User:PaulLargo/RNCB GA checklist

This page is designed as a personal quick reference checklist for outstanding points which need to be addressed on the article The Royal National College for the Blind before it can receive GA status. Below are annotated copies of both the advice I received from another editor and the GA nominations page. Paul Largo (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Hello, Paul. I, too, am writing to you about the Royal National College for the Blind article. As it stands, I don't think it will pass GA. It really needs a lot more work, in particular:-
 * The article needs expanding. Among information not in the article is:-
 * How long students stay there, on average
 * information not available
 * Whether the college is co-educational
 * College is co-educational
 * Some history of student numbers since 1900, in particular, what are the current numbers?
 * Numbers currently around 200. No history available of numbers between 1900 and present.
 * Are there entry requirements, academic or otherwise? If not, on what basis does it accept students?
 * Specialist college for students with visual impairment.
 * When, exactly, did it change its name?
 * 1978 when the college moved to Hereford.
 * What is the significance of the statement that "the majority of the students are blind or partially sighted"? This implies there is a minority of fully-sighted students - is that so? If it is, why would they choose to attend this college?
 * All students are blind or partially sighted.
 * Images: There are no images at present. Have any attempts been made to acquire images, beyond a search of Commons?
 * Have uploaded logo and filed request for relevant images/photos.
 * References: There are several unreferenced statements that need citation, I have put citation tags in some instances, but there could be others needing to be referenced.
 * All statements now referenced.

I am giving you this information here, rather than in the context of a GA review, because if I was formally reviewing it I would be bound to quick-fail it, and I hate doing that. My advice is that you withdraw this nomination, work on the above points and general article improvements, and then renominate. I will be happy to give informal advice, if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a nice article for which the nominator has invested considerable effort. The nominator and others would please address each bulleted item individually, after which I will strike it through when I consider it resolved.

A good article has the following attributes:


 * 1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * All citations should directly follow a punctuation mark (no spaces between, and should never interrupt a phrase). Please fix.✅
 * For Courses offered, bullets should not end with periods since not complete sentences✅
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not needed in the article lead (introduction) unless the material is controversial. It is expected the citation would follow in the body of the article when the text is elaborated upon.✅


 * 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
 * (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and
 * (c) contains no original research.


 * Looks fine for GA, but for FAC, all sources need to incorporate complete WP:Cite refs (e.g., WP:Cite web refs should have author, date, title, URL, etc.).


 * 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
 * (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and
 * (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).


 * This will pass for GA, but needs serious attention for any further consideration. Perhaps consult FA Baltimore City College.


 * 4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


 * Are there no controversies or criticisms of the college?
 * The college has faced criticism in recent times. I will add some information regarding this.✅


 * 5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.


 * No prior issues


 * 6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect:
 * (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]


 * Logo checks out under fair-use. Kind of a bummer to not have any pictures, but that won't hold up GA.

Conclusion
In its current condition, I will put the article on hold for one week until the above issues are resolved. As part of my consideration of this GAN, I would also request that each issue User:Brianboulton raised above also be addressed. If it cannot pass this time, it can be renominated in the future, but I am confident that all issues can be resolved within the week. Best wishes! --Eustress (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination - things to do
In preparation for the GA review I have done some significant copyedits to get the prose running more smothly. It's not too bad now, but there are other issues which must have attention:-
 * You must explain properly what "Beacon Status" means, and briefly mention its relationship to OFSTED. The wikilinks are not enough - there must be explanation in the text.✅
 * According to the RNC website, Prince Charles is the Patron of the college. There are high profile supporters, but Charles is the only Patron (with capital P). See what the website says.✅
 * History
 * "...forced to leave its London home." A bit more explanation required as to why it was "forced". Were the premises commandeered by the military, for example? Did they leave for fear of possible bombing (which later occurred)?
 * I've changed it to evacuated from London. No reason is actually given for the move, but I guess they would have feared possible bombing. Not sure exactly how to address this.
 * "more suitable accommodation was found..." - in what ways were the Shrewsbury premises "unsuitable"? The college had been there for donkey's years.
 * The Shrewsbry college was situated on several different sites, quite a distance apart, and the move to Hereford enabled RNC to consolidate into one campus.
 * Is there a distinction between "teaching accommodation" and "learning accommodation", or does this mean "acommodation for teaching and learning"? Clarify.
 * I think that should be teaching and residential.✅
 * I don't think it is correct to italicise the college name - check MoS.✅
 * You say "the blocks were originally built...in the 1960s and were updated to include modern facilities". I would expect 1960s buildings to have fairly modern facilities. You need to say briefly what the additional facilties were that were included in the new buildings, not just say they were modern.✅
 * When you say "only college of its type", do you mean "only college for the blind"? If so, say so.✅
 * There are no formal acaemic entry qualifications - but only 200 places. So who decides who gets in? There is later reference to an assessment centre, which might have something to do with this, but there should be some explanation here.
 * Added some information about the nature of assessment at RNC.✅
 * The term "areas of study" is probably better than "areas of teaching"
 * Agreed✅
 * You need some explanation for the sentence: "Students have also seen (unfortunate phrasing) a reduction in the number of A levels available for study. This needs an explanation. Also, for the benefit of non-Brit readers you need to link GCSE, AS and A level.✅
 * The A Level reductions is dealt with in the Criticisms section. Let me know if more is needed. I also agree that the sentence 'Students have seen' is a bit of an unfortunate use of terminology so I've rephrased it.
 * Re the houses on and off he campus. Clarify these are part of student residential accommodation. Do these houses have any significant role to play in, for example, life preparation?✅
 * "Among sporting activities available at RNC are blind football and acoustic shooting." This sentence is somewhat isolated here. Football and shooting are activities, not facilities which is what this section is about. They are also only two sporting/leisure activities. There oughr to be a whole section on activities, not just the mention of these two.✅

If you can deal with all these points, the article could have a reasonable chance of making GA. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)