Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Judd School/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:14, 31 August 2010 [1].

---

The Judd School

The Judd School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/The Judd School/archive1

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After over a month of improving this article, and several days pondering this nomination, I've finally bitten the bullet, as I can't see how this article could be further improved. Its incredibly comprehensive; if there is a source that covers the topic that I haven't used then I'd genuinely love to see it. From nothing more than a stub, this article has been completely rewritten and is now a detailed article about The Judd School, which is a grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent. Its had a pre-FAC sources and image review, with all problems resolved. I'm confident it meets all the criteria, and I hope you agree. Thanks, Tom Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The external links all check out. There are 5 disambiguation links that need to be fixed:

• Annexe (which redirects to Annex)
• Cross country
• Gymnasium
• Prospectus
• St Albans School (which redirects to St. Albans School)

The image licenses all check out as Creative Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all fixed. Tom (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Oppose Sources Comment: The article relies very heavily on a single source, namely, Taylor, Geoffrey (1988). The Judd School: 1888–1988. Tonbridge: Impress Print Consultancy Ltd. Is this book self-published? The name of the publisher suggests a vanity press. Can you clarify? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if it was self published. I don't have the book anymore (I borrowed it from a library) but I can go back and check, but how would I know? I should point out this is the only source that covers the topic in detail, which is why the article relies on it so. Tom (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of background to the book. I was a student during the centenary year and the book was written by the then deputy headmaster (who was also a history teacher, and had been for long enough to appear in some fairly historic photos in the book itself!) and sold mainly through the school as one of many fund-raising souvenirs. Whether or not it was self-published or published within a fairly tight-knit group of local organisations (more likely small local companies offered to print and publish it at low cost to benefit the school's fundraising), I have no doubt it is a very reliable source. Halsteadk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must oppose on requirement 1(c). Even if we treat the Taylor book as self-published by the school (and thus reliable as a source on itself), an article cannot be primarily based on such sources, which this one is. The same source is also used here for claims not directly about the school itself (like the 1869 Endowed Schools Act, among others) and for extraordinary claims about the school (like its reputation with leading universities, among others), which also run up against WP:SELFPUB. While I appreciate that it is often difficult with school articles, surely many of these claims could be substantiated by other sources not published by the school. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to comments left here:

It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and it is in many ways very well done. I also understand the difficulty of finding reliable sources about schools, and self-published sources are unavoidable to some extent. But this article is based overwhelmingly on the one book and pages from the school website. That would likely be an issue even if the book were unquestionably reliable. Here, it is questionable given that it is self-published. If self-published by the school, it may be reliable as a source on itself. If self-published by the author, it may not be reliable for this purpose at all. I believe the oppose is actionable, since other, reliable, sources could be used instead. I welcome the opinions of more expert source reviewers, who I expect will comment shortly, and will strike my oppose if a good argument can be made for this source to be used in this way.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's going to be hard to find a more reliable or comprehensive source on the history of the school up to 1988, but in terms of reputation with universities it is at best well out of date (and clearly too close to home on that sort of aspect). I would also suggest that with a very active "old boys" network, the book would have been quickly discredited had it been inaccurate - and the author continued to teach at the school for a number of years after it was written! Halsteadk (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some additional comments. Sorry it took so long to get to these:

* It will be helpful for non-British readers to indicate the approximate ages of the Forms mentioned throughout. For example, Sixth Form (approximately age 18). You might link to the terms, as well.

Linked term sixth form. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ages should be included and local terms explained at first occurrence. See WP:WPSCH/AG for guidance on avoiding ambiguity around local terms. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Terms like secondary and grammar school also mean different things in different places. Brief explanations and/or links will help.

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They should also be explained, as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is specialism? British usage, I assume? I have never heard that term before.

The specialism is the subject the school is a specialist in. Specialist Music College is now linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a local usage, please explain it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All it means is the school receives extra funding to develop this subject. I've clarified.Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* I take it the Graduate Schools Examination is not the same as GCSE. Can you describe it briefly?

I assume you mean the General Schools Examination? I can't describe it, because the source doesn't. Everything the source says about it is already in the article. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no way to find out? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. I have looked, but I'm really not sure what he was talking about when he mentioned this, so I've removed it for clarity. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is the Education Act of 1919? What does grant-earning status mean?

Linked. Grant-earning means it earns grants, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear. How are the grants earned? Does this just mean it is publically funded? Maybe just say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've clarified. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "an expressway" for the most gifted students". "imaginative timetables". Whose quotes are these?

They are Taylor's. The citation for all quotes is at the end of the sentence per WP:CITE. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then they should in most cases be attributed to Taylor in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITE clearly says either mid sentence OR at the end of the sentence. I much prefer the latter, and it is at least consistent throughout the article. Can we agree to disagree on this point? Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You can cite them either way, the problem is that you frequently quote things like "commercial", "not less than", "on a tentative basis", "much to the Headmaster's distaste" and so on, without saying who said them or why. Are these scare quotes? Direct quotes? Why are you quoting them? I would in most cases either paraphrase them (if there is no special reason for the quote), or attribute them in the text, as in: "much to the Headmasters' distaste", according to so-and-so.

* Evacuated and bombing raids are overlinked.

Done Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* What is a voluntarily aided grammar school?

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, please explain.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified, I think. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly expand on the Comprehensive System?

I've linked it, to expand I think would be overkill, since the school isn't part of the system. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to explain it, why mention it? A brief explanation should not be difficult. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The Headmasters table looks great, but it is not necessary. None of these folks seem notable in their own right. It should be deleted.

Removed. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Many students come from affluent backgrounds and very few require free school meals; the number of students with disabilities, learning difficulties and special educational need is well below the national average. The majority of students go on to higher education at the end of Year 13". Can you provide more precise figures for these claims?

Unfortunately not. Ofsted makes this assertion, and doesn't provide any further details. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this information available nowhere else? The school? The government? These kinds of statistics are generally published. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've looked on all the government websites. The school does not reveal such information (only to Ofsted, who obviously choose not to publish stats, merely a summary).Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The bullet list of houses should be deleted and included as prose, if at all.

The MoS says lists are acceptable. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists like this should be stated in prose. Please see WP:EMBED for guidance. The use of color is also discouraged. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* All quoted material should be in double quotes. All the single quotes (unless quotes within quotes) need to be changed.

All quotes are in double quotes. The single quotes I've used to distinguish terms, like 'Lawton's' (the name of the building). What should I use for this purpose, if not single quotes? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should use double quotes for this purpose. Please see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.

Done, think I got them all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Can you briefly describe the Eleven Plus?

I've linked it, plus it is briefly described. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All it says it that it is an exam for 11 and 12 years olds. Is there nothing more to say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the preceding sentence that it is an entrance exam, that is really all there is to say. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* A government inspection in 1952 reported "real brilliance in teaching". Cite the quote. I will stop pointing these out, but there are uncited quotes throughout.

As above, citations are at the end of the sentence. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are quoting the report but you are citing Taylor. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the report, so I've removed this sentence. I'm not sure if he was actually quoting the report, so its also NPOV. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* the act granted the government the power to raise the age to 16. The link in this passage is unintuitive.

Do you think it should be unlinked? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the sentence clarified to it is clearer to what the link will point. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked.Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* "as soon as the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable" cite the quote.

Cited at end of sentence. This is from the Act itself. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* GCSE, O-Level, A-Level and other terms are unfamiliar to American readers. It would help to explain them briefly.

I've linked them.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, please explain. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Explained all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* OVerlinking: Christian Faith, GCSE and O-Level (not first use), P.E. (and spell it out), asphalt, nets, Army,

Done.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* Spell out PSHE.

Done. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* setting occurs in mathematics. What does this mean?

Clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* It seems like the Extra-curricular activities should immediately follow the Curriculum. Can the Property section come sooner?

You're right; I've moved property to after extra-curricular. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* The notable alumni should be listed in prose, not as bullets.

