Talk:Rossall School/GA1

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

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. The article is written for the reader, and this is a welcome breath of fresh air; The layout and design makes the prose accessible and facilitates comprehension. Clearly, the three peer reviews have finally paid off with eye candy combined with a rewarding read. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well written

 * Lead issues below. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Some layout issues with images. See image section. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jargon is still a problem (O.R., old boys, etc.) Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * I don't see any criticism in the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

 * Everything looks ok, although some captions may require expansion. Otherwise, ok for now.  Except for File:Rossall Crest2.jpg and File:RossallObservatory.jpg, all images are eligible to be moved to Commons. I've also adjusted the observatory image so that it does not exceed the original resolution. Viriditas (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most images are right-aligned except for the astronomy section. Why? Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * Why is it necessary to both link to public school and state that Rossall is "an independent school in England"? Also, why does the link go to Independent_school_(UK) instead of just Independent school (UK)?  We don't need the link and the parenthetical explanation in the lead; One or the other will do, or combine both, please.  Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its establishment was "to provide, at a moderate cost, for the sons of Clergymen and others, a classical, mathematical and general education of the highest class, and to do all things necessary, incidental, or conducive to the attainment of the above objects."
 * A four line quote without a blockqoute in the lead? Perhaps this mission statement might be fine in the body, but it's not necessary in the lead section.  I'm sure the main points can be summarized and paraphrased without the quote in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rossall has constantly adapted itself to different attitudes in education over the years
 * Is this statement sourced in the body? Viriditas (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

History

 * The idea of founding a boarding school on the Fylde coast initially came from a Corsican called Zenon Vantini who owned the local North Euston Hotel in Fleetwood.
 * And it goes on like this for three paragraphs until we find out what century we're talking about. Please introduce the reader to the date in the first sentence. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * O.R...old boys...
 * The problem with writing like this is that you have to introduce the reader to the concept of Old Rossallians, before you use the term. The term is being used in section 2, but isn't explained in the article at all except for being named for section 6. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In December 2007 it was announced that headmaster, Tim Wilbur, would be leaving at the end of the academic year. The new headmaster is Dr Stephen Winkley, formerly Second Master at Winchester College, Headmaster of Uppingham School and Chairman of the Boarding School Association.
 * See WP:RECENT. Content needs to be written using an incremental, temporarally neutral approach. It is now 2009, and getting closer to 2010, and the words "it was announced" and "would be leaving" are already outdated: "In 2007, headmaster Tim Wilbur left at the end of the academic year.  As of 2009, the current headmaster is Stephen Winkley..."Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1945 to present
 * No sources in the first and second paragraphs. Fourth paragraph uses an external link to Boarding School Association, as if that is somehow important to the reader. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Campus

 * Good use of sources, but increasing the image size like this pushes the photos out of their respective sections, which isn't necessarily a problem, but the layout here could use some cleanup, or not, depending on how you look at it. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rossall today

 * Looks ok so far, but I haven't finished checking out the sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

School terms

 * Is everything in this section sourced? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Houses

 * Why doesn't the lead paragraph here have sources? Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Old Rossallians

 * Random use of uppercase letters in list entry description. Any particular reason? Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we need this list when we have a separate article already. Please use prose with a trimmed, embedded list instead.  And add sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Headmasters of Rossall

 * Please add a source(s) for the table. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence House Astronomy & Space Science Centre

 * Possibly because of its emphasis on practical astronomy as a subject, Rossall School was depicted as the school attended by Dan Dare, the fictional space hero in The Eagle comic who was a favourite character of boys of the 1950s–60s.
 * Sources? Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Work
I'll take a look at these suggestions tomorrow. -- Secisek (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. I was going to put it up for a second opinion if nobody chimed in.  I'll take another look later tonight and see if I can't help improve it a bit more. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've formally requested a second opinion. I do not personally believe that the article meets the GA criteria at this time, but it is so close to passing, I'm afraid my strict reading of the article is interfering with my judgment.  Therefore, I respectfully request the input of another GA reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of issues raised by you which seem to have gone unanswered. Lack of refs, improper ref formatting, improper capitalization, and the list goes on. I, personally am willing to give editors more leeway with the "seven day limit" for making improvements, but if nobody has even expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days of your review (and it seems that is the case here), then I would go ahead and fail the article. The nominator can then renominate at a later date, after these issues have been addressed. It certainly should not be passed in its current state. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would stand by your reading of the article Viriditas - my personal dislikes would include the lack of refs at the ends of paragraphs and the external links in the prose. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)