This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wesley College, Melbourne 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 |
![]() | Wesley College, Melbourne was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 18, 2013, January 18, 2016, January 18, 2018, and January 18, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
It is to be expected that contributions can come from all sources, including ones quite close to an institution. I agree that an entry must not come across as self-promoting. Conversely however, an entry shouldn't include subjective criticism and the inclusion of commentary that is insignificant or irrelevant to a general understanding of a topic. Murtoa 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As a student of the school, i consider myself able to decide what is subjective and objective with regards to this article. The section you deleted was not vandalism, it was a statement of the facts. How are facts "not encyclopedic". But even if you did find sections of the article that were "approaching vandalism" then you should have edited them, rather than deleting facts and content from the article. -- Penguinboy 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I edited this material to eliminate subjective and non-notable material. Every private school in Australia has its own theatre productions, so material in this article should be restricted to notable features, such as awards won. The list of productions is not-notable and description shouldn't contain editorial commentary as to the reputation of the respective companies. Murtoa 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Except perhaps where these productions have received Guild awards, or similar, perhaps you should focus on adding value to wikipedia, rather than subtracting it. StephenSmith ( talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here. Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it was all copywrited too ~~
Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448.
Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria.
If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 58.107.228.3 ( talk)
Claim has since expanded to biggest in Australia, then biggest in Southern Hemisphere. Either requires substantiation Murtoa ( talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Government figures for 2009 enrolments can be verified at the [1] website. 2806 students cited. Haileybury has 3083. [2] StephenSmith ( talk) 10:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm new to all this and i don't know how i should cite, but i have found the citations needed for the sustainability section. I'm still looking for the first citation but i have found the one needed for the second citation. It is " http://www.wesleycollege.net/resources/issue_101.pdf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.22 ( talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Trimmed quite a lot of additional info on sustainability just added. It's obviously a subject Wesley takes seriously, but the amount of material added is disproportionate to the entire article and a lot (eg. arrangement of rubbish bins according to their recyclability of the contents) is just not notable. Murtoa ( talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have substantially expanded the History section (which was about two or three sentences previously). I have largely drawn on the 2004 history of the school to source this. Although the book was the result of a project initiated by the school, it has been written by an independent historian and in my view is a reasonably weighted treatment of the topic and not afraid to be critical where deemed necessary. This book also drew on previous histories such as that written by Blainey and others for the school's centenary. Murtoa ( talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Lemon was the historian for the 2004 history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The section on facilities should be restricted to elements that are unique or particularly notable about the College. Simply being a large school with many facilities isn't in itself notable. Naming the various function spaces etc is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this section shouldn't mimic what would be typically found in the school's own website, and thus should be devoid of any marketing flavour or "showing the school in its best light". Also, intranet references are unhelpful. Murtoa ( talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Have subsequently revised quoted the number of sporting facilities which I believe was previously misleading at best. My reference was local knowledge, but is verifiable by observation from Google Earth. St Kilda Rd campus has one football pitch (which doubles as a cricket pitch in summer), one soccer pitch and six tennis courts (over Punt Rd). Glen Waverley has 3 football ovals and 3 soccer pitches in winter - between them they allow for 5 cricket pitches in summer) - plus four tennis courts. Elsternwick has 4 tennis courts. Have totalled these for the revised entry. Murtoa ( talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have inquired with the College's Community College - Facilities Hire Department and I'm able to confirm that all the facilities listed above and on the article are surprisingly true and available, I have requested the college to send me a fact sheet, once received I will post the facilities available on this talk page for reference. They confirmed that the college has 6 rowing centres and they are located at: Glen Waverley, St. Kilda Road, Elsternwick, Albert Park (Albert Park Sports Complex with Wesley's Ovals and tennis centre), Yarra Boat Shed and Clunes. The GW campus has 8 Ovals, the elsternwick campus has 3 ovals and the skr campus has 7 at both the junior campus and middle + senior campus, the college controls/manages/has rights over 4 ovals at albert park, which they have incorporated into their tenis/hockey centre and rowing facility. There are like the article stated 45 tennis courts, 4 and 3 indoor sports complexes, however the college only has 22 drama and dance studios not 25, there are 3 25m swimming pool not 2, 4 multi-media centres, 3 recording studios