Talk:Chetham's School of Music/GA1

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

Reviewer: BencherliteTalk 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No dab links. No external link problems. On images, File:Mike Lindup 01 wikipedia.jpg doesn't have a source; the user who uploaded it,, is inactive and has various image-related warning messages on his/her talk page. I think it would be better to find another alumni image, if needed. The conducting one of Grant Llewellyn looks OK (it appears that the orchestra itself released the image).

I'm going through and making a few changes as I see minor problems, and hopefully the reason for these changes will make sense. More major problems below:

"When a chorister reaches Year 8, or their voice break, they can apply to join Chetham's senior school." Eh? That's the first mention I can find of there being a senior school - some explanation needed, please! Also translate "year 8" for people who don't know what it means (like me... new-fangled terminology)
 * I think the sources are fine, although it would be good to have some sources that weren't connected with the school in the "Academics and pastoral care" section apart from one BBC page about the 2006 to 2009 GSCE results. (Anything more recent?  Anything about A-levels?) Any independent assessments of the school?
 * One problem I see straight away, which is fixable, is the bulleted list of names under "notable alumni". Manual of Style (embedded lists) (part of the GA criteria) says that such lists should be written as prose. I see that there was some discussion on the talk page about this before the GA nomination.
 * Is the image of Manchester Cathedral best positioned there? It squeezes text between two images, which is undesirable.
 * The "Humphrey Chetham" section is a bit short and you end up with some duplication with or misplacement in the next section ("Charity school: 1653 to 1939") - both sections talk about his executors, and the bit about his will would seem to fit better in the previous section.
 * I wonder whether the number of subsections under "Academics and pastoral care" can be reduced. Some of them are quite small - perhaps an "admissions and curriculum" followed by a "school life"?  Shouldn't admissions come before curriculum, logically speaking?

More later; it's going to take some time to go through everything. It's on the right lines, though, I think. BencherliteTalk 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed both of the alumni images as they don't really fit. I don't see a good way to write the list of alumni as prose. I've followed your other suggestions, and I'll see if there's any third-party sources. AD 12:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking nearly there. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists) seems to be suggesting that there should be more flexibility in the list/prose issue, so that's unlikely to be a deal-breaker. I'm still a bit puzzled about Chethams and the cathedral choristers - are they students at the school, or elsewhere, or both, when they are choristers? Saying "join Chetham's proper" suggests to me that they aren't at the school beforehand (and I'm not sure "join Chetham's proper" is the best phrase, but I can't think of an alternative as I'm not entirely sure what the deal is).  I think it's close enough to put it "on hold" for a week or so, to see if you can come up with any third-party sources about school life, and to try to get my thick head to understand this chorister thing! BencherliteTalk 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, choristers are educated at the school, but don't have to have an audition - they enter through the church. After Year 8 (or about 13) they have to join via the audition process. TBH I don't think there will be any 3rd-party refs for school life, and the school is usually the most reliable/accurate on that. AD 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: