removed. In addition you are engaging in edit-warring which I will take no part in. The passing of WP:FAC was unfortunately in that no one picked up the issue at that time. Having now determined that it has not got a valid non-free-use rationale then I ask you to remove the image in an expeditious fashion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS has confirmed that the logo is not freely available (see nomination at WP:TFAR). Do you have any other issues with the acceptable use of this image? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Per your comments on the TFAR page: Please clarify your position so I can respond. If I can attempt to summarize what you have said and respond:

1. The image is not free. That is true. But it is used under logo fair use, which allows "a logo [that] identifies an organization in an article or section about the organization." Template:Logo fur Given that the article specifically mentions the seahorse mascot, the image is surely relevant.
2. The image is free, and therefore questionable, and should be deleted. If free, it should not be deleted, since free images are always allowed. Rather, the license tag should simply be changed to CC-BY-SA for accuracy.
3. The image is free so the license is invalid. OTRS has said that image is not free, for reasons I myself did not fully understand. But since they have the license text and we do not, we have to take their word for it. Their view is that it is non-free and so must be fair use.

If your position now is that the fair use rationale is invalid, please say why. I will note that the school infobox template specifically includes a place for a mascot image, any many of the school articles here use such images without a problem. Is there something about this particular image that violates fair use that I perhaps I just don't see?

In the interest of clarity and resolution, I have requested an expert opinion at WP:MCQ in addition to Moonriddengirl's request for expert comment from OTRS. The more clearly you can articulate your objection, the more helpful they can probably be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good response as it looks like you are attempting to resolve the situation. I can see you are terribly confused. My position is none of the above options but instead.

4. The image could be created free under the CC-By-SA license. When the image could be created free then it should be. Once it's created free it can be used in the article. The current non-free fair use rationale is invalid. Being invalid means it(that version) can't be used.

I hope that is clear enough. Moonriddengirl's comment that OTRS say the image is not free is confusing you and perhaps her. I will reply at WP:TFAR. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The image has been deleted as you requested. Why would you persist in a discussion at TFAR? What would be the point of that? I guess I am confused. I hope you are not sabotaging my nomination because I annoyed you. I assume good faith. But I am really starting to wonder.

WP:TFAR is the page I have watchlisted. Only come to this article and others at TFAR to improve them before they possibly make front page. I did discussed on this talkpage first so as to avoid clutter at TFAR, but others post at TFAR so that is where I reply. If you have something specific for me, please feel free to ask on my talk page, then I will see it (if I come online). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's point is that permission grants me the ability to license the content, but does not require me to do so. Nor do I think Wikipedia policy requires one to freely license all content they are allowed to. If the school did not freely license their logo, including commercial use, on their own, I am not comfortable doing that without asking them about it. They got the willies about me using their archival photos, for god's sake. Your last point seems to be that it considered freely available because since I *could* license it freely, I must do so. That does not follow, and I have very understandable reasons not to do it, at least not without the blessing of the school.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That contradicts your previous position. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez. I am beginning to think you just really don't like seahorses. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm dropping this issue now. Not because there isn't any validity in it but because it's not serving any purpose for anyone. You first took the position of being able to choose between creating a free and using a non-free version then when you realized that Wikipedia policy doesn't allow that option you changed your tune(without courteously giving any sort of apology) to saying you couldn't create a free version. Still I am not going to pursue the issue. Wikipedia could do with a lot more harmony and we all make mistakes. I wish you all the best. PS. I love all animals. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will wait a bit before restoring the image in case there are additional comments from other editors on this issue. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"independent"

Isn't "independent" more of a Britishism when it comes to describing schools that are private rather than state-run? In the US usually such schools are just called "private," in my experience. Though perhaps "independent" is a term the Avery Coonley School itself uses? At any rate, it seems that it might be good to include the word "private" somewhere in the lede paragraph, as, with the advent of charter schools in the US, there are more and more schools that can be said to be "independent" of a school district but still public. --Jfruh (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Avery Coonley refers to itself as "independent" and is a member of the National Association of Independent Schools and so on. Independent schools in this context means private schools that are not parochial or otherwise affiliated. I agree that it is an unfamilar usage to people who are not already involved with such schools. Your point about charter schools is a good one. The school type is given as "private" in the infobox. Perhaps there is a way to work it into the lead as well. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Omission?