which had won an engineering award. Will post new information once i have received the fact sheet and will make further inquires about the developments. Thanks for your contribution Murtoa. Sheepunderscore ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Im arraging to attend a school tour this next wednesday as I have a day off. I will confirm facilities and clear up this mess once and for all:P. Cheers, Sheepunderscore ( talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of further amplification of figures (ovals, courts etc) which I suspect includes off site facilities not owned or perhaps even controlled by Wesley, I have reduced the part of the section to those which can be verified. Murtoa ( talk) 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the recently expanded content on Houses, Pastoral Care and Facilities. In the case of Houses and Pastoral Care, the content added was largely not notable in that it would mirror what all schools similar to Wesley would have. I attempted to edit the content to increase its relevance and notability. In the case of facilities, I think the statistics on ovals etc is either incorrect or highly misleading in that it encompasses facilities used by Wesley that are not actually on Wesley campuses. Unless there is verification of these claims they shouldn't be on the page. I'm happy to debate and refine the content to improve the quality of the article. Murtoa ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought the facilities by 58.175.154.98 and history section was excellent, keep up the good work. I will be reviewing this article next month so keep up the good work and lets see if I can rated as a GA and move up the importence scale to mid. Sheepunderscore ( talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The information provided on the campuses added is unsourced (“all my own work”), does not add information that is either relevant or notable, and contains editorial comment that is not written from a neutral point of view (“grand”, “innovative”, an “extension of home”, “latest facilities”, “quiet contemplation”) etc . In my opinion the article should not contain information that could be written for any other major private school, is subjective, or promotional commentary more suited to a brochure advertising the school. Murtoa ( talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance. I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo. The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school. Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to draw to your attention that the correct/official crest may be the one shown here. To my knowledge this crest appears on official school publications and the APS sports website. I'm however uncertain whether it is the correct/official one or if the one on the article is the correct/official one/ Please Comment! Sheepunderscore ( talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to change the current blue and white Lion logo to one from the Wesley website that has a tongue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1003:3E00:6C64:7248:931C:CAE1 ( talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article and will report shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article carefully. In my view it does not at present meet the required standard for Good Article, for the following reasons:-
I do not think that these are in any way irredeemable faults, only that a fair amount work is necessary. You've probably looked already at Aquinas College, Perth, which has a better balance between history and the present day, and might be a useful GA model for Australian school articles.
I am putting the article on hold for seven days, to give you a chance to respond, and will look at it again then. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any specific queries. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your feedback re the GA nomination is valuable and helpful, and I have begun attending to the article in regards to prose and balance of history versus other elements. Having contributed most of the history content, I was aware at the time that I was relying heavily on the most recent school history, which although written "independently" by a credentialled historian, was nevertheless initiated (I think) or at the very least endorsed by the school. I was comfortable in relying on it however to the extent that it does provide quite a "warts and all" commentary, thus at least suggesting it has a sense of balance and NPOV. Overriding this however has been the lack of reliable alternative sources. Most others (where they exist at all) come from the school or from less reliable sources some of which are still connected in some way with the school. On balance I took the view that notable elements of the school history should still appear even if the source provided wasn't as "pure" as it could be. I also note that the
Aquinas College, Perth article which you suggest as a useful model has no less than 21 references to a similar school history which appears at least according to
this to perhaps have been initiated by that school. Your thoughts?
Murtoa (
talk)
06:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is in better shape than when I last looked at it; obviously a lot of work has been done. It cannot yet be promoted to GA, for the reasons which I have listed below. I understand that this is the editors' first shot at a GA, and it's a commendable effort which, with a little extra work, should definitely get there. At the end of the review I've given some suggestions as to how to proceed from here.
Attention is required:-
I appreciate that this is quite an agenda, but it's all quite do-able. My suggestion is that when you feel you have done as much as you can to resolve these issues, you contact me via my talkpage so that I can look at it again. I'll advise you if I think it is ready for another shot at GA then. My best wishes for the article's future. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall GA result: Fail
Individual GA criteria:-
Well written: Fail, prose still requires significant attention
Verifiable: Fail, further work needed
Breadth: Pass
Neutral: Pass
Stable: Pass
Images: Technical problems to be resolved.
