Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the next few days and then start to make some comments.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments
I'll put various comments and observations here as I read through. Some may be general observations not related to GA criteria. All observations are open for discussion. I will provide a separate section later with a summary of specific GA requirements.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Images are OK. The image - View towards the First XI cricket - should be moved to Commons.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been some inappropriate edits by IP accounts, though these have been dealt with promptly and are within what would be expected for a Wiki article on a school so I don't think the article needs protection, though if it increases then protection should be applied for.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:SEEALSO and remove links that are not appropriate, or mention them in the body of the article. I don't see a need for any of the links to be in the See also section. If the link is important enough to be mentioned, then it should be in the body of the article. If it is felt important enough to mention that To be a Pilgrim is the school hymn, then mention it in the article with perhaps a bit of context - how long it has been the school hymn, etc.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead sections tend to be mentioned in GA reviews a lot as there is sometimes a mistaken belief that the lead is only a quick introduction; however, the Wikipedia requirement is more demanding than that. The lead should serve as a stand alone article, giving a summary of all the important details mentioned in the article. Many readers do do have the time or inclination to go beyond the lead. What is mentioned in the lead should be also mentioned in the article, and all important information should be briefly mentioned in the lead. If there is a section in the article, then that section should be summarised in the lead. If it is felt the section is too trivial to be mentioned in the lead, then it is worth considering if the section is needed. See WP:Lead for more details.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The History section is quite long compared to the rest of the article. Consideration should be given to either developing the rest of the article, trimming the history section, or breaking it out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article - History of Royal Grammar School, Guildford.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a reference section and the bulk of the information is sourced; however, there are stray comments that deal with dates and data which need closer citing.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least one section in the article is a cut and paste of the source, which is a copyright violation. This needs to be dealt with as a priority. The section I found was regarding the 1962 fire, which copies this source. Editors involved in this article should know if there are others, and deal with them promptly.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "the first recorded game of cricket" - sources I have checked say that it is the first mention of cricket, rather than the first recorded game. The sources for this need to be stronger as well, as the dictionary is not an appropriate reference, as it is simply giving information which the reader has to interpret. You need reliable sources which explicitly state that the first recorded mention of cricket was at Guildford, and then you need to stick to the dates given in the source, and not give a date which has been calculated from the source. Making interpretations like this is considered WP:Original research - and is anyway not needed in this case, as there are plenty of sources which give the correct information.  SilkTork  *YES!
 * There needs to be some clarity regarding the date the school was founded. The article says "It was founded in 1509..", which is also what the school website claims, but that appears to be the date of the death of the sponsor, Robert Beckingham rather than the actual founding of the school, which appears to have been in 1512. I think the wording in the article needs to be careful, perhaps something like - "The school dates its founding to the death of Robert Beckingham in 1509 who left provision in his will to 'make a free scole at the Towne of Guldford'; in 1512 a governing body was set up to form the school."  SilkTork  *YES! 14:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The prose is clear and readable. There are minor punctuation errors. I've sorted those I noticed in the History section as I was reading through, though haven't checked the rest of the article. A good copy-edit would be useful. See Basic copyediting, and if help is needed, ask at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The mistakes I noted were minor, and wouldn't impact on the GA review, so the copyediting can be left to later if wished.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Broad coverage and focus. The article appears to cover what would be expected, though I'll do a little more background reading as this is a fairly important school. There are too many minor details at times - we don't need to know about the teachers involved in the fire in 1962 - and a careful read through to minimise such detail would be useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cricket
The school's website is incorrect in its reference to the law suit as saying that the dispute was regarding land belonging to the school. The sources do not say this. This is a helpful and detailed source, and it explains that the dispute was over a John Parrishe claiming land that was used by the people of Guildford. The school is mentioned because one witness remembers that when he was a pupil at the school he and some friends played on the common land. That he was a pupil at the school appears to be incidental. The game was played on common land, not school land. There seems to be no evidence that the cricket games were organised by the school. Other sources such as this are careful in how they present the information. We cannot read more into a source than what it says. It would be inappropriate to make a claim that cricket was played at the school when the evidence does not support this. The claim should be moved to the general article on Guildford and correctly presented.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have modified the claim so that it gives the school's connection without overplaying it. And it does appear that some sources, such as the school website, have misunderstood the situation to be that cricket was played at the school rather than on the common land. It might be appropriate to make some mention of that.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Other queries

 * Why isn't the school logo being used? Why is the Coat of Arms of England (1509-1554) used instead?  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was being used, but was replaced as it is a non-free image and at the time I felt that using the coat of arms of England (which appears above the schools main entrance and on the charter) would be better as it is a free alternative, that conveys the same message. GlanisTalk 19:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * School logo now used.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a much cleaner version of the school logo http://i1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee389/benstitch/RGS_logo.png I'm not yet confident enough to replace the existing image myself, however I believe this would provide a significant improvement over the image currently in use. Benstitch (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Image changed Benstitch (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where does "Schola Regia Gramaticalis Edvardi Sexti" come from? From what I have read so far it appears the school's original name was the Free School of Guildford.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just below the arms above the main entrance as can be seen here (You'll need to zoom in to see it). GlanisTalk 19:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources I've read indicate that the Free School was the original name, and that is how it is referred to in the cricket sources, so I have amended it. This is a useful source, and gives additional information, such as the original location of the school.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is still some copy-editing to be done. The Sport section has inappropriate capitals for various sports.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very little of the school's history appears in the lead, yet that is the bulk of the article. Could you summarise the school's history in the lead section please.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had another go at this, its now about two thirds on History, with more of the information in the section summarised. GlanisTalk 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will run through the article and put in fact tags at places where statements may reasonably be challenged - this will make it easier to identify where sources are needed.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked back at the article from just before the involvement of User:Glanis - - the improvements are impressive and Glanis/TheAuthor22 is to be heartily commended for some good work in the finest tradition of Wikipedia.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GA points
I'll put this on hold until March 3rd. I'll be away in France until then and so unable to deal with any queries, but messages can be left on my talkpage, and I'll deal with them when I get back.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Build the lead up per WP:Lead - OK
 * Source all statements that involve dates and data and opinions, and if in doubt, source it rather than leave it unsourced
 * Deal with the copyright violation issue and ensure no sentences in the article are copied from website or other sources - OK
 * Deal with links in See also section - OK
 * Cut out unnecessary detail
 * Check that all statements are appropriately sourced, and that the article is not making unwarranted interpretations - specificly, tidy up and appropriately source the cricket claim and the foundation date


 * Looking good. I'm just going to read through again. I still haven't put in those fact tags I said I would. I'll put some in now if I find I need to, and then make any other comments as they crop up.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the work you've been doing, its good to have a fresh set of eyes look over the article. I've now replaced all the fact tags with references, and changed the end date of the Nettles bursary as this was incorrect. GlanisTalk 20:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some points

 * 1) I know that our  is not  so  pretty, but  these boxes all  have different  embedded prorammes that  you  can't  see. The  has recently  been updated by  the programmers and should preferably  be used so  that  everything  works properly  for UK schools. If you want  me to  do  the change for you, let me know on  my  talk  page.
 * 2) Crest: There is a perfectly acceptable FUR at WP:WPSCH/INFOBOX that  is ready  to  copy, complete, and paste in  the image upload form. You  can rip  any  school  crest  from a school web site under this FUR. If you want  me to  do  this for you, let me know on  my  talk  page.
 * 3) Ref No.68 is behind a paywall. Perhaps you should mention this in brackets.
 * 4) Ref No.69 is behind a paywall. Perhaps you should mention this in brackets.
 * Done for both of the above
 * 1) Ref No.59 - RGS Admissions Policy (info) [rgs-guildford.co.uk] is is dead.
 * 2) Old Guidfordians: I would have though that  the standard header 'Alumni'  would have been more apt, and to explain the name in  the body  text  of the section.
 * I'm not sure about "Alumni" as that is a bit of an americanism and isn't really used commonly in british english for schools (universities is a different matter) as has been discussed in length here but I would agree that "Former Pupils" is probably more informative so I\ll change it to that. GlanisTalk 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm English and I use Alumni in the dozens of school articles I've written and repaired, but it's a matter of preference and not a GA criterion. Thanks for the heads up  on  the CfD -  I  don't  know how I  missed it. I've listed it  at  WT:WPSCH talk - if anything  like this comes up  again,  do  drop  us a note at  the project. --Kudpung (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, See: Malvern College (GA) --Kudpung (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Old Guildfordians: I'm not sure that  '...has been home to a number...' is the best  turn of phrase,  even  if it  was a boarding  school and they  were boarders. It  makes it sound a bit  like an orphanage ;)
 * I'll change that to "... has educated a number..." :) GlanisTalk 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The 'History'  section  is very  long  and could maybe divided into  sub  sections with  L3  sub headers (WP:MOSHEAD).
 * 2) 'Academic' section: '...and is one of the top-performing schools at both A-Level and GCSE level.' Of what? and where? It might  be expanded in the referenced source, but  this probably  needs to  be qualified in  the text.
 * 3) Sport: perhaps rewrite the short bulleted list as prose, per WP:MOS.
 * 4) Overall: In places, the prose leans away  from a tight  encyclopedic style, witut  however, becoming  overly  familiar. A point  to  consider. There is a least one place where it  rings, IHMO, slightly  promotional.
 * 5) It may  or may  not  help  the reviewer if you put   beside the items in  the main checklist  with  the icons, but  this depends on the reviewer's preference. It  may  also  assist  anyone else who  chimes in  to help out on  the GA.
 * I write comments in bullet points and sign and date each one to allow for comments to be made beneath, and for people to discuss, debate, agree or - as Kudpung suggests - tick them off.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The word grocer is a common noun in  regular parlance in  most  English  language regions and might  not  need Wikilinking  here. Even if the article were an WP:Orphan, it's probably not  the best  way  to  create backlinks. Check  for any  other overlinking.
 * Good luck, --Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC) (Disclaimer: Please note that these comments are offered in good faith and are only intended to  complement, but  not  influence  the reviewer's assessment). --Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung - all good points. And congrats on becoming an admin. That happened while I was in France, otherwise I would have supported you.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass
Well done, this now substantially meets GA criteria. For ongoing development look at the History section and consider creating sub-headings or developing it as a split off article per WP:Summary style; also consider doing a section on the buildings, as in City of London School, or at least a section on the site itself - the location, the layout, and the buildings. I have been impressed at the development of this article, and - having looked at the contribution history of Glanis - to note that this is the first article Glanis has been involved with. An impressive achievement that promises well for the future. Not many editors gain a Good Article within 3 months of joining the project!

There was still a bit of tidying up to do, particularly in regard to copy-editing. Even though encouraged to do so, not all GA reviewers get involved in correcting errors, and even those who are happy to fix some minor errors might not be keen on doing a thorough copy-edit of a long article. Copy-editing is not to everyone's taste, and if not keen on doing it oneself then it is advisable to ask somebody who is - WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are happy to help out. It is always good to ask for some form of peer review, either formally from Peer review or from knowledgeable individuals. You will soon learn which people will glance at an article and say "that's nice", and which will read an article with a critical eye and leave useful comments. Kudpung is someone that I have noted will give a good critical view and will help out on editing, so would be a good person to keep in touch with.

I look forward to seeing more GA nominations from Glanis.  SilkTork  *YES! 13:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I do come back occasionally and read GA reviews, and it is rather obvious who "You will soon learn which people will glance at an article and say "that's nice", and which will read an article with a critical eye and leave useful comments." was aimed at. I'm sorry that my reviewing skills don't meet some users standards, but Glanis left me a request to review the article and I wasn't going to ignore it. For the record, I did read the article, and I have left useful comments on a great deal many articles. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)