Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caulfield Grammar School/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:05, 19 April 2008.

Caulfield Grammar School

edit
previous FAR
WP:FFA, has not been on main page

Self-nom: This article was previously featured from 2005 until 2007 when it was demoted. See the talk page for a full list of FACs and peer reviews that have been undertaken. Most recently, Caulfield was listed as a good article. I believe that all criticisms mentioned in previous reviews have been addressed - the lack of citations in the FARC has been dealt with and there are no outstanding {{fact}} tags present. Please assist with any wording issues if you find them. Harro5 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.historysmiths.com.au/wip.htm does provide a source citation for the fact that they commissioned a historian to write a history of the school, but the rest of the paragraph isn't referenced in that website.
  • Same for http://cricketvictoria.sitesuite.ws/page/fixture_u19.html
    • This one is still lacking access date.
    the links all checked out using the link checker tool and the other sources look good. One thing I noticed was that a lot of the article is cited to the school website, and that the article is a bit short on citations, although I leave whether that should affect the promotion or non-promotion of the article to folks who can take the time to review the whole article. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have addressed the links here - all are still current and have full info. I also note that Duke University, a featured article, has many citations from official Duke websites. Information about an educational institution's programs and academics are often only available from the school itself, but I don't think Caulfield includes POV from the school's publications. Harro5 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just be careful about weasel words. Once my old high school newsletter said that we "topped" the State Maths Competition when we got 5 awards and another school got 30. So maybe even straightforward things like "topped" can be a bit bogus....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any specific issues in this article will be addressed. Previous FACs and peer reviews should have found any blatant POV that existed. Harro5 07:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose—Various glitches related to 1a, 1c, and 2. Here are just a few examples of why extra hands are needed to sift through and repair.

    • MOS requires captions that are just nominal groups and not whole sentences to drop the final period.
    • "In 1958 Caulfield became a member of the Associated Public Schools of Victoria, showing it to be by that time a well-regarded independent school"—"Showing it to be" is clumsy.
    • "The mansion was classified in 1956 by the National Trust as a building of state significance"—are you sure it's not "historical significance"? Citation?
    • Ref 5: Shouldn't there be page references? It's cited all over the place, and our readers deserve to be able to verify individual claims such as that there was student activism at certain times. Same for all of that type of ref. TONY (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have addressed the first three (just removed the sentence about 'well-regarded school' - POV). I will be home in one week and able to add page numbers, but don't have that book physically accessible at the moment. Any other examples of issues? Thanks. Harro5 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there are, but I review by providing selected examples of why a whole article needs attention—I don't fix articles up myself. Can you bring in one or more collaborators to do that, please? TONY (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any further comments or suggestions for the article would be appreciated. At present there is one oppose but no detail as to what still needs to be addressed. Thanks. Harro5 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No response by the nominator to my rejoinder.
      • 'learning place'—See "Words as words" in MOS.
      • See MOS on currencies; after the first "AU$", why would we assume anything else?
      • "The school's centenary year,"—Spot the redundant word.

    And more. TONY (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose per Tony. While the editors of this article have put considerable effort into this article, the prose needs a lot of work, preferably by an editor not already involved with the article. I made an attempt at tidying the prose in the History section but it still requires much more. For some guidance, read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Further, there are several uncited claims in the article. I have tagged some but there are still others; including whole paragraphs such as the one beginning "For students from Years 5 to 12, inter-school sport is a compulsory activity...". To me at least, there seems to be an overuse of commas where they are either unnecessary or the sentence is better split into two. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Caulfield_Grammar_School/archive3&oldid=1138457217"