Again, lists are acceptable in MoS. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, prose is preferred, especially in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, I've addressed the majority of them. Thanks also for copyediting! Much appreciated. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Think I've dealt with anything now, let me know if there is anything else and thanks, again, for comments. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Much improved. I have one remaining nit about the quotes, but I expect to support one the issues raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch are resolved. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just thinking attributing all quotes disrupts the flow of the prose. All other issues, including those raised by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch have been resolved. Thanks again for reviewing. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. My suggestion was to either attribute them or paraphrase them, and I would lean towards the latter. Is there any reason to quote the examples I gave or others like them? "Tentative basis," for example? On the other hand, things like "explosive growth" and "inappropriate links" beg the question "says who?" and should be attributed. It should not break up the flow to say "what Ofsted characterized as ..." or something similar. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've either paraphrased or attributed all quotes. :) Tom (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comment: This is a difficult issue. Unfortunately, no British school has yet been the subject of a Wikipedia FA, so we don't have a direct comparison for guidance. School histories in the UK tend to be written by past or present history masters, or by others with close affiliations to the school. They are not written by objective historians, except perhaps in cases of "great schools" that are national institutions. Their publication tends to be funded either by subscription or by donations from local businesses that wish the school well. I have before me my own school history, which fits that template exactly. It's a beautiful job; the writers had access to a wealth of material that anyone outside the school is unlikely to have found. I'm sure the same applies to Taylor's history of the Judd School. The FA criteria require that articles are comprehensive; the required degree of comprehensiveness can only be achieved by leaning heavily on a school history and its rich sources. In the case of this article, about 140 of a total of 225 citations, just over 60%, are to the Taylor book. There is scope for reducing this; alternative sources should be found, especially for information not specifically related to the school, and the proportion of Taylor citations could fall to around 50% which, from my point of view, would be entirely acceptable.

I have checked out the other references and they are generally OK. Around 30 are to school publications or websites, but these provide factual information. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your views Brian. I will attempt to find other references this evening, and I will attempt to venture to the libraries again tomorrow and have another dig, but I'm confident no further print sources exist that cover the topic. Its also worth noting that there is an appendix in the back of the Taylor book, which includes the school foundation document, and old government inspections. I was unaware that this was the first British school FAC, but I really do hope I can resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all reviewers. Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Royal National College for the Blind was promoted to FA today, which might offer some guidance or point of reference. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The RNC doesn't seem to have a recently published history equating to the Taylor book, but as a national institution it has a much higher profile than a local school's, and gets a lot of attention in the local and national press. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – the point (well-made) about the source needs to be addressed in general for schools. My own school had a very similar tome published for its centenary and it had not occurred to me that any doubts would be raised about it being used as a source. Most of the material is not controversial and the author will have used a vast variety of sources to compile the book (school magazines, previous school histories, local newspaper archives, interviews with ex-pupils, teachers etc). Such a book is almost certain to be self-published as its market is very specific; and it will be many decades before there is another one. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this question applies to schools more generally. Some American schools publish similar volumes, particularly old and/or private schools. The quality varies, but some are quite scholarly and excellent. Without prejudice to this article, I would be interested in the discussion, but am unsure what the right venue might be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update regards sources - Right, I have added four additional sources, and referenced whatever possible to alternative sources. I am absolutely confident a) that there are no further sources on the school and b) that everything that is referenced to Taylor cannot be referenced to an alternative source. I hope that this goes some way to satisfying everyone, and I further hope that this issue is resolved so that this can be the first of many british school FAs. Thanks, Tom (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the sourcing to be much more balanced now and applaud the effort to find more a more varied sources. The history after 1939 still relies heavily on Taylor, as do several other sections, like Extracurricular activities (which is a little surprising). On the whole, however, taking the Taylor book as a reliable self-published source on itself, I tend to agree with Brianboulton that the balance is okay. I would like to hear the opinions of other reviewers on the question. I am striking my oppose and will plan post some additional comments that I hope will improve the article shortly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the oppose. I'll look forward to your further comments. Just a quick note regards the Extracurricular activities section, the reason it uses Taylor a lot is because I thought it prudent to cover the history of extracurricular activities, as opposed to simply what is offered at the school at present. For example, the section covers association football, which is not an organised sport at the school today. Tom (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Overlinked. Why is "Kent" as well as the more specific "Tonbridge" linked? Higher educations? Tradesmen? Fur trade? Swimming pool? Curriculum? Gymnasium? Please go through it and unlink the dictionary terms. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Specialist College for Music with English and Science with Mathematics". Can it be sentence case? Generally, subjects are with lower case; but "Art and Crafts department building" should have a D for the title of the section, yes? I see "economics and business departments" ... you could go either way, upper- or lower-cases, but consistency is required. I'm not sure about with with in the infobox. What does it mean? And further down an ampersand is used ... MoS says to avoid if possible.

With Arts and Crafts, I just copied the source. With the specialist status, I copied the website. I've now removed all caps and it is now consistent.

"11 to 18", but en dashes just above?

"turnover of staff: 43 ..."—colon, not semicolon, probably.

Comma after first "Starling".

"followed by the £1.4 million music centre"—might be good in the school newsletter, but here, "a".

"a third of which was made up of public representatives nominated by"—"a third of them public representatives nominated by"—are you on the look-out for excessive wording? An unfamiliar editor stands a better chance.

