Talk:Carlton le Willows Academy

Ties
As the colours are not very distinct in the illustration, might it be a good idea to list them as well as illustrating them? Peridon (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment
I have been pretty much the sole contributor to this article for a quite a few months now, and I would appreciate some direction. If anyone is involved in either WikiProjects Schools or Nottinghamshire, could you please assess the article on both your scales? Cheers. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:23, 03 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is very well written for a school article. You may consider taking this to Good article nomination. Good work! EyeTripleE (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Tighten up
I've condensed the content to something a little more like the GA listed Malvern College, the maintained information retains the key elements of the school - but reads a little easier (I had concerns regarding contradictory material). As pretty much the sole contributor to this article, I believe that this is the right way forward.Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is Peer review if you would like some input from other editors. EyeTripleE (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Carlton le Willows Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.clw.notts.sch.uk/index.php/area=ourschool/page=history/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carlton le Willows 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clw.notts.sch.uk/index.php/area%3Dourschool/page%3Dhistory/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150118221721/https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/martin-daubney/3b/592/604 to https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/martin-daubney/3b/592/604

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of hard work
There comes a point in any article, that other editors look and identify you as the 'expert' and walk away. It its a real pity because in this case User:Curlymanjaro has put in a hell of a lot of effort over many years. We do need a GA for a UK state school- as Malvern College is private and very atypical. We do need a model that other editors can refer to. He needs feedback and a comrade in arms.

I suspect that when this goes to GA, the following points are going to be picked up: it is overworked (due I suspect to the lack of a second editor being available to give a second opinion); a lot of the text could be removed if the link sentences and detailed explanations of the peculiar English education system were culled. This is where wikilink would be valuable- and some time spent in working up those articles to do the heavy duty work; there will be serious concerns about the heavy reliance on school published documents (primary sources) (original research);whole sections are fascinating but off-focus and would be better spun off as searate articles - for example that Henry Strutt opened the Chandos Street School in section on 1973–present; there is a lot of overlinking such as Minister of Education, A612, European community; and it is too long.

It should be noted that while the state of Educational achievement in Nottinghamshire is dire, so are most of our school articles (POV). --ClemRutter (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi ClemRutter, thanks for taking a look at the article. It's been, for better or worse, my personal sandbox as I've progressed as a Wiki editor. That said, I feel this time that I've done enough for GA. One further admission, and where the extent of our optimism differs, is that I'm completely unoriginal; my format is tried and tested. Though I admit it's fatty in places, two GA state schools in Lincolnshire, St George's Academy and Carre's Grammar, edited by the masterful, largely served as my model - themselves loosely based on the FA-accredited Judd School, a state grammar. As for original sources, without linking to old scholars' forums, my hands were virtually tied. I'm open to individual critique, but we're dealing with a Nottinghamshire comp here, external sources are rarely up-to-date, let alone particularly insightful; have some faith! Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Curlymanjaro. Hi, I noticed you pinged me in this discussion and, while I don't really have the time to carry out a full GAR right now, I wish you the best of luck. State school articles are not the easiest to write due to a lack of sources; I was lucky, for instance, with St George's Academy that it celebrated its centenary in 2008 and uploaded a lot of historical material online which was trawled by the Internet Archive. I did, however, have to dig up a lot of offline sources, which was interesting but time-consuming. Your article here seems broadly in good shape, but I do have a few pieces of advice which you can take or leave: I think this has the potential to be a GA, and it's clear a lot of research has gone into it! Do ping me if you need any further advice or comments. Anyway, I'm glad to see such a good effort has been put into another school article; I've often thought that if one person in each town were prepared to work on local articles like this, Wikipedia would be a far better resource. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC).
 * The origins and public demand sections is well-research and relevant, but could perhaps be trimmed a tad. The chronology also appears jumbled; you open by saying that "Public demand for the provision of suitable secondary education in the Carlton Urban District was discussed at a meeting of its Council as early as 3 January 1934" but then go on to mention petitions for new schools which dated back to 1932. You then discuss a nine-year-long effort but it's not clear whether this was prior to 1934 (hence dating back to 1925) or going forward therefrom; you also mention campaigning efforts dating back to 1930. Again, we hear about the programme being enacted in 1937 before mention of the 1935 protests; we're then taken to 1949, back to the 1944 Act, then back further to 1933. In the next paragraph we return to 1949 before being taken back to 1944 once again. There is then mention of 1905 and then the 1940s and 1950s. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but I think this section would flow better if, as best as possible, facts are presented in a chronological order.
 * In the section about 1952-73, there is a lot of architectural detail which may be better placed in a 'school buildings' or 'site' section (it's clear that the buildings are noteworthy enough to get this attention); this keeps the reader focused on the historical narrative.
 * I wonder whether the technical grammar school (I didn't realise such things existed) ought to have a spin-off article which could incorporate some of the detail about its history and curriculum which you've included here.
 * ClemRutter is probably right about the schools with which Carlton Le Willows merged; the information about their history ought to be in their own articles and, if they were secondary schools then it's probably best to create them and just link them here. If you don't think it's best to create an article for them, then I'd suggest putting this information into a footnote. That will keep the article more focused.
 * On the whole, the article is well-researched and the remainder well-structured. I'm sure some trimming could be done without losing any key details, but that's probably something the GA reviewer will take up with you when they give it a closer reader.