Alfred and George Nicholas made their fortune in pharmaceuticals, especially commercially available aspirin. There is a Nicholas Gardens in the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria, Australia.
[4]
StephenSmith (
talk)
23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The multi-colour version was created and introduced by an early headmaster, the original is housed in the archives collection at St Kilda Rd Melbourne campus. It used to appear on the sporting honours blazer at the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I hold an opinion that there are far too many images now in the article, and some are too trivial for inclusion. For example, the Clunes logo and principal's headshot. Wikipedia is not a directory or a substitute for a full school marketing handbook, and the focus is on information not promotion. Harr o 5 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are the problems which require attention before this article may be promoted to GA. These problems are mentioned in the Final GA Review by Brianboulton. Can editors who help resolve these problems please sign (with ~~~~), strike out and provide a short summary on the changes you have made, once you have completed an item of this list. Items may be added/adjusted at any time.
Earlier points not yet dealt with
Infobox
Prose
Lead section
History section
Images
Structural
Wesley College Institute
References
MOS
This is in reply to the question at the help desk. The problems are there all right, both on Firefox and IE7. This is probably because of using too many images. I think what happens is, the section is shorter than all the images used there and the images stretch on to the next section. That's probably why the extra space and displacement of links occur. I'd suggest keeping only the important images as a thumbnail image next to the relevant section, and place the others in a gallery at the end of the article. Hope this helps. Cheers. Chamal Talk 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, just wondering if it is really necessary to merge the performing Arts and Sports with Facilities and if the facilities section should be renamed as some of the information isn't really a facility. Also is it necessary to explain the role of the college president as s/he is not really mentioned in the article besides the references to James Waugh, past president. if its necessary where should it be included??? Sheepunderscore ( talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the gallery is now being used as a bit of a repository for images that are not necessary in the article - the secondary logos, and pictures of facilities that are not illustrative. I recommend just keeping the ones already in the main article, and maybe creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons to link to (as Duke University, an FA, has done here - it's regular pratice) if they really add something for readers. My vote would be that many are not. Harr o 5 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Am cascading development section into general facilities section. Removing discussion around 2006 work - ultimately in the context of the school's history and by comparison with all other similar schools I don't consider this notable. Keeping the Coates pavilion in but this potentially is also not notable. Regarding the possible future development which is referenced to a single school newsletter from 20 months ago, I see no evidence that supports these as active plans for the near future. Murtoa ( talk) 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been asked to look at the article again. I don’t really have time for a full review before you renominate, but here are a few pointers as to how the article could be improved.
I hope these points are of some help to you, and wish you well when you renominate the article. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The section proposed on 2008 results, which has been lifted from a school newsletter, is not notable. Wesley's results, which are undoubtedly better than say a small regional high school, are not remarkable compared to say other APS schools. "Performed well" is a relative term and although Wesley can be happy with its students' results, in my view they are not notable. Also, as I tried to explain when I reverted the edit, the 2008 results are transient. This content would no doubt be replaced in a year's time when the 2009 results come out. Wikipedia is not a place for recent news that will pretty quickly not be news. Nor is it a place for school marketing material. Happy to debate further. Murtoa ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the information I added was extremely valuable to prospective parents, locally and internationally. The phrase "performed well" may be rephrased, but I want to make it clear that the information was added to provide knowledge and to allow Wikipedia readers to now about Wesley's academic performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding Wikipedia was designed to educate people and not for organizations such as schools to "compete" with each other, nor is it a place for schools to be compared with others. The transient material may be updated once a year, which is less that most of the things on this article. The information was not just from the school newsletter, it was shown in local Melbourne newspapers (Leader) as well national newspapers (The Age, Herald Sun). Furthermore the information is not "marketing material" it is simply the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.154.79 ( talk) 09:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to disagree to you points and would like to say that wikipedia is a service to the community and by adding information such as results not only adds interests to the article, it also serves the community. In response to "minimum level for being awarded an IB diploma a significant achievement?" according to the IBO the lowest possible score in order to achieve a diploma would be in 2008 24 out of 45 (69.40 ENTER). In addition by comparing Wesley's results is not only a personal attack on the college but also biased to do so, as the college is an Open entry school it is unfair to compare wesley with the other APS schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.156.135 ( talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the [5] myschool.edu.au website may clear up some of these assertions as these are the Government compiled results. StephenSmith ( talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I was pointing to the myschool site with respect to verification of student numbers and the "biggest" claim. In this respect it serves as a Government source, free from marketing influence. I did not mean for its content to be transferred here. StephenSmith ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the list of headmasters there is reference to Sir Frank Goldstraw. I wonder if the author of the article would be kind enough to cite any reference to the headmaster Frank Goldstraw receiving a knighthood. I have been unable to find any reference to any Goldstraw receiving a knighthood in the official gazettes and I am not aware of this man ever using such a title.
Thank you for your kind assistance.
Martin Goldstraw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.78.116 ( talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Frank Goldstraw was ever knighted. One fairly detailed biography article doesn't indicate this title. See: [6] StephenSmith ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In the "Overview and Structure" section, Wesley speaks of an "Open Entry" policy. This assertion is somewhat in doubt. It is "open" in that there is no academic testing. But in an effort to achieve gender balance across the student population, the school presently admits female students in preference to males and has achieved an VCAT Ruling Granting Equal Opportunity Exemption in this regard. The result is male students can only be offered places after female students have accepted available places at the College. This isn't "open" in the sense of being readily accessible for male students. StephenSmith ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal in the main overview of the reference to the 2001 Sun-Herald "ranking" of the top ten Australian school for boys, based on the number of male alumni mentioned in "Who's Who in Australia". My reasons for viewing this as not being worthy of reference in the article are:
1. I believe that the Sun-Herald article refers to research undertaken in 1988 by Peel and McCalman. It quotes McCalman in the article. Thus I don't believe that research undertaken 22 years ago is nearly as relevant now.
2. Wesley has been a co-ed school for 32 years now, so the concept of "sixth best boys school" seems rather obtuse and irrelevant.
3. The only "bias" I am showing is wanting to improve the quality of the article. I note that this 1988 survey has appeared on some other articles, and I recently made a comment on the Scotch College, Melbourne article in similar vein.
On balance, I propose that this reference, slightly edited to reflect the ranking wasn't by Sun-Herald and probably wasn't done in 2001, be moved to the part of the article that refers to alumni. For the reasons above I don't consider it should be in the leading piece of the article. Happy to hear other views.
Murtoa (
talk)
13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
______
I see understand where your coming from and I agree with the compromise you suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 ( talk) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The school does not even rank in the top 100 schools according to a 2010 article published in "The Australian" StephenSmith ( talk) 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal of the number of subjects offered in VCE, IB etc. The quoted numbers neither match the source provided (which appears out of date anyway), nor the numbers provided by Wesley in its curriculum guide. And herein lies the problem - there is (unsurprisingly) no consistency between the two senior school campuses - St Kilda Rd offers 44 VCE and 22 IB subjects; Glen Waverley 39 and 24 (and from personal experience IB subjects are subject to minimum numbers before they are offered). Of course the number will change every year and as per current article they are out of date. Are the numbers notable? I don't think so - they are what you would expect from a school of Wesley's scale. I'm not sure what's "biased" about this viewpoint. I detect a sense that I'm perhaps downplaying Wesley's credentials; this is not the intention, however, to support the quality of the article I don't believe it should be unnecessarily promoting the school's virtues. Murtoa ( talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
_____
What I meant was that the figures are quantative information which may be helpful to people researching Wesley, if you look at other encyclopedias they to have figures about things such as the number of subjects offered in the senior years of a school. I would also suggest that maybe informaiton regardign curriculum can be added to all school related articles. Futhermore upon readign through the history of this talk page and the history of the article Ive noticed that Murtoa refers to a lot of information added by other users to be petty or insignificant, for my benefit can you please define what you mean by insignificant. If everyone is "insignificant in a school such as wesley" then may I ask why there is even an article why not just the skeleton saying the school exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 ( talk) 11:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:LA Adamson.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wesley College (Victoria). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wesley College, Melbourne 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 |
![]() | Wesley College, Melbourne was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 18, 2013, January 18, 2016, January 18, 2018, and January 18, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
It is to be expected that contributions can come from all sources, including ones quite close to an institution. I agree that an entry must not come across as self-promoting. Conversely however, an entry shouldn't include subjective criticism and the inclusion of commentary that is insignificant or irrelevant to a general understanding of a topic. Murtoa 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
As a student of the school, i consider myself able to decide what is subjective and objective with regards to this article. The section you deleted was not vandalism, it was a statement of the facts. How are facts "not encyclopedic". But even if you did find sections of the article that were "approaching vandalism" then you should have edited them, rather than deleting facts and content from the article. -- Penguinboy 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I edited this material to eliminate subjective and non-notable material. Every private school in Australia has its own theatre productions, so material in this article should be restricted to notable features, such as awards won. The list of productions is not-notable and description shouldn't contain editorial commentary as to the reputation of the respective companies. Murtoa 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Except perhaps where these productions have received Guild awards, or similar, perhaps you should focus on adding value to wikipedia, rather than subtracting it. StephenSmith ( talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here. Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it was all copywrited too ~~
Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448.
Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria.
If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 58.107.228.3 ( talk)
Claim has since expanded to biggest in Australia, then biggest in Southern Hemisphere. Either requires substantiation Murtoa ( talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The Government figures for 2009 enrolments can be verified at the [1] website. 2806 students cited. Haileybury has 3083. [2] StephenSmith ( talk) 10:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm new to all this and i don't know how i should cite, but i have found the citations needed for the sustainability section. I'm still looking for the first citation but i have found the one needed for the second citation. It is " http://www.wesleycollege.net/resources/issue_101.pdf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.22 ( talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Trimmed quite a lot of additional info on sustainability just added. It's obviously a subject Wesley takes seriously, but the amount of material added is disproportionate to the entire article and a lot (eg. arrangement of rubbish bins according to their recyclability of the contents) is just not notable. Murtoa ( talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have substantially expanded the History section (which was about two or three sentences previously). I have largely drawn on the 2004 history of the school to source this. Although the book was the result of a project initiated by the school, it has been written by an independent historian and in my view is a reasonably weighted treatment of the topic and not afraid to be critical where deemed necessary. This book also drew on previous histories such as that written by Blainey and others for the school's centenary. Murtoa ( talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Lemon was the historian for the 2004 history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The section on facilities should be restricted to elements that are unique or particularly notable about the College. Simply being a large school with many facilities isn't in itself notable. Naming the various function spaces etc is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this section shouldn't mimic what would be typically found in the school's own website, and thus should be devoid of any marketing flavour or "showing the school in its best light". Also, intranet references are unhelpful. Murtoa ( talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Have subsequently revised quoted the number of sporting facilities which I believe was previously misleading at best. My reference was local knowledge, but is verifiable by observation from Google Earth. St Kilda Rd campus has one football pitch (which doubles as a cricket pitch in summer), one soccer pitch and six tennis courts (over Punt Rd). Glen Waverley has 3 football ovals and 3 soccer pitches in winter - between them they allow for 5 cricket pitches in summer) - plus four tennis courts. Elsternwick has 4 tennis courts. Have totalled these for the revised entry. Murtoa ( talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have inquired with the College's Community College - Facilities Hire Department and I'm able to confirm that all the facilities listed above and on the article are surprisingly true and available, I have requested the college to send me a fact sheet, once received I will post the facilities available on this talk page for reference. They confirmed that the college has 6 rowing centres and they are located at: Glen Waverley, St. Kilda Road, Elsternwick, Albert Park (Albert Park Sports Complex with Wesley's Ovals and tennis centre), Yarra Boat Shed and Clunes. The GW campus has 8 Ovals, the elsternwick campus has 3 ovals and the skr campus has 7 at both the junior campus and middle + senior campus, the college controls/manages/has rights over 4 ovals at albert park, which they have incorporated into their tenis/hockey centre and rowing facility. There are like the article stated 45 tennis courts, 4 and 3 indoor sports complexes, however the college only has 22 drama and dance studios not 25, there are 3 25m swimming pool not 2, 4 multi-media centres, 3 recording studios which had won an engineering award. Will post new information once i have received the fact sheet and will make further inquires about the developments. Thanks for your contribution Murtoa. Sheepunderscore ( talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Im arraging to attend a school tour this next wednesday as I have a day off. I will confirm facilities and clear up this mess once and for all:P. Cheers, Sheepunderscore ( talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of further amplification of figures (ovals, courts etc) which I suspect includes off site facilities not owned or perhaps even controlled by Wesley, I have reduced the part of the section to those which can be verified. Murtoa ( talk) 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the recently expanded content on Houses, Pastoral Care and Facilities. In the case of Houses and Pastoral Care, the content added was largely not notable in that it would mirror what all schools similar to Wesley would have. I attempted to edit the content to increase its relevance and notability. In the case of facilities, I think the statistics on ovals etc is either incorrect or highly misleading in that it encompasses facilities used by Wesley that are not actually on Wesley campuses. Unless there is verification of these claims they shouldn't be on the page. I'm happy to debate and refine the content to improve the quality of the article. Murtoa ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought the facilities by 58.175.154.98 and history section was excellent, keep up the good work. I will be reviewing this article next month so keep up the good work and lets see if I can rated as a GA and move up the importence scale to mid. Sheepunderscore ( talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The information provided on the campuses added is unsourced (“all my own work”), does not add information that is either relevant or notable, and contains editorial comment that is not written from a neutral point of view (“grand”, “innovative”, an “extension of home”, “latest facilities”, “quiet contemplation”) etc . In my opinion the article should not contain information that could be written for any other major private school, is subjective, or promotional commentary more suited to a brochure advertising the school. Murtoa ( talk) 22:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance. I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo. The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school. Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to draw to your attention that the correct/official crest may be the one shown here. To my knowledge this crest appears on official school publications and the APS sports website. I'm however uncertain whether it is the correct/official one or if the one on the article is the correct/official one/ Please Comment! Sheepunderscore ( talk) 10:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to change the current blue and white Lion logo to one from the Wesley website that has a tongue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1003:3E00:6C64:7248:931C:CAE1 ( talk) 03:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article and will report shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the article carefully. In my view it does not at present meet the required standard for Good Article, for the following reasons:-
I do not think that these are in any way irredeemable faults, only that a fair amount work is necessary. You've probably looked already at Aquinas College, Perth, which has a better balance between history and the present day, and might be a useful GA model for Australian school articles.
I am putting the article on hold for seven days, to give you a chance to respond, and will look at it again then. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any specific queries. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your feedback re the GA nomination is valuable and helpful, and I have begun attending to the article in regards to prose and balance of history versus other elements. Having contributed most of the history content, I was aware at the time that I was relying heavily on the most recent school history, which although written "independently" by a credentialled historian, was nevertheless initiated (I think) or at the very least endorsed by the school. I was comfortable in relying on it however to the extent that it does provide quite a "warts and all" commentary, thus at least suggesting it has a sense of balance and NPOV. Overriding this however has been the lack of reliable alternative sources. Most others (where they exist at all) come from the school or from less reliable sources some of which are still connected in some way with the school. On balance I took the view that notable elements of the school history should still appear even if the source provided wasn't as "pure" as it could be. I also note that the
Aquinas College, Perth article which you suggest as a useful model has no less than 21 references to a similar school history which appears at least according to
this to perhaps have been initiated by that school. Your thoughts?
Murtoa (
talk)
06:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is in better shape than when I last looked at it; obviously a lot of work has been done. It cannot yet be promoted to GA, for the reasons which I have listed below. I understand that this is the editors' first shot at a GA, and it's a commendable effort which, with a little extra work, should definitely get there. At the end of the review I've given some suggestions as to how to proceed from here.
Attention is required:-
I appreciate that this is quite an agenda, but it's all quite do-able. My suggestion is that when you feel you have done as much as you can to resolve these issues, you contact me via my talkpage so that I can look at it again. I'll advise you if I think it is ready for another shot at GA then. My best wishes for the article's future. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Overall GA result: Fail
Individual GA criteria:-
Well written: Fail, prose still requires significant attention
Verifiable: Fail, further work needed
Breadth: Pass
Neutral: Pass
Stable: Pass
Images: Technical problems to be resolved.