All others done. I've tried to go through it with a fine tooth-comb, but its difficult when you've read it so many times. Malleus gave it a good copyedit, but there will always be things that get missed. Thanks for your comments Tony, I'll take another good look but please let me know if you see anything else. Tom (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just from a sample in the middle. The prose does need tweaking. Tony (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got one or two word-nerd collaborators for next time? It's so valuable to bring in unfamiliar editors at the mature stages. Tony (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm not really, I generally turn to Malleus for advice on prose though. You're so right about the need for unfamiliar editors, and thanks for your help, which I'd love to use again in the future if you have the time. Tom (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm still going through it and have found very few grammatical issues (those I've found I've corrected, and they were insufficient for me to oppose). I'm leaning towards supporting, however, I do have a concern with regards to the readability. While I have no problems reading it myself, there does seem to be a bit of an overuse of commas semicolons. While their uses are legal, this can make readability more difficult for some readers. I recognize that this isn't Simple Wikipedia, but still I think it would be beneficial to re-evaluate some of these uses of semicolons and remove them where they aren't necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, and for your help copyediting. I've had a look through at all the uses of such punctuation and have revised quite a few. I hope you feel it has been sufficiently improved. Tom (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion, though I think you figured out what I meant. I meant to say there was an overuse of semicolons, not commas. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth Comment The article has many small problems. Some of these can be fixed by further proofing and by the kind of prose tightening suggested above by Tony1. Others have to do with jargon or bits of local history and geography probably familiar to readers in the U.K. but not so familiar to foreigners. Here is a short list of some of the things that popped out at me on a read-through; I'm sure a line-by-line review would find more.

Lead

"Judd pupils generally take ten GCSEs in Year 11, and a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. Its 2007 Ofsted inspection graded The Judd School... ". - If GCSE and Ofsted aren't spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, many readers will not know what they mean. I don't think the links are sufficient by themselves. Perhaps "Judd pupils generally take ten General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests in Year Eleven, and they have a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. An Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection in 2007 graded The Judd School... "? The edu-speak makes us grateful for abbreviations, but still it's nice to know what they stand for.

Done, thanks! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"the lower school is all boys" - This fact doesn't appear in the main text (unless I'm not seeing it). Shouldn't it be included in the Lower school subsection? Seems important and not obvious.

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, English joined music under the first specialism." - How are the two events related? Was English automatically included with music, or did it join music for some reason related to the science specialism?

Think I've clarified.Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see new note below. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War: 1939–1945

"The outbreak of the Second World War on 3 September 1939 delayed the commencement of the Autumn Term until trenches could be dug. As a result, 369 students of the Westminster City School were evacuated to The Judd School." - It's not clear to an outsider whether this means trenches at the school or trenches elsewhere. It's not clear what the trenches had to do with the evacuation of the Westminster students. Weren't the students evacuated to avoid being bombed? How far apart are the schools? Why would The Judd School be considered safer? Readers can click on the Tonbridge link and the Westminster link and figure this out, but it would be better to say directly that Westminster was in London, a target, and that Tonbridge was 30 miles (48 km) or so outside the city and not considered a target (I guess).

Excellent point, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years: 1945–1986

"he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure" - Women were on the staff in 1917, then disappear, then return after 1970. Curious. Would a little more background be helpful or interesting? I assume the first lot lost their jobs soon after the end of World War I, but that's only a guess.

I'd love a little more background info too, but unfortunately haven't been able to find any. I would assume also that they lost their jobs when the men returned from World War I, but I suppose to put that in would be original research. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent years: 1986–present

"Masters also organised the building of the school's all-weather pitch," - Should "pitch" be linked to pitch (sports field)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Governance

"As governors, major decisions were made by the Court of The Skinners' Company... " - What is the meaning of "Court of The Skinners Company"? In what sense is it a court? A court of law?

I've removed Court of to clarify. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As governors, major decisions... " - Governors aren't major decisions.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently a fee of one guinea was... " - Explain or link guinea? Express also as pounds?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"In December 1944, after applying for voluntary aided status, the school was required to adopt new Articles of Government on 31 December; it became the first school in the country to be awarded this dual control." - What dual control? In what sense is "voluntary aided status" a kind of dual control?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Kent Education Committee funded free dinners... " - Free dinners for whom?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"two LEA governors" - What does LEA mean?

