Talk:The Petersfield School

Staff List
Is this entirely necessary? It doesn't add much to the article, and makes it rather bulky and unsightly. Perhaps a seperate article linked to this one detailing staff list? Steady.eddie 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in this article
I have edited the article so some sections no longer read as an advertisement. This will make it easier to expand this article in the future. Camaron1 | Chris 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Start class
Original assessment: I think this article only merits a stub class as it gives only one real paragraph. Needs references and a lot more content. Pictures and an infobox would also be good. Adam McCormick 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have upgraded this article to start class following an assessment request at WP Schools. The article now has some good elements and the referencing is developing nicely. More content is needed, especially on the history of the school, the curriculum, etc. Dahliarose (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the assessment. It is clear this is no longer a Stub, after revising WP:ASSESS though to be honest I think this would meet C-class now. It has in-line citations, is generally MOS compliant, and covers most topics. It does have a quite few gaps, but the level of coverage is acceptable for C-class. I will keep working on it anyway. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
I am assessing this article following a request at WP:WPSCH/A, and reviewing it against the B-class criteria:

Mostly very good work on the references, a few things could use more references, it would be nice to have more citations for the info about the fields/tesco store. Also, the "King's Arms" while I can't tell with the houses since it isn't an online source, it seems unclear whether the source has the names of the houses or just info that the new house system had begun. Also, there is an "citation needed" template in line of the text. The article provides a fairly comprehensive sounding, and concise overview of the school. I don't know much about he school so I can't say for sure there are no obvious omissions or inaccuracies, but the citations I checked substantiated the article. While there may be a few things that would be nice to have cited, I don't see anything major. Information about the curriculum would be nice, as well as info about the athletic program referred to in the "History" section. Easily passes this. Would be nice if the citation after the third paragraph in the history section was attached to something rather than on its own line, but that is minor. No grammatical errors or flaws popped out at me, that said, that doesn't mean there aren't any. I think the article has a nice flow to it. There is a decent info box, although perhaps more info could be added. I am not very versed in school stats from the UK so I cannot say much on this. Two images seems to be enough for an article of that length... I don't see any issues here.
 * Criterion 1: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as "cite web" is not required, but the use of tags is encouraged. ✅
 * Criterion 2: The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. ✅
 * Criterion 3: The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. ✅
 * Criterion 4: The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. ✅
 * Criterion 5: The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. ✅
 * Criterion 6: The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. ✅

Although rather short, I see no major problems with this article, and feel that it meets the criteria for "B" article status. Great work to those involved with the article! It has potential, and still has a long way to go before it reaches "GA" status, but it's on the right track.

WikiManOne (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt responce. I am pleased you think it is up to the standards of B-class. I will take note of your suggestions and continue working on the article. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 09:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-doing the references
Unfortunately it appears that a lot of the references are now dead, which means I'm either going to have to add an archive URL from the Internet Archive or simply replace them. This may be a good moment to re-organize the references in general. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)