Hey guys... not sure if anyone here actually cares, but I thought I'd let you know that the Academic Decathlon article has finally become one of the most polished on Wikipedia. It is finally a featured article. :-D

Just wait until JBroms and Chloe get to it

i love how they only reverted it back to chloe's edit for that page......

They felt bad for poor little Fernando

As the user who co-wrote the article, may I ask what you guys meant when you said "i love how they only reverted it back to chloe's edit for that page......"? I'd really prefer to make the article the best I can; what exactly did you guys mean?

Good article. Much better than the old one (the inclusion of a pic of DDD made me laugh). Thanks Nuke and/or adam.

me and chloe got up to no good on a wikipedia page.
not the one about usad.

What article?

Yeah, I specifically looked for him at Nationals to get that pic; I hadn't found any freely licensed (under Creative Commons BY-(SA), GNU, Free Art License, Public Domain, etc.) pictures of USAD-related things that would work for that particular section, and I didn't want to end up photographing my AcaDec material.

Any suggestions for how I could improve that article?



What article?

It was some PA page. I forgot which school.

Who were you at nats? I was also there...

Wow... I must admit, I missed a lot.

EDIT: I know this post isn't constructive per se, but I'll give my congratulations to the Editorial Citizens of Wikipedia who took a heavy hand in this. Even I made some edits to the AD article, but I could never imagine this.

Oh, and btw, I'm back.

This article contains a number of quips against the complaints made by coaches surrounding the AD, rather than simply stating what happened along with any resolution. This, coupled with the inclusion of DemiDec, as well as the generalization of scandals as being "small," constitute a strong bias favoring the USAD. In addition, the lack of coverage regarding patterns of schools qualifying for national competition (i.e. Whitney-Young in Chicago qualifying 22 out of the last 23 years) certainly demands investigation. The fact that the author, as knowledgeable as they are about the Academic Decathlon, chose to refer to scandals surrounding the AD as "small" while ignoring the largest scandal surrounding the competition altogether - educational segregation - is absolutely deplorable. This article should be stricken of its star altogether, and further research performed discussing the viability of this program altogether. Brigg1st (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone else is annoyed about the fact that magnet schools (WY, CA, MA) tend to do better in AD, if you ask me.

That might have been the most confusing post of all time. WY, CA, MA = Whitney Young, Collegiate Academy, and Madison Academic, not Wyoming, California, and Massachusetts, right? Maybe you should write out the names...

Sounds like someone else is annoyed about the fact that magnet schools (like Whitney Young, Collegiate Academy, and Madison Academic) tend to do better in AD, if you ask me.

Please stop. No smurf they are better; they're magnet schools. That's like, common sense.

As for this dude, please respond to him that a decathlon program doesn't show "education segregation"; it shows that they have built an excellent program that has lasted very long in a weak state.

I actually wasn't complaining this time....

Has anyone else noticed that it is the featured article today? So cool, and good timing right after nationals! Thanks to all those who helped improve it.

That wasn't actually a coincidence (I wanted to get it on for yesterday or the day before, but this is the only day I could swing it). Thanks to all of you who helped make this possible.