Talk:Latymer Upper School/GA1

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

Nominator: 10:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 22:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This looks to be in good nick. Commenting as someone with no connection to the school or, really, any particular knowledge of it:


 * : this sentence implies that there exists a Lower School (or similar), but doesn't actually say as much.
 * Added.


 * Latymer's English spelling seems distinctly more modern in the second quotes sentence: are these from the same text?
 * Yes.


 * "Puritan" has a capital when it's the religious group.
 * Fixed.


 * : I would give an indication of what/where that was/is.
 * Added.


 * : could cut former and current for brevity; I don't think it adds much, and is vulnerable to WP:ENDURE.
 * Done.


 * All footnotes, even a, should end in full stops.
 * Done.


 * Can we convert the acre units into metric, for those so inclined?
 * Done.


 * : should be "Latymer's"?
 * Fixed.


 * Captions which include at least one full stop should end in a full stop, even if the last bit is not a complete sentence.
 * Done.


 * : generally, abbreviations should be spelled out in article text, as space is not limited: if you really want the brevity, use the abbreviation template so that readers can have them spelled out on mouseover. Circa has its own template, which is best used.
 * Fixed.
 * I don't see a fix here. NB that there's a picture a bit further down that could do with the same. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thought you were objecting to "Dr."? So it's the d. c. you wanted fixed... done those.


 * : was the term elementary school used in BrE at the time? It isn't really today.
 * It was. I guess "primary" isn't too glaring an anachronism for the period, so let's use that.


 * : this is a bit prospectus-ese for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * : immediately? It sounds like it, but as written it's ambiguous. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edited.


 * : any idea of when?
 * No further than is stated: it's bracketed between 1755 and 1819.


 * Do we know anything about e.g. the curriculum to include in the Latymer Charity School section?
 * No.


 * : what did this mean? Per MOS:', use double quotes rather than single, but generally don't use scare quotes at all.
 * Fixed.


 * : what was one of those?
 * Spelt out and linked.


 * My point on curriculum again: we have, which alludes to the fact that a lot had changed in the expectations of schools since 1628, but we haven't really talked about that at all.
 * We can only go with the available sources.
 * Indeed. There are many of those that talk about what the usual curriculum at an English public school was in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: this doesn't have to be a general history of English education, particularly as few of those sources are likely to namecheck the school directly, but I do think we're going to have to make use of them. The GA criteria require us to cover the "main aspects" of the topic, and I don't think an article on a school can claim to do that without saying something about what all those pupils were learning for all that time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But we don't know. The very limited sources don't say; and assuming it's the same as other schools of different types at a time when the curriculum was in rapid flux is just guesswork. I'll note that the history section of (to take a school at random) Eton College says nothing about curriculum; and frankly I can't see any reason why it should.


 * : can we contextualise this: was it a lot? How did it stack up with other schools at the time? Who could afford it? What sort of boys got scholarships, and how many?
 * Added a note on the amount subject to inflation. Other details not known.
 * I'm struggling to find good sources for this one: there's some raw data here, which is not particularly usable in its current state but does have a data source (Whittaker's Almanac) that could be followed up if desired. A bit above and beyond for the current exercise, but it does show that Latymer fees were pretty middle-of-the-pack in the mid C20th. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed.


 * : was that usual in 1895? Do we know if they taught anything else?
 * The claim implies innovation, i.e. it was not usual at that time. These were the unusual highlights, so the reader can presume, probably correctly, that the other subjects were the usual ones from English and Mathematics onwards.


 * : this is the first we have heard about religion at the school. Can anything be said a little earlier?
 * The fact that there wasn't a chapel in the original buildings says something about how secular the school was, but we can't say that without an explicit source.
 * Can we find a source which gives the original buildings and note that they didn't include a chapel? It would probably be easy enough to find another source that points out that most public schools did have one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone state the negative in so many words (people usually don't say what isn't present); what we have is the later addition of an ad-hoc chapel, which clearly implies that there hadn't been one before; and indeed, there's no trace of one in the current building.


 * : it might be worth saying a little about how "merit" was determined (and, if you wish, to point out that grammar schools, while good for social mobility, were and are hardly perfect meritocracies).
 * Added.


 * : for those not familiar with the British system, I would clarify a) how old these pupils are and b) that this is the normal point of entry into secondary school. Likewise, in a moment, with Year 11.
 * Wikilinked.


 * Spell out HMC on first use.
 * Done.


 * The "Student Body" section is very brief, and I'm not sure about the NPOV of giving it almost entirely over to the school's own PR team, even if that statement is well qualified. Can we say anything about its numbers and demographics, for example? How many are on bursaries (this comes later, though without a date: better here?)? Some of this stuff should be in the ISI report.
 * Removed. The later stuff is all that's needed.


 * Similarly, the finances section. Do we have any historic data, or sense of how the school's wealth compares with others? Did they have any involvement in the price-fixing scandal?
 * No, not least because the school has switched between income models. It was not involved in price-fixing.
 * The section does seem pretty bare on the school's actual finances: crudely, how much money has it got? Most of these schools publish quite detailed reports for their foundations, particularly for bursary appeals, which will give an indication of reserves, turnover, bursary funds etc. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added brief details on income, surplus over expenditure, and bursaries. I'm rather reluctant to list figures in an article as they go stale quite quickly and don't say much about the school as such, but I guess it's good to know the parents and alumni have a conscience and the place is well-run.


 * The Duke of Edinburgh's Award is now formally called "DofE", though I can see the benefits to using the "full" name.
 * Noted.


 * : when was that, for those of us not up on our royal jubilees?
 * Added.


 * : MOS:HYPHEN says not to bother when it's with a regular -ly adverb.
 * Fixed.


 * A few sentences on the facilities read a bit promotional, like they might come from a school PR person. See, for example, : we could more neutrally say that the architects were these people and it took them ten years.
 * Done.


 * should be in language templates. The use of bold text for emphasis is discouraged for accessibility: the em template is an option.
 * Added.


 * : this is sourced to Tatler, and is twelve years old. Can we have a more authoritative and recent source?
 * Archived (per the next). The source is authoritative as it's extremely public and close to the target audience of public school parents.
 * I'm not seeing how that fits into our sense of WP:HQRS -- our standards are to do with the degree of editorial review and fact-checking the source can expect. Tatler is not an academic publication: being well-known and beloved of private-school parents is interesting, but gives it the same level of academic credibility as (say) the Daily Mail, Nigella Lawson or a Labrador. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing the magazine (high society chat, no academic about it) with the Guide to schools which is sold alongside it. The Guide caters for a real, wealthy, and discerning audience who want to know the best places to school their children, so it is effectively ruthlessly reviewed every time it is consulted and trusted: if it was inaccurate, it would have died long ago, but it has persisted for many years now.
 * I don't disagree, but I'm still not seeing anything here that fits with WP:HQRS ('reviewed' in its context refers to internal processes like peer review, not readers and commentators critiquing it after publication). I'd be happy with something like "the Tatler Schools Guide rated it one of the top academic schools in the country", which is perfectly verifiable and within the weight that our evidence can bear, but not to present its being "one of the best" as a matter of fact (especially because the data is so old: a lot has changed in education since 2012). <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, done.
 * Done on second mention, but not where quoted in this comment, which is sourced to the same place. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merged.


 * : this seems to be a 2012 article, but the link is dead.
 * Removed the date.


 * : increasing is pretty meaningless unless we can say what it increased from and to. This is another section that smells a little of school prospectus to me.
 * Edited.


 * Seems to be rather little on sport in the article body, given the amount of ink that gets spilled on school rugby and cricket, in particular?
 * The focus is obviously on the school and academia, but sport gets a fair mention.


 * Why is "Year" capitalised in the tables?
 * Fixed.


 * The GCSE table seems to be sourced, but the A-Level one doesn't.
 * Both are covered, repeated ref for clarity.


 * I wouldn't use an ampersand in body text.
 * Fixed.


 * Date ranges need endashes, not hyphens.
 * Fixed with a global search, feel free to fix others if I missed any.


 * Suggest giving birth dates, where known, for living alumni.
 * Noted.


 * The title is General Secretary of the Labour Party: I can't see much reason to invent a new one rather than giving it as such.
 * Fixed.


 * decap Ophthalmology.
 * Done.


 * The Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums isn't mentioned at all in the article. Can we say anything about the relationship between the two schools.
 * Twinning (as with twinned towns) is a pretty marginal thing that may involve the occasional visit; it does not imply any sort of academic co-ordination or governance.
 * I understand, but it does sometimes represent a long-term relationship that has a story to it, which is sometimes to be found in school histories, magazines and so on. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll read on, if I come across an item on it sometimes I'll cite it (but don't hold your breath).


 * Sourcing: one or two errors (endashes, not hyphens, needed in page ranges; a couple of ALL CAPS titles; 83 is missing its url.
 * Fixed several, feel free to make tweaks if you see any others.


 * There seems to be a tiny bit in here that mentions Latymer in the context of IB vs A-Levels: it's a while since I read it, but it might also be good for some broader context on public school history. See also here (some more detail on who qualifies for bursaries) and, partisan in the other direction, this general history.
 * I think the wider context is best left to Wikipedia's wider articles. Latymer is in terms of its history not at all a typical public school, in that it has been in and out of the state system (and is a day school).


 * In general, I'm a little concerned by how much of the article depends on sources that are not independent of the subject. I understand that, by the nature of the beast, the school is more interested in itself than most people are in it, but there does seem to be some NPOV knock-on from the self-interested nature of the sources currently employed.
 * These have been cut down; obviously the school has to be accurate in its facts, but effectively salesy as well; I think we've cut out all the sales talk now.


 * A couple of other possible sources, in no particular order: here, here, here,, here (much less rosy than we have been about the Direct Grant), here. Not all seem to be easy to get hold of, unfortunately, and no guarantees that this particular school will feature heavily in them.
 * Noted.


 * A lot of the URLs seem to be dead links. Advise checking the ones that aren't archived.
 * Checked and archived several.


 * : I don't see this supported in the cited source.
 * Fixed.


 * : do I take it right that it was changed back? What was it in 2004?
 * Found and added a newer source. It was the crest that has been changed, twice, not back to the original; in 2004 the motto was dropped from the crest design, and it hasn't been restored, but it's still the school's motto.


 * In BrE, the St in St Paul's usually doesn't have a dot after it, as it's not an initialism.
 * Fixed.


 * This lot seems to be cited to the wrong source: none of it is in the article cited. I suspect the bit about "the examined subjects" is meant to go with the information about Y6>7 transition: it's oddly out of place at the moment. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 16:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Repositioned, reworded, cited.

I enjoyed reading this one: most of the above is fairly small nit-picks, though I think the neutrality aspect perhaps needs a little more thought and attention. Please do let me know if I've been unclear or unfair on anything. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 22:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, very helpful. I believe I've addressed all the items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A few replies above, though I haven't gone through this in full. Will get to the rest when I can. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 13:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Image Review
I notice that several of the pictures are your own work: kudos for doing that on top of working on the article itself!


 * Alt texts should be added for accessibility.
 * Not a GA requirement, please feel free to add them.
 * File:Latymer Upper School coat of arms 2020 –.png: this is much too elaborate a logo to qualify under PD-textlogo, and UK law is difficult here anyway -- see Threshold of originality.
 * Replaced license with NFUR.
 * The FUR argues that the image is essential to understanding the subject of the article. That only really applies when the article is about the image (e.g. if this were "Coat of arms of the Latymer Upper School"), not when the image simply depicts the subject of the article. We could perhaps use a photograph of the school itself in the infobox and link to an external image of the crest when discussing the crest itself? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect that isn't the point here; nor is that a workable solution. Public school articles normally include the school crest, and the device certainly serves the function of identifying the school, being the central element of the school's insignia and colour scheme, so it'd just be strange not to include it; and saying we can point somewhere or other for people to go to is certainly not Wikipedia's approach. I've extended the NFUR to explain the rationale in more detail.
 * I can see this one both ways: honestly, I'm still not totally convinced (if this were a BLP, we wouldn't be able to add a non-free image of the person on the grounds that biographies usually have such images, so the underlying rationale is a bit dubious), but there's at least a plausible case under all ten points of WP:NFCC, so I think it should be let go for now. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Edward Latymer deed of conveyance 1627.png: all checks out.
 * File:Butterwick House by Robert Schnebbelie 1839.png: happy here.
 * File:Bradmore House, Hammersmith, April 1904 by Philip Norman.jpg: as a formality, needs a US PD tag.
 * Added.
 * File:Schoolhouse in churchyard of St Paul's, Hammersmith.png: checks out.
 * File:3 Latymer Schools map.svg: can we have a source for the data in this map?
 * Added.
 * File:Latymer Upper School 1800s.png: this is tagged as fair use: I don't see that it meets WP:NFCC in context, however. Specifically, the FUR doesn't demonstrate that it clears the bar of Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. For photographs of a person, for example, we can only use them if a) the person is no longer alive and no free-use image of them exists, and b) we are using this image as the "primary means of visual identification" of that person in the article. We either need a much more compelling rationale why this image must be included and only this image will do, or to find a new one.
 * Replaced with a modern image.
 * And that image checks out. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Old Building Doorway, Latymer Upper School.jpg: checks out.
 * File:Latymer Performing Arts Centre, Hammersmith, London.jpg: checks out.
 * File:Joshua Rozenberg.jpg: seems to check out, though very few details are given as to its context of taking.
 * File:Hugh Grant '11.jpg: checks out and WMF verified.
 * File:Alan Rickman after Seminar (1).jpg: checks out.
 * File:Arlo Parks (headshot).jpg: checks out.
 * File:Raphael Wallfisch Portrait.jpeg: checks out and WMF verified.
 * File:Hestonregentspark.jpg: checks out.
 * File:James Cuthbert (Jim) Smith.jpg: checks out and WMF verified.
 * File:Frederick Vine.png: the source page says Esta licença veda a cópia e/ou redistribuição do vídeo. Esta licença não permite o download do vídeo por nenhum usuário., which Google Translate gives as This license prohibits copying and/or redistribution of the video. This license does not allow any user to download the video.. What reason do we have to believe it's been released under CC 1.0, as the Commons page claims?
 * Replaced him with pic of Peter Walker.
 * I don't see it, but it's equally find to have no image here. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Added him.

Source review to follow, but probably after next week. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 15:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Some pretty major problems here:


 * The entirety of "Latymer Charity School, St Paul's churchyard, Hammersmith" and indeed almost all of the "History" section seems to be copied from this source, which is cited in support.
 * The text is PD, but yes, it should have been attributed or paraphrased more thoroughly. It was added by an IP registered to Latymer Upper School on 10 Nov 2023, most likely by a member of staff, though a tame 6th-former is possible; we obviously want to be as polite as possible given their relationship to the article. It was as much as I could do to get them to provide a citation, the copying thing didn't occur to me at that moment; and as it was about their own school, I doubt they had even heard of the possibility of CV or plagiarism. I've trouted them and paraphrased the PD text.


 * Almost none of the final paragraph in "Latymer Upper School, King Street" is supported by the cited source.
 * Checked, edited, rearranged the citations, added new sources.


 * Likewise, almost none of the "coat of arms" section is supported by the cited source.
 * I've checked and rewritten it more simply, and added a page number, but the sources cover all the details.

That's three red flags from three checks, and these are no small issues -- I think the only thing to be done in this situation is to fail the review without prejudice so that you can work on it, address any similar issues in other parts of the article, and re-nominate when it's ready. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Given that this wasn't a copyvio, the instant fail does seem slightly inappropriate really.
 * I'm afraid I only did the re-read of that source, in which I noticed it wasn't strictly a copyvio, after failing the review: there's no mechanism to un-fail it, unfortunately. Perhaps there was a case for leaving it open and working on the issues, but equally re-writing (at least) a whole section is probably more a matter for PR than GAN. I'll note that I don't see that the other two sourcing issues are yet fixed, but another reviewer may take a different view. Assuming you do nominate it again, very happy for you to ping me for a second look, though equally I'd completely understand if you'd prefer someone else to do the job. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One just undoes it and has another go. I've reworked the text and refs for all three issues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , well, seeing as how we were 95% of the way through, I've fixed the issues, and the rest is unchanged, you might as well finish the job really. I've renominated it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)