Talk:St Mary's Menston Catholic Voluntary Academy

Notable staff/pupils
Shouldn't these all have citations?--Esemgee (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

They do now--User:Crex44 (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (GMT)

Assessment
I'm assessing this article for WikiProject Schools following a request. Firstly, due to the well cited and long list of notable alumni, I am giving this school article mid-importance for the project. On assessment ratings, I have decided to give this article C-class, and with work it could be B-class. Its good to see a school article which is generally well referenced, with the alumni section being particularly impressive, though I would recommend splitting-up notable pupils and staff into two sections. Use of citation templates would also look better and do generally referencing easier. The history section is a decent length though more references, and a greater variety of it, should be added if possible. Some other areas of the article need significant expansion - see WP:WPSCH/AG for ideas. The curriculum section does read a bit like something out of a school leaflet; the information here needs to be more specific and written in a neutral tone. Finally, I would suggest if possible taking some pictures of the school (with a camera) and then uploading them to Wikimedia Commons ready for use in the article if possible. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Aerial photo
I have an aerial photo of the school site I took in 2003. I will upload it to Wikimedia commons. Should it go in a school site section or the History section? Barracsj01 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I have added the photo in a school site section Barracsj01 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Curriculum Section content
What kind of thing should go in the curriculum section? If it's not meant to be the kind of thing that would be in a prospectus I can't think what should go in there.Crex44 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:WPSCH/AG should give you a brief review of what is needed in the curriculum section. Try to stick to bare facts, in other words, a simple description of what the school teaches from year to year - the second paragraph of the existing section is along the right lines. The curriculum section should probably include academic performance, so there shouldn't be need for a separate section for that. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-assessment
It has been requested that I re-assess the article. This article is coming along nicely, and I would say it is very close to B-class. The main issue remaining is that there are still some clear gaps in referencing, particularly in the history section, that need to be ironed out. Also, although not required for B-class, I still recommend using citation templates such as or. Please feel free to drop a note at WP:WPSCH/A or at User talk:CT Cooper if any further help is desired. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 17:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

School name
I don't think it needs to say (formerly St. Mary's Catholic High School) at the start of the article because it was only called that from September 2011 - February 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.77.48 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be somewhere in the article that this was a former name and it is currently only in the lead. Keith D (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)