Talk:Carlton le Willows Academy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Fingrmouse (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Now reviewing this article, which seems to have been waiting a very long time! Fingrmouse (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Overall impression

 * Good writing style
 * Structure makes sense
 * Lead provides a good introduction
 * Encouraged by a large number of citations

Lead

 * Generally well-composed
 * Second paragraph begins with a very long sentence; would be better as two sentences

History

 * '…proposals to implement it…' here, 'it' could refer to demand or the school
 * Well-referenced and written
 * 'That said…' (end of Demands and origins) sounds a bit 'chatty'
 * 'Grammar School' section onwards is slightly problematic. There are many sections of text in quotes without any author given. Readers should not have to go digging through the references to work out the context. Direct quotes should be attributed inline, along with a citation next to the quote. As all of the information presented does appear to be well-supported, consider writing supported facts directly rather than selectively quoting.
 * An example of the above is: 'Appointees hoped that these furnishing would fulfil "the main purpose of the school … to reduce travelling distances", while still providing for scholars from as far afield as Beeston'. Why is the central section quoted directly, and who said it? The reference is via the British Newspaper Archive, which is not available to all readers. It might read better to just say 'Appointees hoped that these furnishing would fulfil the main purpose of the school, which was to reduce travelling distance while still providing for scholars from as far afield as Beeston.'

School structure

 * Good writing and layout
 * Again, some unattributed quotes. Please fix.

Curriculum

 * No problems with this section

Extra-curricular activities

 * No problems
 * Good, restrained tone without hyperbole or bias

Notable former pupils

 * A good, well-referenced list
 * The order seems a little random and might be made more readable by using a bulleted list or dividing into sections

Notes, citations and bibliography

 * Well-sourced and comprehensive
 * Have not reviewed every one of the citations but what I have checked seems to match up well

Summary
A very good article, of a much higher standard than the vast majority on Wikipedia.

Does it pass as a Good Article?
 * 1) Well written: Yes, although with some issues regarding quotes
 * 2) Verifiable: Yes
 * 3) Broad in coverage: Yes
 * 4) Neutral: Yes
 * 5) Stable: Yes
 * 6) Illustrated: Yes

A definite pass, but only once the issues with quoting unattributed authors is resolved. Will put on hold for the moment. Fingrmouse (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for looking at this a long-term pursuit at last put to bed. Quite right regarding the quotes, I've removed them where the author isn't mentioned in-line. As for the notable pupils section, I've done my best to rearrange a dislocated bunch cohesively; since I'd rather avoid a bulleted list, I hope my amendments are to your overall satisfaction. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks . The paragraphs with the problematic quotes read much better now, and I can't find anything else that would prevent the article from qualifying as a GA. I can understand preferring to avoid bullets in the notable pupils section; it's not something that I'm going to push, particularly as it's not a Wikipedia standard. It's hard to write a section like that which is easy to read so I think you've done the best that anybody could realistically expect there. I'm going to bite the bullet and pass it as a GA — congratulations on a very well-written and complete article! Fingrmouse (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)