Talk:St George's Academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better grade[edit]

I think this article has the potential to do well. I have added a section on the awards and statuses of the school with a reference to the website and details on the College Council and Roles in the school. If I could add more and reference the history section then this article could move up a level. 95jb14 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Section[edit]

The majority of this section has been copied from the School website, which has a copyright, and therefor breaks the rules in Wikipedia. Thankfully I have deleted and rewritten the section in a more legal and well written way. I have also added a reference to the website. 95jb14 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. The one thing lacking is reliable sources which are from third-party publications. Publications produced by the school are considered primary sources and as such fail to meet our referencing requirements. I have changed the tag on the article to indicate this. Primary sources can be used for detail once the third-party sources have established the framework for the article. Keith D (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try. ☺ 95jb14 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Please remember to add references (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources). The Academic performance section, in particular, needs to be sourced carefully. The History section may need to be checked for spelling/grammar/flow. The article could also use an extracurricular section; see Category:GA-Class school articles and Category:FA-Class school articles for examples of relatively well-sourced school articles, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines for additional ideas. --Jh12 (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Assessment[edit]

It has been requested that this article be re-assessed, I am keeping the current assessment of Start / Low. The article's main problem is a lack of references, the article should be built on in-line citations to secondary sources. The article also needs an infobox (some can be found at WP:WPSCH), and more sections as suggested at WP:WPSCH/AG. Some parts such as the school timetable should probably be removed per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd assessment[edit]

I'm keeping the current Start/Low rating. The article needs some reorganization and, more importantly, some references. Some things to work on:

  • The information in the "Information" section can nearly all be put into the infobox
  • The GCSE section isn't really necessary
  • There is too much information on the college council. Unless the council is notable in some way, that section should be reduced in size.
  • The very first part of the "Admissions" section should be under history ("opened in 1908")
  • Regarding "Awards and Statuses," readers shouldn't be told to go to another website for more information
  • Work on keeping a neutral point of view, I'm sensing a slight bias in the article. I know it's not always easy to do, but just let the facts speak for themselves. (e.g. "The school gets excellent GCSE results...", just state the results without using the word "excellent")

WP:WPSCH/AG has some good guidelines and tips for school related articles, you should go take a look at that too. «O73» 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th Assessment[edit]

This time as a member of wikiproject Lincolnshire I decided to elevate the article to a C because There are now plenty of reliable references, no more bias, no more GCSE section and a general cleanup. The Criteria for a C is basically an article that lacks some references and contains good information but is in need of more. I feel this article is beyond a Start class now. 95jb14 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th assessment[edit]

It has been requested that this article be re-assessed for WikiProject Schools. The article certainly looks better than when I last assessed it, so well done to all editors who helped improve it, there are now some sources and the article is better structured. As a whole I agree the article is probably of good enough quality now for C-class, however a lot of improvements for the article to meet B-class. First, the lead is rather short, it currently introduces the article but should also summarise all the sections, see WP:LEAD. The information section should be redundant to the infobox, and hence can be removed. The history section is pretty good, though the large paragraph perhaps could be split up. The Brealey Centre section needs re-writing, the Brealey Language Centre was hailed as one of the most advanced in the United Kingdom, says who? This looks like a peacock term, the section should just explain what has happened and leave it to readers to decide how advanced it is. Similar things can also be said with This revolutionised ICT and computers in the college. The College Council and various other roles section has an awkward title and is rather trivial in nature, this perhaps could be merged into a extracurricular activities section, see WP:WPSCH/AG. The admissions section starts off rather odd for a section half way through the article, perhaps this should be merged into a academics section. The academic performance section needs a complete re-write. I notice that the word 'excellent' has been replaced with 'good' - it does not matter if it says brilliant, excellent, fine, bad, rubbish, or awful here - it still not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. Again peacock terms like good and unique should be removed, instead of telling the reader how good/unique the school is, it should show the reader by focusing on facts and what secondary sources say. The comparison to other schools is also not appropriate not just because it throws off WP:NPOV but because it violates WP:NOR, or specifically WP:SYNTHESIS. Comparisons should only be drawn if sources themselves make them.

An underlying problem with the article is still sourcing, and there is only a few inline citations in the entire article. Use of <ref>Source</ref> tags is preferred and use of templates such as {{cite web}} is even better. Avoid external links in the middle of the article, these should be at the end or in the infobox. Some pictures would be nice also, including a logo in the infobox. That should be enough suggestions to last a while! Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6th assessment[edit]

The article is coming along, though I do not think it is ready for B-class yet. As per previous assessments, the information section should be redundant to the infobox and the history section so should go. The history section is one of the better written in the article, it is also good to see pictures appearing. The logo appears to be an editor created version, really the real logo should be used even if it has to be uploaded under fair use. The Brealey Centre section seems a little over detailed and is all based on just one source, in particular the technical details here are excessive. This should section should probably be refined with more sources given if possible. I would convert academic performance into prose if possible; it could possibly be turned into an Academics section about the schools curriculum e.t.c rather than just about performance. The references are a little untidy, with most references just being a link. Try and use citation templates if possible, and fill in as many of the parameters in as possible. The article is rather thin on content now, further expansion would be good. See WP:WPSCH/AG#S for a guide on missing content and sections. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on St George's Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St_George%27s_Academy&oldid=1205415719"