Talk:Pangbourne College

pics? refs? Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section probably shouldn't be in the article; it just seems to be two incidents, and the rest - such as the reputation, which is unreferenced, and the "unofficial policy", for which the only source is an unofficial interview - is not verifiable. Even the incidents are probably not notable or relevant enough to be mentioned - one is the arrest of a student (who was released without charge) and the other incident did not occur at the school or in the local area. Peter E. James (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Too detailed

This whole article is far too detailed. Parts of it is written like a prospectus for the school, and much of teh history section is unencyclopaedic. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I will try to help with this. SovalValtos (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Independent Schools Council

Wording referenced by ISC is being removed as it is not independent "We are tasked by our members to protect and promote the sector in everything we do." SovalValtos (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Prospectus style

Some recent editing shows detailed personal knowledge of the school. One, perhaps Hesperus 'Binnie', who is named in the section 'Notable Old Pangbournians' as editing the page, seems to have done a lot of research. The concern is that there is too much without references and some material would seem to be better placed in the school prospectus or an old boy magazine.SovalValtos (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pangbourne Diction Section, looks like original research, and will be removed if no suitable source is addedSovalValtos (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Many of the entries in the section 'Notable Old Pangbournians are not verifiable and will be removed if references are not forthcoming.. SovalValtos (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If the OPs are notable then they will be covered in places that are not the school's own material. Wiki requires sourcing from significant independent coverage, and in WP:RS please. No such coverage means they are not notable. SovalValtos (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Brand Names

The brand names of equipment in use, whether of mowers for the cricket square, balls for rugby, pianos for music or the tailor of uniforms is not relevant to the article. Advertising is not required. 86.23.18.215 could usefully add explanation for edits.SovalValtos (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Images

A few more images could be usefully added to reflect some of the unique features. SovalValtos (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)