Wikipedia:Peer review/Carey Baptist Grammar School/archive1

Carey Baptist Grammar School
Hi people, i have done quite a bit on this article and i'm hopefully trying to get this to FA status but i would like to know how i can improve it.mtothedc 12:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's a little too obscure to ever have it as a featured article, however I will remain positive and say that it can be made into a more sound article. For a starting point,  there needs to be some references put in, so that wikipedians can falsify your information, and see if the sources are verifiably correct or not.  This is considered a given if it is to be featured article standard.  --Knucmo2 18:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the placement of the pictures - especially "middle school students". They seem to stick out in funny places and crowd the article. Harro5 23:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It also seems like the pics might have some problems--the first is not tagged and the second is under GDFL presumed, but frankly they both look like promotional pictures. Some campus pics rather than close ups of people smiling might be, at the very least, more NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also have a read of the Caufield Grammar FAC to get an idea of comments regarding these schools. Harro5 23:50, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Even as an alumni of the school I'm afraid this seems too obscure to be a FA. Notability? Also, I'm afraid it comes across as an extension of Carey's ads. There's no real sense of what niche the school fills - frankly, I always perceived it as one of the minnows of the APS. --Cinephobia 12:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Also reading it again, the material on its co-educational status is blatantly not NPOV. I'm afraid I'm becoming more cynical about this article.--Cinephobia 12:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I fear the user who posted this review has disappeard - I've got Carey on my watchlist to see it's progress, and currently no changes since this peer review began. Harro5 22:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've re-shuffled some of the pics to improve the look of this page. Unfortunately, this peer review hasn't addressed any of the problems with the new version of the article. Cinephobia might have a look at it from a Carey alumni perspective and de-POV the writing.
 * As a current student, I will try to implement some of the peer review suggestions, and hopefully remove the bias - I've always found carey heavy on the advertising :) --Veloxsilentium (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)