Talk:Malvern College/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Begoon &#149; talk  06:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

General points
In general, excellent grammar, spelling and use of prose - well written article, pleasant to read. There are a few points I feel need addressing - listed below the General Review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  ( - comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): ( - comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) ) b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  - ( - comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - ( - all comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  - ( - comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - ( - all comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: - ( - all comments now addressed -  - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )

Specific review points

 * The Events section has no references.


 * I know about  this; It  was in  the original  stub  when we completely  rewrote and expanded he article. We  have been unable to  find sources, and assume these iteme were added by  alumni. Secondary  schools a re de facto  notable, but  as this item  is not  directly  sourced, if you  feel  strongly  about it, it will  just  have to  go.--Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not controversial, and I wouldn't personally fail it just for that. If anyone feels it is controversial, then it would need to be sourced, but imo it should otherwise be retained, since deleting information believed in good faith to be correct seems wrong to me. I'd be open to other views, but that's my take on it.  Begoon &#149; talk  08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Consider including an Admissions section, ✅ - admissions section written, added,  and referenced.--Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

and possibly Governance (these 2 are suggestions for improvement - not mandatory) ✅ - added, but it is only  a very  short section. --Kudpung (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * History Section - capitalisation of terms like Sports Complex, Boarding Houses, Prep School, where they apply to the school, but not where they apply to other schools - is this appropriate capitalisation? ✅ - al decapitalised.


 * Items in lead section but not mentioned in article:
 * it was one of the twenty four Public Schools listed in the Public Schools Yearbook of 1889. ✅ Removed to History section.
 * An Ofsted report, following a February 2010 inspection, rated the school against specific criteria and assigned an overall quality rating of Grade 2 (good) with Grade 2 (good) ratings for organisation and health and safety provision and Grade 1 (outstanding) ratings for "helping children to achieve", to "make a positive contibution" and to "enjoy what they do" ✅ Removed to new section  'performance'.--Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The Ofsted site lists the latest report as Feb 2008 (not 2010) - . The link in the article bizarrely took me to a report for Brent Foster Care! (possibly Ofsted have revised their sitelinks since it was added - the URN (unique number part of the url) is the same). I have altered the link in the ref to the one that works for me, and amended the article. The details of this report are as the article describes.  Begoon &#149; talk  09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * History section - Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. note - this can be found in many review checklists - whilst it's probably not hard and fast, in this case the images "sandwich" the text with the infobox - in Google Chrome at least - may help here. ✅ -  moved


 * Activities - short section ✅ -expanded. Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing comments
Thank you for addressing all of the review concerns so thoroughly, and quickly. I have closed the review as passed, with no outstanding concerns that would prevent me from doing so.

I encourage, as ongoing improvement, the addition of any references which can be found to the Events section, and the expansion, if possible of the Governance section, and, obviously, improvement to the article should continue in general.

I have enjoyed reviewing this well written article. Begoon &#149; talk 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)