<article_title>United_States_Academic_Decathlon</article_title>
<edit_user>NuclearWarfare</edit_user>
<edit_time>Sunday, April 12, 2009 4:01:30 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Scoring and winning */ add another sentence</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Three days before the 1995 Illinois state finals, Steinmetz High School was able to secure copies of the tests&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; from the DeVry Institute of Technology where the state finals were being held.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; With the tests in hand, they were able to look up and memorize the answers. Cheating was suspected when 6 of the 12 students in the nation who had scored over 900 points on the math test came from Steinmetz High School.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The cheating allowed Steinmetz to beat perennial powerhouse Whitney Young Magnet High School, who has won the Illinois state finals 22 out of the last 23 years.<strong> The Steinmetz team was disqualified after team members refused to take an alternate version of the test,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite news|title=Student: High School Accused of Cheating This Year Did it Last Year|publisher=''The Associated Press''|date= March 25, 1996}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and its coach eventually resigned.</strong>&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The incident was dramatized in the movie Cheaters. If cheating is suspected, USAD's official stance is that the team will have to take another set of tests of similar difficulty, or face disqualification.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Awadewit<turn_user>
<turn_time>Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:14:52 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Questions and comments</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>I will post my questions and comments here as I read the article. is one of the premier academic competitions for high school students in the United States - Should this be "is one of the premier academic competitions in the United States for high school students"? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Yeah, that sounds more appropriate, so I have changed it to that. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You refer to AD as "the Academic Decathalon" throughout the article. I'm used to hearing it referred to as simply "Academic Decathalon". Is this merely a regional difference? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)It might just be a regional thing; I'm used to hearing it both ways. But in keeping with consistency; I have changed it to simply "Academic Decathlon". navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)This will need to be changed throughout the article. (It wasn't consistent anyway.) Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The ten events require talents from all forms of academia - Poorly worded sentence - "talents" and "forms" are not quite the right words. Perhaps "disciplines" instead of "forms"? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I changed it to "The ten events require knowledge in many disciplines of academia", though looking over it after a night's sleep, I see that it might need changing from that. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Changed further to "academic disciplines". Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: Subjects are not proper nouns and therefore not capitalized. I've started fixing that in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I think I managed to change that in the rest of the article.
In 2000, a policy change led to a major protest by several coaches. - This sentence from the lead is unclear. What change? What kind of protest? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Changed to "In 2000, USAD's decision to market error-ridden Resource Guides led to a major protest by several coaches." navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Much better. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Though at first only regional contests were held, as early as 1969 there was a push to make the competition state-wide - Who was responsible for this push? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
sought to bring the competition to the international level - This seems a bit wordy to me. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)That became "However, Peterson, inspired by the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, hoped to make Academic Decathlon an international event". navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Much better. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:File:LibroMuertosMetropolitan.jpg - Could this description be translated into English? Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Translated it and put it in the appropriate infobox. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Alvino controversy is poorly explained. What was the religious article about? Why was it controversial? Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)"During the 2000–01 season, the program's executive director of four years, James Alvino, resigned.[19] Alvino had written a religious article that had been included in that year's Super Quiz Resource Guide, regarded by his critics and the USAD Board as a conflict of interest." navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)This is better, but why was it a conflict of interest? Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:File:California Super Quiz Relay.jpg - The author and the uploader are not obviously the same person. How do we know that the author has released the rights under the CC license? Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I contacted Yohhans; hopefully he can explain. Meanwhile, however, I have taken this out, and I shall see if I can replace it with one of my own images. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
1999 and 2000 both featured Science-based Super Quizzes, and in 2001 and 2002 Super Quiz was Social Science based. From 2003 to the present, the Super Quiz has alternated between Science and Social Science. - Do we need all of this detail? Can we simply say that from 1999 to the present, the Super Quiz was based on either science or social science? Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I kind of liked this information, but I think I have managed to shorten it while keeping the information intact. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 00:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It was changed to "In 1998, Super Quiz replaced economics; since 1999, it has replaced either Science or Social Science and has alternated replacing the two since 2003". navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)I still think this level of detail is unnecessary, but ultimately that decision is up to you. Awadewit (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
With the change in policy came a change in scoring. - This seems to suggest that the scoring process changed, but the text following this seems to suggest that this was not the case. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reclarified to "After the change in policy, scores vastly increased across the country". navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The 2000–01 season was also significant in that it was the first year that states were allowed to send both their large and small school champions to the national competition - This is the first the reader hears of large and small school differences - it is confusing. Should this be mentioned in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Yeah, I added a note to that effect in the lead and later down. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The "2000-01" and "2002-present" sections repeat information that has already been stated Is there a way to condense the history section into one section rather than breaking it up into several sections that repeat information? For example, the information about the introduction of USAD research materials is introduced several times. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I reorganized it so that history is one section now, so I think that issue is fixed. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Out of all the sections in the article, I think this is the weakest. It doesn't flow very well right now, partially because the paragraphs don't have transitions. You need to lead the reader along a bit more. History reads best told as a little "story", so each paragraph needs to lead into the next. There needs to be a reason for the reader to connect the paragraphs together. Right now, this section seems more like a listing of facts. Awadewit (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:File:USAD medals.JPG - Owner of the copyright needs to be listed. An expanded purpose of use would be good. Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I'm not sure, but I expanded this slightly. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk)I've added even more. This image might be challenged at FAC by fair use diehards. I can imagine someone saying "we all know what gold, silver, and bronze medals look like". A stronger fair use rationale would say something about the actual design of the medals, but I don't have the sources which would allow me to construct such a rationale. Perhaps you do. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The USAD requires breadth of knowledge and diversity of teams - "diversity" can mean a lot of different things - can you be more specific? Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Changed to "The USAD requires a diversity of grades within each team; teams must have students who fall into three categories determined by GPA." navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Changed "grades" to "achievement". Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The changes in the math exam are also repeated (History and Events). Repetition like this makes the article longer and more difficult to read. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)I removed it in the later section, where it didn't make as much sense. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I need to take a break from this. Will finish this later. Awadewit (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Removing box. It is much easier if you respond under each item - that is why I signed each one. We can then have a discussion. Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Everything I didn't respond to, I "fixed".Or least I tried. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Could you mention how you fixed it? Otherwise I have go back and look to see. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Sure, done. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Why are some of the topics in the table in quotation marks and others not? Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)I'm just going to remove the quotation marks entirely; I don't think they need to be there at all. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 15:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
How exactly was the cheating scandal resolved? Was there a punishment? The story doesn't seem to be fully told. Awadewit (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)I added a sentence telling what happened to the team members and the coach afterwards. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to get more details on the Burke scandal? What exactly did he do that was wrong in the appeal situation? Awadewit (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)All I could find was that it "inflamed" the situation. Even the not-so-reliable sources had nothing more than that. navyNuclearWarfare (greenTalk) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)That's the way the sources crumble. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment I've been over the article again. It is looking much better. I would suggest one final copyedit from someone other than myself before FAC. , , or might be willing to help. Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>The "2000-01" and "2002-present" sections repeat information that has already been stated Is there a way to condense the history section into one section rather than breaking it up into several sections that repeat information? For example, the information about the introduction of USAD research materials is introduced several times. </turn_text>