One of the relevant questions in a school article is, did their selection and methodology work? Who are the notable alumni? Is "List of Boston Latin School alumni" the only such article? It is understandable that the school itself does want to be put into the position of deciding who is notable, but that is where Wikipedia comes in. 173.73.189.153 (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This came up at FAC as well. Here was the response: "The bottom line is that the school does not keep track of kids that long. They follow them up to college and then stop. Not to mention that people tend not to publicize their elementary school once they grow up. It is the one piece of information I really feel is missing but there seems to be no way to find out." I think it would be a valuable addition if reliable sources could be found. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Windows

So I'm New York and I spent the day at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and what should I see as I was peeking around looking for American paintings, but Frank Lloyd Wright's Avery Coonley Playhouse windows. I took pictures, but can't upload them just yet. And I don't think I could have taken them without getting my reflection. I took a few standing in different positions, hoping my reflection wouldn't be too prominent. Let me know if you're interested. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be really great. I'd love to see what they look like in real life and it would be great to have a free image I could use. Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nasty Housecat, I really apologize for the tardiness of this. First, I often wander around and forget stuff I post here. Second, I took several images of the windows in the Met with my phone, which has a surprisingly good camera, but the stupid phone part won't send images to my email address. I had to save this from a Facebook upload, which is poorer resolution. I also had a few shots where I was not so prominent in the reflection. Urf. However, I figure it's better than nothing...

Anyway, use at your will. --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's terric. It's kind of cool to see a photo of the real deal actually hanging in the museum. Thanks for thinking to take the photo and for taking the time to post it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Avery Coonley School. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103060607/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=921&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=921&ResourceType=Building
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326000000/http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf to http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/list-1982.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Avery Coonley School. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720235902/http://transact.nais.org/Custom/CompanyInformation.aspx?id=0037&addressnum= to http://transact.nais.org/Custom/CompanyInformation.aspx?id=0037&addressnum=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527140542/http://www.nl.edu/about/history.cfm to http://www.nl.edu/about/history.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=921&ResourceType=Building
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719204724/http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/gwencyclopedia/index.php?title=Waldron_Faulkner_and_His_Influence_at_GW%3F to http://encyclopedia.gwu.edu/gwencyclopedia/index.php?title=Waldron_Faulkner_and_His_Influence_at_GW%3F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724031905/http://www.averycoonley.org/?k8 to http://www.averycoonley.org/?k8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724031905/http://www.averycoonley.org/?k8 to http://www.averycoonley.org/?k8
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125175634/http://nais.org/about/article.cfm?ItemNumber=147140&sn.ItemNumber=4181&tn.ItemNumber=147138 to http://www.nais.org/about/article.cfm?ItemNumber=147140&sn.ItemNumber=4181&tn.ItemNumber=147138
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604113124/http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/il/il0000/il0093/data/il0093.pdf to http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/il/il0000/il0093/data/il0093.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Avery Coonley School. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091216130501/http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e4-amc08/e4-1-8archive/2008-8a/spry_perfect/2008-amc8perfect+2.shtml to http://www.unl.edu/amc/e-exams/e4-amc08/e4-1-8archive/2008-8a/spry_perfect/2008-amc8perfect+2.shtml

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

FA sweeps

This older FA has become somewhat dated in areas - the sources for the admissions process are all at least 10 years old - is the process still the same? Content such as "Avery Coonley serves 378 students aged 3 through 14 as of 2010, with a nearly even ratio of males to females in each grade" and "The Annual Giving Fund makes up 3.5 percent and the Annual Auction another 5 percent of the operating budget ($5.9 million in 2008–2009)" are obviously out of date. The academic achievement section is all from before 2010. The technology material is also quite dated and much of the stuff described isn't all that special anymore - hell, the high school I graduated from was a rural public school located out in a cow pasture, and even we had SMART boards and wireless overhead projectors. Stuff such as "As of 2009, the curriculum is accelerated for each group" needs updating, as well. If the needed updating does not occur, a trip to WP:FAR will be needed. Hog Farm _Talk 17:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)