 * Thank you all for your helpful input, Noswall59 in particular, and many of your recommendations shall be implemented in good time. If it's all the same, I'll wait for the GAR before I refer to these comments again. Plenty to be getting on with here. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit
Hi and others. An excellent job of work on this article. I am here from GOCE pursuant to your request. I am sure that you realise that a request to "shorten this article without removing detail" approaches the oxymoronic, but I shall do my best. A lot of what I need to do seems to be compliance with WP:MOS. If there is anything which you are not happy with or don't understand why I've done it, feel free to query me here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi . No problem. It is what GOCE does. I hope that you will like the final product. Thanks for the clarification on RE. I have now finished my first rough and ready run through. I will hold off from my second more detailed effort until you have had a chance to read, reflect and (optionally) give me feedback. Let me know when I can restart.


 * Money. You shouldn't. It was referenced anyway. All I did was replace Costing £173,793 with . Every year the magic of Wikipedia will update the index and change the "in 20xx" figure. As you can see, I didn't add any additional information, so it shouldn't need additional referencing.


 * References. Yes. Where a reference has been completely removed, it needs to come out of the bibliography. I tend not to do this as being certain that it is not used for a different reference is tedious and if an editor disagreed with my bold edits they then have the chore of re-keying it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Query
Sorry to trouble you, but I can't work out what this means "religious education is given throughout the school". Could you elucidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks so much for taking a look at the article. Apologies for my vague annotation, "too much detail" was the intention! As for your initial query, "religious education" is just referring to the fact that pupils are taught about religion from the beginning of their school career and have the option to pursue qualifications in that area later on. Just a quick note from me, I presume the two monetary equivalents in the "History" section will need referencing and bibliographical details made obsolete by the CE shall be removed. I'm happy to do this if you haven't the time. Once again, very grateful for your efforts. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just another editor. This is Wikipedia. Of course you can revert. While no one is the WP:OWNER of an article, I think that you come close on this one. Plus you have it up for GA, so you won't want anything in that you are not happy to defend if pressed. You have probably done this already, but here is the diff with all of my suggested changes in. If you need any further help, or just someone to bounce ideas off, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so understanding, was silly of me to attract your fine input at this stage. I'll get over this GAR with what I have so far before I once again consult your additions, and, if need be, your spontaneous insights. Speak then! Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Governance
There is a problem with this sentence: Managed by the Greater Nottingham Education Trust, Carlton le Willows operates on a single, 32-acre campus, which 1,513 students attended during the 2016–17 Managed is a technical term usually applied to CofE primarry schools. It is unclear whether GNET runs C le W or C le W runs GNET. GNET is a MAT but with two schools- I am unclear on the wording we should use ClemRutter (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as GNET runs the school, perhaps "overseen" would be better? Curlymanjaro (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)