Talk:King's Ely/GA2

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

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;   and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon,  words to avoid,  fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;  and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Starting the review.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Images. This image Image:HT2g.jpg is not free, and I am uncertain of the status of this one: Image:King's Ely Crest.svg. I'd like to see either the images replaced, or a stronger assertion of the valid fair use rationale.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Stable.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks - at least one of the links goes to a disamb page rather than direct to an article - Roll of Honour should be piped to Memorial. It would be worth checking the other links.  SilkTork  *YES! 07:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section contains trivial details about the structure of the school in the first paragraph straight after the hugely notable fact that this is one of the oldest schools in the world. See Bathos. Some interesting or important sections in the article are not mentioned in the lead - such as Ely Cathedral Choir and School traditions. The first main section I read, the History section, is poorly written, with dates going 1541 - 1720 - 1970 - 970 - 1882, with a long quote which is uninteresting in itself, and the main points of which could be extracted and used directly, and with material - such as the sentence on Hoop Trundle - feeling inappropriately placed here. The structure and layout needs attention - there are subsections within the history section that properly belong elsewhere - Sports, Saturday school, etc. Though these are Featured Articles, done to a much higher standard than Good Articles, it's still worth looking at them for guidance on structure and layout: Dartmouth College, Oriel College, Oxford, and Plano Senior High School. The alumni section could preferably be written up as prose, see Embedded list.

I'm comfortable with the coverage, which seems both broad enough and detailed enough without undue focus on any particular aspect. I'm also comfortable that it presents the school fairly and without bias. Much of this article is very good indeed, and I'm impressed that User:Rocketman89 has done so much with this as the user's first experience with Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Referencing is excellent. This is a very decent article which is very close to being a GA - it just needs those minor points addressed as detailed above. Linking together two points: Lord Browne of Madingley is mentioned in the lead with the tease that he was "controversial", but there is no further detail in the alumni section. Some attention to these details would lift this article higher.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing
There has been no progress on the article, and no response to this review. If there is still no progress by tomorrow I'll close this review as failed.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had hoped to get the time together to address the issues myself, but I'm very busy in real life at the moment, so I'm closing this as a fail, and will come back when I have time to tidy it up.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)