This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Grammar School, Guildford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Royal Grammar School, Guildford has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Over the last few weeks I have generally re-written the article to better comply with wiki policy and contain much more detail with better referencing. I have also removed the multiple issues tags as these are no longer relevant.
I have also removed the copyrighted school logo and replaced it with a free image of the coat of arms of Edward VI which performs the same function, (looks better) and is as relevant if not more than the current logo as it is more timeless.
I also propose to move the list of alumni to a separate article, as it is poorly referenced, and brings the overall article standard down. This would be follow the pattern set by other article within the WikiSchools project which have a GA status, also if this list is not updated as regularly as the rest of the article it would not affect the main article. As such I plan to do this 7 days from now unless there are any objections. TheAuthor22 ( talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am assessing this article for the Schools project based on a request filed there. I am bumping this article up to a "C" rating. There is absolutely no reason to downgrade importance. An expert in UK schools might review the importance of this article and consider if this school might be eligible for "Top" importance, though this is only granted to a very limited number of schools in any given nation. The school's history and association with cricket might make it eligible, but I do not think I am in a position to make that call.
For a school of 500 years old, I find the history section to be rather short. This may be due to a lack of reliable sources being available. There is still a great deal of the article which needs to be referenced. The associated list of alumni includes a great many non-notable alumni which need to be removed. Many more need to be referenced properly.
While school articles need to be very careful about incorporating too much about sports/extra-curriculars, I found myself amazed that this school gave birth to cricket, but no more than 1-2 sentences discuss this. I would hope that good sources could expand this into its own small section (perhaps in the history section).
To get it up to a "B" class, editors are encouraged to consult the criteria for B-class articles. I wish editors the best of luck in their editing this very important school article. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was also asked to re-assess the article, but it looks like LonelyBeacon got here before me. I would say that the article is definitely of at least high-importance, and certainly some consideration should be given on giving it top-importance, though the school is not quite as well known as some top-importance schools such as Eton College.
There are certainly gaps in the article with need for expansion expansion, for instance the history section jumps from 1598 to 1866. The article on the whole is well referenced with use of citation templates, though some of the references could use with more fields being filled in, see the documentation of {{
cite web}}
. Avoid external links within the prose, and in particularly "click here" type references as present in the "Charitable status and public benefit" section. The "Headmasters of the Royal Grammar School (1554 - Present day)" section currently just links to the sub-article, there should be a brief summary in the main article per
WP:SUMMARY. On the whole though, I would the argue the article is suitable for B-class. There is need for expansion, and some less important sections might be missing, but the referencing and coverage does meet the required standards in my opinion.
CT Cooper ·
talk
14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw this was listed for GA status, so I thought I'd take a look. I fixed some of the more obvious spelling errors and removed some of the more pointless wikilinks, although a further copy-edit would probably be a good idea. Here are few comments / suggestions which may help regular editors of the article / the GA reviewer:
I suggest looking at Chetham's School of Music and Wisbech Grammar School, two other English school GAs, for example, for comparison purposes. At the moment, I don't think the article is of GA standard. Bencherlite Talk 13:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork * YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll put various comments and observations here as I read through. Some may be general observations not related to GA criteria. All observations are open for discussion. I will provide a separate section later with a summary of specific GA requirements. SilkTork * YES! 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The school's website is incorrect in its reference to the law suit as saying that the dispute was regarding land belonging to the school. The sources do not say this. This is a helpful and detailed source, and it explains that the dispute was over a John Parrishe claiming land that was used by the people of Guildford. The school is mentioned because one witness remembers that when he was a pupil at the school he and some friends played on the common land. That he was a pupil at the school appears to be incidental. The game was played on common land, not school land. There seems to be no evidence that the cricket games were organised by the school. Other sources such as this are careful in how they present the information. We cannot read more into a source than what it says. It would be inappropriate to make a claim that cricket was played at the school when the evidence does not support this. The claim should be moved to the general article on Guildford and correctly presented. SilkTork * YES! 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold until March 3rd. I'll be away in France until then and so unable to deal with any queries, but messages can be left on my talkpage, and I'll deal with them when I get back. SilkTork * YES! 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done, this now substantially meets GA criteria. For ongoing development look at the History section and consider creating sub-headings or developing it as a split off article per WP:Summary style; also consider doing a section on the buildings, as in City of London School, or at least a section on the site itself - the location, the layout, and the buildings. I have been impressed at the development of this article, and - having looked at the contribution history of Glanis - to note that this is the first article Glanis has been involved with. An impressive achievement that promises well for the future. Not many editors gain a Good Article within 3 months of joining the project!
There was still a bit of tidying up to do, particularly in regard to copy-editing. Even though encouraged to do so, not all GA reviewers get involved in correcting errors, and even those who are happy to fix some minor errors might not be keen on doing a thorough copy-edit of a long article. Copy-editing is not to everyone's taste, and if not keen on doing it oneself then it is advisable to ask somebody who is - Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are happy to help out. It is always good to ask for some form of peer review, either formally from Wikipedia:Peer review or from knowledgeable individuals. You will soon learn which people will glance at an article and say "that's nice", and which will read an article with a critical eye and leave useful comments. Kudpung is someone that I have noted will give a good critical view and will help out on editing, so would be a good person to keep in touch with.
I look forward to seeing more GA nominations from Glanis. SilkTork * YES! 13:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked to review this article by Glanis. The article certainly is very different from when I saw it last, and is beyond B-class and looks impressive - I see a potential featured article here. I have difficulty finding fault with the page, though GAs aren't my speciality and other editors might well do. On the issue of the lead, it is of a more suitable length than it was and should be of decent enough quality for GA. CT Cooper · talk 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I see Kudpung has given some extra pointers, which I agree with. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Royal Grammar School, Guildford article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Royal Grammar School, Guildford has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Over the last few weeks I have generally re-written the article to better comply with wiki policy and contain much more detail with better referencing. I have also removed the multiple issues tags as these are no longer relevant.
I have also removed the copyrighted school logo and replaced it with a free image of the coat of arms of Edward VI which performs the same function, (looks better) and is as relevant if not more than the current logo as it is more timeless.
I also propose to move the list of alumni to a separate article, as it is poorly referenced, and brings the overall article standard down. This would be follow the pattern set by other article within the WikiSchools project which have a GA status, also if this list is not updated as regularly as the rest of the article it would not affect the main article. As such I plan to do this 7 days from now unless there are any objections. TheAuthor22 ( talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am assessing this article for the Schools project based on a request filed there. I am bumping this article up to a "C" rating. There is absolutely no reason to downgrade importance. An expert in UK schools might review the importance of this article and consider if this school might be eligible for "Top" importance, though this is only granted to a very limited number of schools in any given nation. The school's history and association with cricket might make it eligible, but I do not think I am in a position to make that call.
For a school of 500 years old, I find the history section to be rather short. This may be due to a lack of reliable sources being available. There is still a great deal of the article which needs to be referenced. The associated list of alumni includes a great many non-notable alumni which need to be removed. Many more need to be referenced properly.
While school articles need to be very careful about incorporating too much about sports/extra-curriculars, I found myself amazed that this school gave birth to cricket, but no more than 1-2 sentences discuss this. I would hope that good sources could expand this into its own small section (perhaps in the history section).
To get it up to a "B" class, editors are encouraged to consult the criteria for B-class articles. I wish editors the best of luck in their editing this very important school article. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I was also asked to re-assess the article, but it looks like LonelyBeacon got here before me. I would say that the article is definitely of at least high-importance, and certainly some consideration should be given on giving it top-importance, though the school is not quite as well known as some top-importance schools such as Eton College.
There are certainly gaps in the article with need for expansion expansion, for instance the history section jumps from 1598 to 1866. The article on the whole is well referenced with use of citation templates, though some of the references could use with more fields being filled in, see the documentation of {{
cite web}}
. Avoid external links within the prose, and in particularly "click here" type references as present in the "Charitable status and public benefit" section. The "Headmasters of the Royal Grammar School (1554 - Present day)" section currently just links to the sub-article, there should be a brief summary in the main article per
WP:SUMMARY. On the whole though, I would the argue the article is suitable for B-class. There is need for expansion, and some less important sections might be missing, but the referencing and coverage does meet the required standards in my opinion.
CT Cooper ·
talk
14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw this was listed for GA status, so I thought I'd take a look. I fixed some of the more obvious spelling errors and removed some of the more pointless wikilinks, although a further copy-edit would probably be a good idea. Here are few comments / suggestions which may help regular editors of the article / the GA reviewer:
I suggest looking at Chetham's School of Music and Wisbech Grammar School, two other English school GAs, for example, for comparison purposes. At the moment, I don't think the article is of GA standard. Bencherlite Talk 13:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork * YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll put various comments and observations here as I read through. Some may be general observations not related to GA criteria. All observations are open for discussion. I will provide a separate section later with a summary of specific GA requirements. SilkTork * YES! 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The school's website is incorrect in its reference to the law suit as saying that the dispute was regarding land belonging to the school. The sources do not say this. This is a helpful and detailed source, and it explains that the dispute was over a John Parrishe claiming land that was used by the people of Guildford. The school is mentioned because one witness remembers that when he was a pupil at the school he and some friends played on the common land. That he was a pupil at the school appears to be incidental. The game was played on common land, not school land. There seems to be no evidence that the cricket games were organised by the school. Other sources such as this are careful in how they present the information. We cannot read more into a source than what it says. It would be inappropriate to make a claim that cricket was played at the school when the evidence does not support this. The claim should be moved to the general article on Guildford and correctly presented. SilkTork * YES! 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold until March 3rd. I'll be away in France until then and so unable to deal with any queries, but messages can be left on my talkpage, and I'll deal with them when I get back. SilkTork * YES! 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done, this now substantially meets GA criteria. For ongoing development look at the History section and consider creating sub-headings or developing it as a split off article per WP:Summary style; also consider doing a section on the buildings, as in City of London School, or at least a section on the site itself - the location, the layout, and the buildings. I have been impressed at the development of this article, and - having looked at the contribution history of Glanis - to note that this is the first article Glanis has been involved with. An impressive achievement that promises well for the future. Not many editors gain a Good Article within 3 months of joining the project!
There was still a bit of tidying up to do, particularly in regard to copy-editing. Even though encouraged to do so, not all GA reviewers get involved in correcting errors, and even those who are happy to fix some minor errors might not be keen on doing a thorough copy-edit of a long article. Copy-editing is not to everyone's taste, and if not keen on doing it oneself then it is advisable to ask somebody who is - Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are happy to help out. It is always good to ask for some form of peer review, either formally from Wikipedia:Peer review or from knowledgeable individuals. You will soon learn which people will glance at an article and say "that's nice", and which will read an article with a critical eye and leave useful comments. Kudpung is someone that I have noted will give a good critical view and will help out on editing, so would be a good person to keep in touch with.
I look forward to seeing more GA nominations from Glanis. SilkTork * YES! 13:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been asked to review this article by Glanis. The article certainly is very different from when I saw it last, and is beyond B-class and looks impressive - I see a potential featured article here. I have difficulty finding fault with the page, though GAs aren't my speciality and other editors might well do. On the issue of the lead, it is of a more suitable length than it was and should be of decent enough quality for GA. CT Cooper · talk 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I see Kudpung has given some extra pointers, which I agree with. CT Cooper · talk 12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)