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

School structure

Would the bulleted list be better as a straight prose sentence? Are the house colours important, or is this unnecessary detail?

Done, with colours removed. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"which was a successful private school on Hadlow Road run by Mr T. E Grice" - Delete "Mr." Ditto for the other "Mr"s in the article; i.e., "T.E. Grice" and simply "Grice" thereafter.

Done, except I've kept the Mr for those whose first initials or names I havent got. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Would "a 'Mr X' " with "Mr X" in quotes to show that this is coming directly from the source rather than from Wikipedia be slightly better? I note that "Mr" appears with no terminal period in the text, and I assume that's because the source uses no terminal period. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed one name altogether, and quoted the others. Tom (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Lower school

"The lower school currently has an annual intake of around 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7." - In many places the article uses "current", "present", "today", "at present", and "now" to mean something like "at the moment of this writing". Generally it's better to avoid ambiguity by saying something like, "In 2009, the lower school's annual intake was 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7."

I've changed all instances that are liable to change. Other that are long term, like rugby is a popular sport, I haven't bothered because it doesn't read as well. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

"School clubs and societies include: Art Workshop, Bridge Club, Chess Club, Christian Union, Computer Workshop, Debating Society, Design and Technology Clinic, Film Club, French Club, Garden Club, Greek Club, Junior Running Club, Musical Activities, Politics Society, Theatre Club, Voluntary Service Unit, Warhammer Club, Young Engineers’ Club and Young Enterprise." - Rather than using so many capital letters, would "School clubs and societies include an art workshop, bridge club, chess club, Christian union... " be better"? Could the sentence be compressed? Is it necessary to list them all?

Trimmed! Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

"in Year 7 there are even ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ rugby fixtures" - Should "fixtures" be linked or explained?

Changed to matches. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is also a programme of interform competitions" - What is an interform competition?

Changed to inter-house. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeoman's fields

"a 200m running track" - Spell out "m" and hypenate?

Done.Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The site consists of 6.8 acres of level" - Metric conversion 6.8 acres (2.8 ha)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found some more and fixed them. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"The 'Yeoman's fields' site: - Wikipedia uses double quotes, rather than single; i.e., "Yeoman's fields". Ditto for other similar instances in the article.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists like this into straight prose when feasible. It would not be hard to group the warriors in one paragraph, the artists in another, and so on, adding a bit of detail to make nice rounded sentences.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Finetooth. I think I've dealt with all of your points, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Regards, Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

This is looking much better. Thank you for the rapid response. I did some further minor copyediting, and I have three more comments.

A couple of the more recent books in the bibliography lack ISBNs. To help readers and researchers, it's useful to add OCLCs for books without ISBNs. You can usually find these and missing ISBNs via WorldCat.

Great, thanks - what a resource. All books now have an ISBN number of an OCLC number, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Notable alumini" section is better than the former list. However, I would remove some links and re-arrange the sentences slightly to avoid "link bump" involving two or more blue links that run together visually. I don't think you need to link World War II, fighter pilot, or Chief Executive Officer (or use capital letters for chief executive officer), and the last link bump could be eliminated by re-casting as "Terence Lewin, former Chief of the Defence Staff and Admiral of the Fleet. Fiddle with the other two sentences to prevent link bump.

Done, I think! 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still confused a bit by how the "specialism" business works. A sentence in the lead says, "As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, the school selected English to be included under the first specialism." This sentence seems to imply some sort of cause-effect relationship between the granting of the science specialism and the decision to include English in the first specialism. Why wasn't English included in the first specialism originally?

As I understand it, the school was a Music and maths specialist school, before being invited to become a science specialist school. Since maths is automatically included in a science specialism, the school was able to chose another specialism to replace maths with the music specialism. It chose English. I agree this was absolutely not clear, but I hope it is now. 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking Finetooth, and for the time you spent copyediting the article. I hope all issues have now been resolved, and I can definitely see an improvement. Regards, 86.185.232.238 (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, all of that was me, I just forgot to login! Tom (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward support, but I'd like to wait a while to make sure that that issues raised by Ruhrfisch, Dispenser, and others have been addressed. Also, the "Mr" question I mentioned above is still open; it's a minor issue and would not prevent me from supporting one way or the other. I'm not sure what the best solution is. One other thing I would recommend is to run future articles through PR before advancing to FAC. The more sets of eyes looking at these things as they near completion, the better. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks, I've resolved all issues now so hopefully your concerns have been satisfied. Tom (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved. Switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'elementary'—MoS says double quote-marks. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks again Tony. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Don't see any major problems. ResMar 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Tom (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch comments

As asked, I originally looked at this article and saw many of the same issues Finetooth pointed out. Now that those have been resolved, I have a few quibbles, but am leaning towards support once these have been resolved.