Alfred and George Nicholas made their fortune in pharmaceuticals, especially commercially available aspirin. There is a Nicholas Gardens in the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria, Australia.
[4]
StephenSmith (
talk)
23:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The multi-colour version was created and introduced by an early headmaster, the original is housed in the archives collection at St Kilda Rd Melbourne campus. It used to appear on the sporting honours blazer at the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenSmith ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I hold an opinion that there are far too many images now in the article, and some are too trivial for inclusion. For example, the Clunes logo and principal's headshot. Wikipedia is not a directory or a substitute for a full school marketing handbook, and the focus is on information not promotion. Harr o 5 09:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Here are the problems which require attention before this article may be promoted to GA. These problems are mentioned in the Final GA Review by Brianboulton. Can editors who help resolve these problems please sign (with ~~~~), strike out and provide a short summary on the changes you have made, once you have completed an item of this list. Items may be added/adjusted at any time.
Earlier points not yet dealt with
Infobox
Prose
Lead section
History section
Images
Structural
Wesley College Institute
References
MOS
This is in reply to the question at the help desk. The problems are there all right, both on Firefox and IE7. This is probably because of using too many images. I think what happens is, the section is shorter than all the images used there and the images stretch on to the next section. That's probably why the extra space and displacement of links occur. I'd suggest keeping only the important images as a thumbnail image next to the relevant section, and place the others in a gallery at the end of the article. Hope this helps. Cheers. Chamal Talk 03:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, just wondering if it is really necessary to merge the performing Arts and Sports with Facilities and if the facilities section should be renamed as some of the information isn't really a facility. Also is it necessary to explain the role of the college president as s/he is not really mentioned in the article besides the references to James Waugh, past president. if its necessary where should it be included??? Sheepunderscore ( talk) 05:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the gallery is now being used as a bit of a repository for images that are not necessary in the article - the secondary logos, and pictures of facilities that are not illustrative. I recommend just keeping the ones already in the main article, and maybe creating a gallery on Wikimedia Commons to link to (as Duke University, an FA, has done here - it's regular pratice) if they really add something for readers. My vote would be that many are not. Harr o 5 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Am cascading development section into general facilities section. Removing discussion around 2006 work - ultimately in the context of the school's history and by comparison with all other similar schools I don't consider this notable. Keeping the Coates pavilion in but this potentially is also not notable. Regarding the possible future development which is referenced to a single school newsletter from 20 months ago, I see no evidence that supports these as active plans for the near future. Murtoa ( talk) 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been asked to look at the article again. I don’t really have time for a full review before you renominate, but here are a few pointers as to how the article could be improved.
I hope these points are of some help to you, and wish you well when you renominate the article. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The section proposed on 2008 results, which has been lifted from a school newsletter, is not notable. Wesley's results, which are undoubtedly better than say a small regional high school, are not remarkable compared to say other APS schools. "Performed well" is a relative term and although Wesley can be happy with its students' results, in my view they are not notable. Also, as I tried to explain when I reverted the edit, the 2008 results are transient. This content would no doubt be replaced in a year's time when the 2009 results come out. Wikipedia is not a place for recent news that will pretty quickly not be news. Nor is it a place for school marketing material. Happy to debate further. Murtoa ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly believe that the information I added was extremely valuable to prospective parents, locally and internationally. The phrase "performed well" may be rephrased, but I want to make it clear that the information was added to provide knowledge and to allow Wikipedia readers to now about Wesley's academic performance. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding Wikipedia was designed to educate people and not for organizations such as schools to "compete" with each other, nor is it a place for schools to be compared with others. The transient material may be updated once a year, which is less that most of the things on this article. The information was not just from the school newsletter, it was shown in local Melbourne newspapers (Leader) as well national newspapers (The Age, Herald Sun). Furthermore the information is not "marketing material" it is simply the facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.154.79 ( talk) 09:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to disagree to you points and would like to say that wikipedia is a service to the community and by adding information such as results not only adds interests to the article, it also serves the community. In response to "minimum level for being awarded an IB diploma a significant achievement?" according to the IBO the lowest possible score in order to achieve a diploma would be in 2008 24 out of 45 (69.40 ENTER). In addition by comparing Wesley's results is not only a personal attack on the college but also biased to do so, as the college is an Open entry school it is unfair to compare wesley with the other APS schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.156.135 ( talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that the [5] myschool.edu.au website may clear up some of these assertions as these are the Government compiled results. StephenSmith ( talk) 10:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I was pointing to the myschool site with respect to verification of student numbers and the "biggest" claim. In this respect it serves as a Government source, free from marketing influence. I did not mean for its content to be transferred here. StephenSmith ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
In the list of headmasters there is reference to Sir Frank Goldstraw. I wonder if the author of the article would be kind enough to cite any reference to the headmaster Frank Goldstraw receiving a knighthood. I have been unable to find any reference to any Goldstraw receiving a knighthood in the official gazettes and I am not aware of this man ever using such a title.
