Talk:Eliot K-8 Innovation School

I added red links to mentions of North Writing School, an early name of Eliot K-8, to these four articles. By creating redirect North Writing School after release, we will gain four in-links automatically. There are currently no occurrences in any article of the bold synonyms 'Eliot Innovation School' and 'John Eliot K-8 Innovation School' currently in the the lead sentence. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Welovecontributors!, I made a whole bunch of edits to improve the article. I am writing this message just to advise you not to become complacent about the pending review in case you happened to notice my recent edits, as none of them were intended to fix any of the notability or referencing problems previously pointed out by several Afc reviewers. If you have since fixed those problems up, great; if not, they still remain, and will lead to another decline.

One other thing: I have tagged various content problems in the article to be cleaned up (you will notice some superscript tags). If anything, this may delay approval even further, although they are content issues unrelated to notability or referencing, so reviewers may let it slide (or may not). Still, it looks bad to have them in an article, and they do represent genuine content problems, so I urge you to fix them before the draft is reviewed again. But just to keep your priorities straight: establishing WP:Notability and proper referencing (in that order) come before fixing the content problems. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The two best sources appear to be (1) A Tercentenary History and (2) How Boston's Eliot School desegregated — and resegregated. Mme Maigret (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Schools are not inherently notable, nor does the whipping of a student make it so. Student were whipped in that era. Longevity does not make it notable. Please concentrate on what, if anything, makes it notable, and do a radical précis of the rest. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Breakfast and lunch times and bus services offered have no place in an encyclopædia article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Good job on the article so far, however, it's not there yet. It still has a puff-piece advertisement tone, rather than being written in a neutral Encyclopedic tone. It also contains numerous details not best suited for a Wikipedia article, such as the administration section. As well, there is still the issue of notability raised by other reviewers. Notability requires 2-3 sources which are reliable, independent, secondary sources, which talk at length about the topic of the article. Unfortunately the sources you have so far aren't quite there. The Boston gov articles, and Raj Das articles aren't independent, the statistics articles aren't secondary, and the news articles mostly talk around the school itself, or have been cherry picked for the article. Try finding more independent news sources talking about the school, and then use the information in them (ALL of the information in them) to write a more neutrally framed article. If you do this, it will give you a much better chance of the article eventually being approved. Good luck and keep up the hard work 👍 Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Much of the article is unsourced; also need more coverage independent of the school, mostly primary sources grapesurgeon (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking through the other comments, this article's subject appears to meet WP:GNG, after looking into sources both cited and not included in this article, and would pass an RFD discussion in my experience. In the process of review, I've added a few of these sources with some additional content to buff up the citations reflecting notability. Being said, work still remains to improve this article, even if these would not warrant its exclusion from the mainspace. Copyediting for tone is still absolutely necessary, provided that sections of the article read as an advertisement with WP:PEACOCK. As of the time of this comment, the article focuses primarily on the school's positives, rather than the more critical media it has received. In turn, this raises WP:NPOV concerns as well. Ironically, it is the less-flattering media which the school has received which has demonstrated subject notability. I would encourage the article to have more substance into the 'scandals' which garnered mainstream media attention, rather than flattery from the city's Mayor, or the state's Governor. Other than as noted above, this is a well-formatted article with a strong foundation of research to build on. Thank you, Welovecontributors!, for your contributions. Best, Bgv. (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to remove all of the promotional language in the article according to the banner. Welovecontributors! [talk] 04:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC)