Talk:Nottingham College

Assessment
I am assessing this article after a request as Start / Mid. Quite a strong article, and reasonably well referenced. For improvement I suggest the article is expanded to include more on the NCN group itself, such as the awards received and curriculum of this coalition. I notice also that all the references are primary as they are from the NCN site - more secondary sources are needed. Giving Mid importance as group does appear to have significance. Camaron1 | Chris 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Partial clean up
I have partially  rewritten  the article by   moving sentences around into  paragraphs and creating  a more coherent  structure. It's not complete and much attention  is also still  required to  inline references and sources, and their correct  display. The infobox is the wrong template for tis article. See WP:SCHOOLS. --Kudpung (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New College Nottingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331154815/http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_edu/pdfs/research_pdfs/NEWS-RELEASE.pdf to http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/shared/shared_edu/pdfs/research_pdfs/NEWS-RELEASE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nottingham College.png

Advise for new editors, and tutors asking their students to edit.
See:

This can be found in Commons:Category:Wikimedia UK training booklets

There is a mass of help material available

Giving Structure to the article
But what do we do with Nottingham College? The four downloadable prospecti give some useful information, and can be used sparingly as references but we need secondary sources to establish quality. That is my framework plan. Other editors welcome, particularly ones who know more about the college, have relevant photos or can write decent prose and spot typos.ClemRutter (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We can start by explaining what an FE college is and what a linked HE college does, from an international perspective. We can target the language more generally. We must explain their functions, etc.
 * We need a description of the structure of the college, the SMT responsibilities, the faculty structure. We need to explain accountability- the difference in OFSTED requirements, and the pastoral needs and arrangements in the different levels.
 * At the moment we have a list of venues. I see that we need focus when discussing the venues- the City Hub, I think can do this. By detailed discussion on the future plans and which staff will be affected by the opening of the new venue we can explain the deficiencies that the college sites are suffering at the moment.
 * We can then pile in with some heavy statistics and comparisons.
 * Implications for Nottingham economy, social structure and architecture
 * Links with other FE and HE providers.

Why has the High Pavement Grammar School/Forest Fields Grammar School alumni been associated with Nottingham College?
To me this makes no sense at all. High Pavement Sixth Form wasn't part of New College Nottingham until 1999, so is it really accurate to state alumni from the grammar school that New College Nottingham had nothing to do with officially until 1999? I understand alumni that may have been associated with either heritage college (Central College Nottingham or New College Nottingham) like in the beginning of the notable alumni section but the grammar school references make no sense and are a bit misleading. I wouldn't class them as heritage when the entity this article is about didn't even have ownership at the time!

Jamesmacwhite (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Entire section deleted by an employee of the College
In this edit dated 18 July 2022, college employee has deleted a headed, sourced section of 3,376 bytes with the following (partial) edit summary: "...this has been written from a very one sided view from a UCU perspective, mentioning very niche events which only those either being UCU members or employees of the college at the time would really fully understand the context of..."

I consider this to be partisan editing, and possibly contrary to WP:NPOV. I have reverted the deletion. Wikipedia contributors can only use sourced content, and cannot opine whether these reports are fair or biased. To delete the section suggests a reverse-bias. I've added appropriate top-tags to the article and Talk page (don't know why these were absent?).

A quick view of Jamesmacwhite's work list shows a notional 90+% SPA - single purpose account. I am concerned that the account has continued to be used to such a great extent without restrictions after being picked up for Conflict of Interest in 2018. My understanding is that a paid editor declaration is not the same as a licence to continue? Courtesy ping to who is inactive presently.

I suggest no further direct edits should be made. Instead, Template:Request edit should be used, which will attract attention from impartial editors. I am not personally able to continue in this regard.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)