Talk:City of London School/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First impression is that this looks like an informative, organised, well cited and readable article. Hopefully this should be fairly easy. I haven't looked too closely, though the lead feels a little flimsy at first glance. And I am uncertain about the several lists at the end. The list of past headmasters is of little value to the general reader as none of them appear to be notable - it is simply a list of the names of unknown people. Also, the lists of notable people could be condensed into one section. Lists in articles are generally frowned upon - some thought could be given to writing up the mentions of the most notable people associated with the school as prose - see Stuyvesant_High_School#Notable_people, Oriel_College,_Oxford#People_associated_with_the_College and Dartmouth_College#Alumni as examples from featured articles. SilkTork *^YES! 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is attractive and readable

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lists at the end need attention, as does the lead, as indicated in my initial comments above.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are times, indicated in my comments below, where claims and statements need firmer sourcing.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   There is a good deal of information here, and the article may well address the main aspects of the topic - however I'd like to raise the issue of some more detailed discussion of the buildings, especially in a dedicated section, as the buildings are distinctive, which the article acknowledges with comments within the image captions. "For 30 years, this building was featured on the Thames Television logo"; "This view is occasionally seen in popular media"; "The Great Hall stage and Walker organ, originally designed for the Victoria Embankment school building. The organ has...". Some of these captions tease, as there is then little or no accompanying detail within the main body. I'd also welcome some greater discussion on the schools academic, musical and sporting achievements - these are sometimes hinted at, but not developed. I'd like to hear more about the claim that City was the first school to teach Eng Lit, as I thought that was the Arnolds (Matthew and Thomas at Rugby. If the article is talking about Edwin Abbott Abbott introducing English to City under the influence of John Robert Seeley, that should be explained clearly, and some good sources given to justify the claim that this was the "first" time that Eng lit was taught at an English school.

   B. Focused:

   The Second World War section drifts into amusing anecdote rather than encyclopedic material. It's attractive, but questionable stuff.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   It does seem neutral - however, there are a few sentences which, unless sourced and explained, could be seen as biased: "musical excellence of the school"; "curriculum's innovative trends"; and "school seeks to provide a harmonious community".

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There have been attacks (particularly earlier this year) - but given that the topic is a school, that is understandable. Nothing excessive.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Checked

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some captions are not succinct, and in my opinion some of the comment might be better placed in the main text, but it's debatable, so I won't hold up a GA on a quibble

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. ) I'd like to see the lists at the end dealt with.

-I've turned most of it into prose and removed the year groups section as its not really encyclopedic. Im not sure about the list of headmasters as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines suggests putting this in and many UK school articles have this, some even having their own page. See List of headmasters at Eton College.

1. ) The lead could be beefed up to give a better understanding of the school and its importance

- Im not really sure how to write a good lead. I tried to follow the advice which was given to me in the peer review and had a look at some GAs but Im still not certain on how a lead should be written. Can I ask for some advice?

1. ) More information needed on the schools academic, musical and sporting achievements - in particular, more and clearer detail on the claims regarding the innovative nature of the curriculum.

-Can I ask what kind of information?

1. ) Consideration given to providing more information on the buildings - perhaps in a dedicated section

-This was an issue also raised in the peer review. I found many sources on the school's history but I found very little on the building. I have added the information I found during my research.

1. ) Consider the amount of detail and tone of the "war clouds on the horizon" anecdote

I have removed trivia.

Overall a decent and informative article that just needs a bit of tightening here and there. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked a few questions regarding the advice above. I do apologise for having to ask so many questions. Im not very experienced with writing GAs. I have asked another editor who has done quite a bit of work on the article about the English Lit claim as I have not found anything related to this during my research. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also just a note, I've removed the year groups section as it seemed a bit trivial but I will welcome any alternative opinions. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some good comments and questions. A good GA Review is a dialogue - the more communication the better. And, also, much of any assessment is subjective assessment so it is always appropriate to question, and to offer suggestions.

I agree that the year group list was trivial, though the Old Grammar name for Year 6 seems slightly different to the norm, and that could be brought in somewhere - I'll take a look and add it.

I'll take a look at the lead and give some pointers. If you're still unsure, I can do it. Sometimes, it can be quicker and easier to make small adjustments to an article rather than listing them for someone else to do, and giving such assistance is encouraged in GA reviewing. Where it can get tricky is if a reviewer gets too involved and starts to make substantial contributions, then there comes a conflict of interest, so I want to limit any such direct involvement.

The situation regarding the buildings needs to be thought about. Some very well written and detailed articles can fail GA through not having appropriate coverage in one particular area, and the argument that the information couldn't be found has generally not been accepted as a reason to pass the article. If you have any contact with the school it might be worth asking if they have any information on the buildings. In the meantime I'll do a quick Google and see what I can find.

I'll take a look at those links you provided on headmasters. SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and for your help. Regarding the outstanding issues:

1. Buildings information - I'll also continue to search for references on the building.
2. Lead - Any advice would be very much appreciated.
3. School's achievements - Again, any advice would be appreciated.
4. English Lit claim - I'll need to find details on this. I'll try and find out who added this to the article and see if they can offer any help.

I have hopefully now sorted out the following issues:

• Trivial sentences in the WW2 section.
• Placing details in the picture captions in the main body.
• Removed opinionated phrasing.
• The lists at the end.

I think I've covered all the thigns you mentioned but please let me know if you're not satisfied with any of the above or if you have any more issues to add. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just spent some time over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I feel that guideline is in need of an overhaul to bring it in line with wider Wikipedia consensus and guidelines, and have started some discussion at the project's talkpage. However, I don't wish to hold this article to a higher standard than generally accepted, so accept that a school's achievements are not at the moment covered in a distinct section, nor dealt with in depth, so therefore the average reader would not be expecting much information on achievements.

The simple thing to do with the Eng lit claim is to remove it as written until it can be sourced. It's easy to add it back in later if details are found.

I haven't done any building research myself yet, and will get round to that shortly, and then have a look at the lead for you. SilkTork *^YES! 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This gives good details of the second building. SilkTork *^YES! 15:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I see you already have this information. SilkTork *^YES! 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

J B Bunning was the architect of the first building. There stuff on him on the web, he was the architect to the City of London, so it's appropriate he was used! SilkTork *^YES! 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This says the original building was in "Tudor style". SilkTork *^YES! 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This one says "Elizabethan" - but also gives Brunning as the architect. I think what this and the previous are talking about is Tudor Revival or Tudorbethan. SilkTork *^YES! 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Meddings was the architect of the new school. More details. I think it's worth mentioning that he was a student at the school. SilkTork *^YES!

Both architects were old boys.

I think that's enough to give you a starter. I'll take a look at the lead later. SilkTork *^YES! 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I can never seem to get the right sources from google searches. I'll have a look at the sources you've found and add in necessary details. I think I'll integrate the buildings information into the history. Im not sure if an entirely new section devoted to it is appropriate as that might break up the flow of the article. What do you think? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've integrated the information you've given me and I have also integrated some information I found myself into various parts of the article. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections of an article are there for people who want info on just that aspect of the topic. While it is nice to think of somebody sitting down and reading through the whole article as though it were a book, that's not, on the whole, what encyclopedias are about, nor how the general reader uses an encyclopedia. People are curious about a topic (City of London school), and want some idea of what the school is - what type of school, when it was founded, where it is, if it has moved, what it is notable for, the most prominent people associated with it, etc. This information is put into the lead section. A thumbnail sketch of the major points of the topic. Then, people may wish to know more about one or more aspects of the school - so they go to those sections. If people want information on the buildings, they may not want to have to wade through quite a long four part history section to get that information. My suggestion is that there is a buildings section, as in Oriel_College,_Oxford#Buildings_and_environs and Christ's_College,_Cambridge#Buildings. SilkTork *^YES! 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now created a new building section. I have put images in a gallery format for both ease of use and aesthetic purposes. Many FAs and GAs do this when appropriate.

Arbitrary leg break

The new buildings section is very helpful, and the selection of images is appropriate and again very helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with the anecdotal nature of the Second World War section. That the school made a plan to go to South Wales is not encyclopedic, and frankly of limited interest even to those closely connected to the school. It never happened. The school was evacuated to Marlborough College. And that is the fact. But that the boys carried a "standard bag of emergency rations and a gas mask in a cardboard box" is local colouring more appropriate for the school magazine than a global encyclopedia. My concern is that much of that section fails 3 (b): "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would suggest going through and cutting unnecessary detail such as: "The boys, most of whom lived in urban London, were bored in the countryside, although school staff set up games to amuse them." Purple prose like "war clouds on the horizon" is unwelcome in an encyclopedia. Let's be factual here - "on the eve of the Second World War" is more factual, professional, and helpful, and provides us with an opportunity for an internal link for anyone who wants to know which war we are talking about. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have cut out anecodotal sections. Please feel free to suggest or make changes yourself if you still have concerns.