Thank you for your kind assistance.
Martin Goldstraw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.78.116 ( talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Frank Goldstraw was ever knighted. One fairly detailed biography article doesn't indicate this title. See: [6] StephenSmith ( talk) 02:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
In the "Overview and Structure" section, Wesley speaks of an "Open Entry" policy. This assertion is somewhat in doubt. It is "open" in that there is no academic testing. But in an effort to achieve gender balance across the student population, the school presently admits female students in preference to males and has achieved an VCAT Ruling Granting Equal Opportunity Exemption in this regard. The result is male students can only be offered places after female students have accepted available places at the College. This isn't "open" in the sense of being readily accessible for male students. StephenSmith ( talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal in the main overview of the reference to the 2001 Sun-Herald "ranking" of the top ten Australian school for boys, based on the number of male alumni mentioned in "Who's Who in Australia". My reasons for viewing this as not being worthy of reference in the article are:
1. I believe that the Sun-Herald article refers to research undertaken in 1988 by Peel and McCalman. It quotes McCalman in the article. Thus I don't believe that research undertaken 22 years ago is nearly as relevant now.
2. Wesley has been a co-ed school for 32 years now, so the concept of "sixth best boys school" seems rather obtuse and irrelevant.
3. The only "bias" I am showing is wanting to improve the quality of the article. I note that this 1988 survey has appeared on some other articles, and I recently made a comment on the Scotch College, Melbourne article in similar vein.
On balance, I propose that this reference, slightly edited to reflect the ranking wasn't by Sun-Herald and probably wasn't done in 2001, be moved to the part of the article that refers to alumni. For the reasons above I don't consider it should be in the leading piece of the article. Happy to hear other views.
Murtoa (
talk)
13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
______
I see understand where your coming from and I agree with the compromise you suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 ( talk) 11:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The school does not even rank in the top 100 schools according to a 2010 article published in "The Australian" StephenSmith ( talk) 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
User 122.107.142.251 has not welcomed my removal of the number of subjects offered in VCE, IB etc. The quoted numbers neither match the source provided (which appears out of date anyway), nor the numbers provided by Wesley in its curriculum guide. And herein lies the problem - there is (unsurprisingly) no consistency between the two senior school campuses - St Kilda Rd offers 44 VCE and 22 IB subjects; Glen Waverley 39 and 24 (and from personal experience IB subjects are subject to minimum numbers before they are offered). Of course the number will change every year and as per current article they are out of date. Are the numbers notable? I don't think so - they are what you would expect from a school of Wesley's scale. I'm not sure what's "biased" about this viewpoint. I detect a sense that I'm perhaps downplaying Wesley's credentials; this is not the intention, however, to support the quality of the article I don't believe it should be unnecessarily promoting the school's virtues. Murtoa ( talk) 06:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
_____
What I meant was that the figures are quantative information which may be helpful to people researching Wesley, if you look at other encyclopedias they to have figures about things such as the number of subjects offered in the senior years of a school. I would also suggest that maybe informaiton regardign curriculum can be added to all school related articles. Futhermore upon readign through the history of this talk page and the history of the article Ive noticed that Murtoa refers to a lot of information added by other users to be petty or insignificant, for my benefit can you please define what you mean by insignificant. If everyone is "insignificant in a school such as wesley" then may I ask why there is even an article why not just the skeleton saying the school exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.142.251 ( talk) 11:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:LA Adamson.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wesley College (Victoria). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)