This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
It's been suggested that the current version of this article be reassessed according to the WikiProject NRHP quality scale. I've looked it over, and think that it's still a stub by those standards.
Per "More detailed criteria" at the quality scale, a start-class article includes "[a]t least one important aspect of the topic covered in reasonable detail". I don't think that either the treatment of architecture or that of history satisfies this criterion. The discussion of architecture consists of two sentences, and doesn't mention the interior at all. The discussion of history notes that the building was constructed in 1925–26, then jumps to the 1990s. We're told that the school was listed in the NRHP, but not why.
Although the article's longer than a typical stub, the incompleteness of the coverage of both architecture and history argues against giving it a higher ranking. — Ammodramus (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