I've just taken a look at the lead and Wikipedia:Lead section as well and I think it does cover necessary detail such as what type of school, when it was founded, where it is, if it has moved, what it is notable for, the most prominent people associated with it. However, I will welcome any opinions. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit distracted at the moment with the discussion going on at WikiProject Schools regarding the appropriate guidelines: [1] and [2], and I'd like those to be resolved before finalising this review - I will sort the lead at that time. I am comfortable with City_of_London_School#Notable_people as the section has a prose overview, though City_of_London_School#Headmasters fails Wikipedia:Bio#Lists_of_people (and so fails Wikipedia:Verifiability) and WP:Embedded lists. WikiProject guidelines are not part of the GA criteria, so the MoS guideline is the one I have to follow. Despite my own enjoyment of the article (and the topic, which I have a personal connection with), I cannot pass it as GA while it fails the criteria. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria - 1 (b) "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation" Don't worry - we'll sort this, as I have no intention of failing this article. It just means working through the issues to a satisfactory resolution. SilkTork *^YES! 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. My intention was always to improve this article and I feel that a list of headmasters is useful to readers. I have never been a believer of following policies and guidelines to the letter and that the focus should be more on community consensus and satisfaction with regard to people finding the article useful and interesting. However, I am willing to discuss this issue and agree to some kind of issue to resolve your concerns. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, and I'm not going to pick holes in it, other than to say that the guidelines and polices are the wider community consensus, which can sometimes get forgotten in the particular concerns of the moment. The usual response to an objection to a community guideline is to take up the matter on the relevant talkpage - so, for example, in this instance, raise the issue of the headmaster list here and here. I think I have been involved in writing some aspect of both of those guidelines, and I recall that the people who mainly hang around are mostly quite sensible and decent folk. However, that bit of throwaway advice aside, the reality of the day is this article, this GA Review, and not spinning it out into too great a drama. I can leave you to sort out policy changing for some other time at your leisure! Let's get this GA thing sorted now. I'll tear through the article, get it GA criteria compliant. You disagree with me before I pass it and change it back, and we have a stalemate. You disagree after I pass it and change it back, and somebody else may decide to delist it (though it's not an exact science, and not everyone reads the criteria the same way or as closely, so it may not get delisted). SilkTork *^YES! 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The headmasters section is taking a bit longer than I thought, as it seems the headteachers have quite a bit of stuff out there on them. I've made a start - would you be prepared to help out on turning it into prose. I know you have a preference for that section remaining as it is, but I hope you can see that there is some value in sourced prose - even if it involves a bit of work writing it up. SilkTork *^YES! 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but I think I'll pass on starting a discussion to change well established policy as im not really a very active user anymore, only temporarily active over summer to improve this article, and I think these things are beter left to the active users. Just to make it clear, I have no objection to anything you're saying. Putting that aside, my intention here was only to improve this article to a GA and so I'll go with whatever you're happy with. Thanks again for all your help. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the GA process as articles end up improved whatever happens at the end, and that's the important thing. I also like the notion that a reader can feel reassured that a GA article has achieved certain standards which the whole community has agreed - which is why I am fairly strong on articles complying with the GA criteria. There is, however, always room for individual interpretation - which makes the process even more interesting! I'd like to get this article finished as soon as possible, and will try to get to it later today to finish off - but I have various real life things to attend to first. SilkTork *^YES! 09:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I've been looking at a book on the history of the school and I've found it has some information on most of the headmasters but im not sure how to decide which ones are notable. Books tend to have too much detail for an encyclopedia. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 09:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See which have Wikipedia articles (well, Abbott, duh). Google them and see who gets the most hits.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lists at the end are tidier - though the headteacher section could do with some more work - I've simply made a start.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   This has now been addressed.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The buildings are now covered.

   B. Focused:

   The Second World War section could still do with being sharper, but it's acceptable. GA criteria is not the same as FA.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The lead could be more focussed, and give a better overview of the school; the Second World War and the Headmasters sections need a little more work as indicated, but overall this is a decent enough article which meets the basic requirements of the GA criteria. I enjoyed reading the article and found it reasonably informative, with a good standard of prose writing.

Passed as a Good Article. Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 16:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)