Wikipedia:Peer review/Rossall School/archive3

Rossall School
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone significant editing and restructing since the last succesful peer review. Unfortunately a recent request for a peer review went unnoticed.
 * Previous peer review

I would also suggest increasing this article's importance to those of the other English public schools - though it should clearly be lower than Eton, Harrow, Rugby and Winchester.

Thanks, (LennyLeonardson (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Ruhrfisch comments: More to come later, but the first image I checked (of the observatory) was a copyright violation, so I would read WP:Images carefully and check all of the images. GA and FA both require free images or valid fair use claims - things like the observatory photo should be fairly easily replaceable - get someone to go there with a camera. A decent start, but this article needs a lot of work to make it better and to conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I hope this helps improve it - see the semi-automoted peer review suggestions too as they are useful here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More image problems - the school crest is claimed as own work (by the nominator of this peer review), when it should be WP:Fair use. If it is not fixed in 24 hours, I will nominate it for speedy deletion. A number of other images are suspicous - the aerial view, for example - given the problems already found with images.
 * The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD so that it is an accurate summary of the whole article - nothing in the lead should not also be in the text and every section should be mentioned in some way.
 * Avoid jargon like CCF and IB (both in the lead) - see WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
 * History section - why was the school founded? Where did it first meet? Some of this is in the lead, but should also be here. Also while the stories of the attempted poisoning and embezzler are entertaining, are they the most important things about the school?
 * I would find an article about a similar public school that is at least GA if not FA and use that as a model for this article.
 * The article must present a neutral point of view - see WP:NPOV. Comments like  (A very peculiar chap who was always seen riding a horse in full military uniform.) are very POV. Also avoid peacock language - see WP:PEACOCK.
 * The article needs many more references and the references it has need to be from reliable sources and properly cited - see WP:RS and WP:CITE.
 * The refs that are cited come mostly from the school itself - they should be independent third-party sources wherever possible.
 * The actual references are a mess - current ref 33 is just "Insert footnote text here" for example. All internet references should cite title, publisher, author (if known), and date accessed. See also cite web, cite book and cite news.
 * There is a lot of material of questionable encyclopedic value - do we really need to know the fees? The school terms section is way too detailed - pick the most important and well-referenced and drop the rest. Galleries of images are discouraged too.

LennyLeonardson Comments: With regards to the observatory photos - you cannot just get someone to go and take a photo of it - the observatory is within the school's grounds and thus private property. Also, to find an image of the observatory before refurbishment would be near impossible - thus the photo you have removed served a purpose - particularly as the article describes the restoration of the observatory - it would be useful to see the before and after. I would appreciate it if you could restore the photo. Many thanks.

All other comments have been taken into consideration and the article is being ajusted accordingly. Thanks LennyLeonardson (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)]
 * I would go through WP:DRV to appeal the deletion. I have also asked another admin to review the deletion. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, User:Nyttend agreed with your Fair Use argument, so I have restored the image. Please provide a valid fair use license and rationale in the next 24 hours or I will delete it again. I also would be glad to help if you are uncertain what has to be done for fair use here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the restored version had a speedy delete request tag on it, I went ahead and added a fair use rationale for now - please feel free to edit that. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LennyLeonardson Comments:
 * Many thanks. Have edited the article in other respects. Will continue to add footnotes over the coming weeks. Any other suggestions? LennyLeonardson (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you think you have addressed all of the points above, I would be glad to look at it again - just drop me a line on my talk page. You could also ask someone listed at the Peer review/volunteers page for another reviewer to look at the article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)