Lead

• There are two things that I would link in the lead - Worshipful Company of Skinners and The Sunday Times - my rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and on first appearance in the body of the article.

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would clarify who Judd was a bit in the lead - perhaps something like ...it was named after [16th century merchant] Sir Andrew Judd...

Done.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Judd's name need to spelled out in full twice in the lead? Could he be just "Judd" on second mention in the lead? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am not clear as to what overall means in ...and league tables published by the BBC based on 2008 A-level results rank Judd as the best boys' state school in Kent, and the fourth best school overall. fourth best in the UK? fourth best overall school in Kent?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Early years

• I really don't understand this sentence - how did the leases in London falling help? To me a falling lease sounds like it bring in less money, not more. The sentence is a bit complicated too - would it help to split the sentence into two? The funds were provided by a loan of £13,000, which was paid back over the next 20 years with income from the Judd Foundation (of which The Skinners' Company were trustees), which rapidly increased when the leases on the Sandhills Estate in London fell in 1906.[4][10][11]

I've clarified. The book uses the term 'fell' but renewed is what is meant. Presumably when they were renewed, high rents could be commanded.Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A lease can "fall due" (be up for renewal). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah right ok that would be what he meant then. It just said 'fall' in the book. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War

• I would link Exmouth

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did the 40 Judd boys also flee back to London, or did only those originally from London do so?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years

• If the total number of teachers in one year is known for this era, I owuld add it to provide context - what fraction of the teachers were female or joined and left? Rendall experienced a high turnover of staff: 43 teachers joined and left the school between 1970 and 1986, and he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure.[39]

Done. Tom (talk)

Fees

• I would give the year in Fees were fixed by the governors and could range from £4–8 per year;[57] initial fees charged were £7/10s per year.[8]

Do you mean give the year in which the fees were fixed? If so, done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Curriculum

Is "AS-level" a typo for A level? In the sixth form, pupils study five AS-level subjects for one year, which may include general studies... If not, please explain what it is

Its part of the A-level qualification, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Examination

• Should this be called "Examinations" (plural)?

I really don't think it should. I mean both would be correct, but I prefer the singular. Like 'student receive examination as follows'?

Your call, either is OK by me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'm going to stick with the singular. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

• I would link the Shakespeare plays here

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would also make it clearer that Combined Cadet Force is a national program (not just limited to this school)

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Does RAF need to be spelled out? It is linked, but the MOS says to generally spell out abbreviations on first use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to stop for now, more to come Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Property

• This might be American English vs British English, but it seems like "a" is missing in Upon its foundation, when it was said to be [a] "temporary expedient", ...

Good spot, thanks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs metric conversion {{convert}} works well although this still restricted the bench length in even the widest of the rooms to nine feet, and 18 pupils

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Needs English units too or a 200-metre running track

Do you mean convert to feet? I've done that, but I'm not sure its necessary because metres are the standard units for athletics tracks. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it is now only 180 metres long ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Don't know how that happened. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does Combined Cadet Force need to be linked a second time here?

Done. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am all done with my review. These are pretty minor quibbles, but there are enough of them that I would like to see them addressed before supporting. I see some of the suggestions I made earlier have already been implemented, but I will wait to hear back here before I start striking. I also made what seemed like fairly safe copyedits - please revert if I have made errors or introduced maistakes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Ruhrfisch. I hope you feel your concerns have been addressed. Tom (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have switched to support and replied in a few cases above. I agree with Nasty Housecat that brief attribution may be useful in places. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, much appreciated. Thanks for reviewing. Tom (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are some redirects to your article that point to sections which no longer exist. — Dispenser 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Can't find any major problems. Have corrected one or two typos and an instance where a phrase was repeated, but prose generally looks fairly good. Also well researched and referenced with some nice pictures. TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In terms of prose, it looks pretty solid. I'm looking forward to future work. ceranthor 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, and me too! Tom (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are a few slight inaccuracies in the article, such as the last sentence of the Fees section. To the best of my knowledge, and by the given source, only the parents of boys in the 6th form have to write a letter to explain why they can't contribute. This is a support if anons are allowed to do so. —188.220.161.100 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.