Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aquinas College, Perth/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

Aquinas College, Perth
This article has under-taken extreme measures to become a very good article on Wikipedia and has done everything asked of it in regard to peer-reviews and general feedback on the talk page. It is high-quality work and is far-better than its current rating. Smbarnzy 12:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Would you mind telling us when the last FAC was?--Rmky87 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the article's history, but there's no mention of an FAC nomination in there. I did find the archived peer review, though: Peer review/Aquinas College, Perth/archive1. --Plek 20:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no previous FAC Smbarnzy 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - This article is rather disorganized, both in terms of content and layout, but the layout in particular needs work. There is a somewhat jarring combination of many different types of lists, boxes, templates, galleries, indented block quotes, and so on; the text has a lot of awkward line breaks and white space, at least on my browser.  I think the pictures are also overdoing it, particularly as the school's crest appears no fewer than three times, and the gallery of sports uniforms is a bit much.  Prose is quite problematic; lots of very short and choppy sentences with numerous one-sentence sections and paragraphs, as well as subheadings that are unnecessary (such as under "Geography").  Also, it needs a copy edit - I am seeing comma splices and typos.  The lead does not provide a road-map for the article, and focuses almost exclusively on one aspect of the school, its location.  On another level, I think the article delves deeply into the realm of trivia; even the article about Eton is not this long, and do we really need to know so much detail about the uniforms, the school grounds (including every building), every dean, and so on?  The article does not seem to have a length and bredth appropriate to its subject, which is after all just a high school.  I recall a number of AfDs a while ago relating to a number of daughter-articles that had been created detailing the exploits of every sports team at this school.  All of this generally smacks of boosterism (not an accusation, mind you!) or at the very least partisan involvement, which is not necessarily a bad thing but does suggest that the article needs more independant editors with no school connection who might be a bit more ruthless.  Maybe I'm being somewhat harsh, but there you go.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I might also suggest that some of the daughter articles that do exist are a bit problematic too; this article makes it seem like there are substantive articles about the house system, the sports, etc, but really those daughter articles are just lists upon lists that, after all, probably belong more on the school's website than on wikipedia.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the block quotes is just an inspirational message from the school's religion teacher, the sort of thing you'd expect to see in the student handbook but not in an encyclopedia. This is a further sign that the article needs third party involvement.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 16:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for prose at the least. Far too many one- or two-sentence paragraphs. Lots of listy sections. Why exactly is "Coat of arms" a subsection of "History"? The references need accessdates. Why is "former" wikilinked in "Notable alumni". Trebor 10:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the Trivia section only contains info on the solar car team, consider creating a "Solar car team" section and turning the short list into a small paragraph. Paragraphs are usually better than lists and some believe that trivia as it is trivial should not be included in an encyclopedia. See here for a more detailed explanation of what I meant. Mr.Z-man  talk  00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - This article in general is a very good article, it has all of the relevant information regarding the school, its operations and affiliated groups. In parts it is slightly narrow, but is good enough for featured article status. Smbarnzy 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I don't mean not to assume good faith, but I'd like to point out you're a student of the college. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I beleive that it has quality images, the paragraph stuchture is "crisp" and to the point and, the Article is not wordy whatsoever. The article is also interesting which cannot be said for a lot of wikipedia articles - articles are ment to educate and not bore people

symode09 06:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you go this college as well? I've got to be honest, I don't find it interesting in the least. Trebor 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of discussion regarding some of the daughter articles going on at AfD, and my general impression is that this article and its offshoots, while more or less well-written by wikipedia standards, are engaging in subtle and understandable POV pushing to make the school seem super impressive by giving it a Harrow or Eton-style treatment.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For the following reasons:
 * Refs are not adequate. They are not formatted correctly. One even points to a page that doesn't exist. Half of them are in the middle of a sentence. Too many come from the Aquinas website - not an adequate source.
 * Trivia Section...need I say more - see WP:TRIVIA
 * The same picture is shown twice in the article. Why???
 * Pages such as Christian Brothers, Mount Henry Peninsula and Perth are wikilinked several times.
 * These are just formatting issues, but as well as this prose is unexciting nor compelling or brilliant. Todd661 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment trivia section removed, 2nd use of college logo is removed, why cant they be wikilinked a few times? i cant see the one which points to a page that doesnt exist (i think you are referring to "Aquinas College History (access restricted)" that page is only open to people who are staff/students at Aquinas - hence the login when you click on the link. Smbarnzy 11:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article doesn't explain why the school is notable and seems to fail all three criteria for notability at WP:SCHOOL. Not only are none of the references non-trivial published works, but the article doesn't state that the school ever has been the focus of such works. Furthermore, it's not asserted that the school has gained non-trivial national recognition in any field. Based on the information in the article, this school doesn't seem to be significantly different from the average Australian school aside from having better than average facilities. --Nick Dowling 04:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not going to vote here as I have seen the article's progress over a number of months, and made a few fixes and recommendations at an earlier stage. One of the peer reviews (I forget which one) listed two hardcopy books which give a very solid historical treatment to the area and to the school - IMO these should have been consulted and referenced before coming to FAC. The school is on a par with Hale School and Guildford Grammar School in Perth terms, but probably not many others. Sydney's equivalents would be The King's School or Cranbrook. I agree with you that the article needs to assert this more clearly, although I acknowledge the difficulty that a student at such a school may have in performing a bird's eye comparison of this kind, and finding a way to make such a comparison in a non-POV way will be a challenge. Orderinchaos78 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.