Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford

Re-write
Over the last few weeks I have generally re-written the article to better comply with wiki policy and contain much more detail with better referencing. I have also removed the multiple issues tags as these are no longer relevant.

I have also removed the copyrighted school logo and replaced it with a free image of the coat of arms of Edward VI which performs the same function, (looks better) and is as relevant if not more than the current logo as it is more timeless.

I also propose to move the list of alumni to a separate article, as it is poorly referenced, and brings the overall article standard down. This would be follow the pattern set by other article within the WikiSchools project which have a GA status, also if this list is not updated as regularly as the rest of the article it would not affect the main article. As such I plan to do this 7 days from now unless there are any objections. TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now moved the Alumni section to List of Old Guildfordians TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Assessment
I am assessing this article for the Schools project based on a request filed there. I am bumping this article up to a "C" rating. There is absolutely no reason to downgrade importance. An expert in UK schools might review the importance of this article and consider if this school might be eligible for "Top" importance, though this is only granted to a very limited number of schools in any given nation. The school's history and association with cricket might make it eligible, but I do not think I am in a position to make that call.

For a school of 500 years old, I find the history section to be rather short. This may be due to a lack of reliable sources being available. There is still a great deal of the article which needs to be referenced. The associated list of alumni includes a great many non-notable alumni which need to be removed. Many more need to be referenced properly.

While school articles need to be very careful about incorporating too much about sports/extra-curriculars, I found myself amazed that this school gave birth to cricket, but no more than 1-2 sentences discuss this. I would hope that good sources could expand this into its own small section (perhaps in the history section).

To get it up to a "B" class, editors are encouraged to consult the criteria for B-class articles. I wish editors the best of luck in their editing this very important school article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also asked to re-assess the article, but it looks like LonelyBeacon got here before me. I would say that the article is definitely of at least high-importance, and certainly some consideration should be given on giving it top-importance, though the school is not quite as well known as some top-importance schools such as Eton College.

There are certainly gaps in the article with need for expansion expansion, for instance the history section jumps from 1598 to 1866. The article on the whole is well referenced with use of citation templates, though some of the references could use with more fields being filled in, see the documentation of. Avoid external links within the prose, and in particularly "click here" type references as present in the "Charitable status and public benefit" section. The "Headmasters of the Royal Grammar School (1554 - Present day)" section currently just links to the sub-article, there should be a brief summary in the main article per WP:SUMMARY. On the whole though, I would the argue the article is suitable for B-class. There is need for expansion, and some less important sections might be missing, but the referencing and coverage does meet the required standards in my opinion. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much for having a look at the article, with regards to the History section, there appears to be no reliable sources documenting anything from about 1610 up until 1860, so I'm not really sure what can be done to rectify that gap? But there are plenty of sources either side, so more info can be added into there. I've had a look at the 'B' class criteria, and i'm not quite sure what more needs to be done to this article for it to reach this class? Thanks TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can't find any sources, then there is little that can be done. The school might have some kind of archive on it's history, though getting access could be a challenge, so I think it is best to presume for the moment while assessing the article that there are no sources for that time period. I think LonelyBeacon's main concern with this article were the gaps in coverage, though given that a dead end has been reached on the history section, and my earlier comments, I will give this article B-class. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a GA review, but...
I saw this was listed for GA status, so I thought I'd take a look. I fixed some of the more obvious spelling errors and removed some of the more pointless wikilinks, although a further copy-edit would probably be a good idea. Here are few comments / suggestions which may help regular editors of the article / the GA reviewer:
 * The overall impression I get is that there is too much about trivialities of school life. Do we need all the information about school life / sports / ties etc?
 * Phrases such as "RGS is one of the most academic schools in the country" and "Sport plays an integral part of life at the RGS" are crying out for sources. Without them, it risks reading more like an uncritical brochure than an encyclopaedic article.
 * Other sections, such as "Old Guildfordians", and "Clubs and societies" (if kept) need sources.
 * "The Mayor and Approved Men of Guildford" - why these capital letters?
 * "a large amount of time at the Kings manor house in Guildford" - should this be "King's"?
 * although obtaining these books was not without its difficulties." Explain, please.
 * however a 20 acres (8.1 ha) site, called Bradstone Brook, located a few miles away in the village of Chilworth." Incomplete sentence.

I suggest looking at Chetham's School of Music and Wisbech Grammar School, two other English school GAs, for example, for comparison purposes. At the moment, I don't think the article is of GA standard. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for having a look over the article, comments like this are just what it needs! I've fixed a few of the issues, but you could possibly clarify some points for me:


 * The overall impression I get is that there is too much about trivialities of school life. Do we need all the information about school life / sports / ties etc?
 * -I can see exactly where you are coming from with regards to unnecessary information, would you be able to give me an idea of exactly which sections you think need less detail/removing, so I can have a look at pruning, my only reservation is that removing a lot of the information about the current state would turn the article into mostly a history of the school article? But I would appreciate your thoughts on this. ❌
 * I would have thought that, if you can't find outside sources on a particular point, that might be an indication of excessive detail. I would suggest keeping material that is only based to a school source to a minimum, to the key details about the school. BencherliteTalk 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as "RGS is one of the most academic schools in the country" and "Sport plays an integral part of life at the RGS" are crying out for sources. Without them, it risks reading more like an uncritical brochure than an encyclopaedic article.
 * -I have deleted the second of these, and will have a look for appropriate sourcing for the first one, but if none is found I will remove it. ✅
 * Both statements have now been removed. TheAuthor22 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other sections, such as "Old Guildfordians", and "Clubs and societies" (if kept) need sources.
 * -I assume the "if kept" applies to "Clubs and Societies"? For the "Old Guildfordians" section all those mentioned within it are referenced on their own article pages, so should the refs be duplicated into this article? ✅
 * Yes, and yes the references need to be repeated here. BencherliteTalk 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Mayor and Approved Men of Guildford" - why these capital letters?
 * -Its how it is officially written on the charter, and cited in some of the sources (although some others do not have capitals). It most likely stems from old english, which capitalised all proper nouns like modern german. For this I would say leave it, as it in this situation it is technically correct. ✅
 * ''"a large amount of time at the Kings manor house in Guildford"
 * - should this be "King's"?'' Yes it should, fixed. ✅
 * although obtaining these books was not without its difficulties." Explain, please.
 * -This is mentioned in one of the references, I'll either find the explanation, or remove. ✅
 * Expanded and referenced TheAuthor22 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * however a 20 acres (8.1 ha) site, called Bradstone Brook, located a few miles away in the village of Chilworth." Incomplete sentence.
 * -Fixed ✅


 * Thanks. TheAuthor22 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of replies. BencherliteTalk 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Assessment
I have been asked to review this article by Glanis. The article certainly is very different from when I saw it last, and is beyond B-class and looks impressive - I see a potential featured article here. I have difficulty finding fault with the page, though GAs aren't my speciality and other editors might well do. On the issue of the lead, it is of a more suitable length than it was and should be of decent enough quality for GA. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I see Kudpung has given some extra pointers, which I agree with. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 12:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)