Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Education}}. Tag: |
|||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Education |importance=Low}}
}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-08-27">27 August 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-28">28 December 2018</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_New_Haven/English_1112-45L_Introduction_to_Academic_Inquiry_and_Writing_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Wblai1|Wblai1]].
Line 10 ⟶ 11:
This article seems to be anti-block scheduling. There is very little support for block scheduling. Under "Effectiveness" there is no support for block scheduling. There should be both sides under this, probably split in two sub-sections, one fro pros and one for cons. [[User:Holycow958|Holycow958]] 21:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
:It does need two sides...(but block schedules suck anyways ;)) --<
:I agree, it seems very one-sided, anti-block scheduling. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.31.47.44|66.31.47.44]] ([[User talk:66.31.47.44|talk]]) 01:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I also agree. This article article is clearly against block scheduling!--[[Special:Contributions/98.220.124.133|98.220.124.133]] ([[User talk:98.220.124.133|talk]]) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
|