Wikipedia:Peer review/Norwich School (independent school)/archive1

Norwich School (independent school) edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the page has been more or less completely rewritten. At the moment the article is rated start class. The aim is to bump it up to GA status. Any suggestions to achieve this would be much appreciated!

Cheers, Duffit5 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program edit

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • it is claimed
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), isation (B) (American: ization), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), enrolment (B) (American: enrollment), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

-(tJosve05a (c) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LT910001 edit

Alack! First comments were not submitted so this is a re-write. This article is very thorough, well-written, and well-sourced. I would therefore encourage you to resolve any issues within the context of a GA nomination. As a note, a GA nomination will require the images not to have any copyright flags, of which I found one or two. Good luck! Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, LT910001. Apologies if this is a basic question, but could you elaborate what you mean by copyright flags, and what would need to be done in order to fulfill the requirement? I also have a question about list incorporation. I know that prose is generally preferred, but I'm not really sure what to do about the Notable Staff section at the end of the article. Do you have any thoughts? Currently it's just a list. Seeing as it has been a month since I submitted this article for peer review I'm going ahead and nominating it for GA. Warm regards, Duffit5 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! When you click on the images, they open in a separate window, one or two may have a little red triangle that states some information is missing with regards to copyright. If that's the case, I'm not actually sure how to go about fixing it, but presumably you can either update the information yourself (if you uploaded it), contact the uploader and request them to change it, or not include the picture in the article. I'm not sure if you can change the details of another user's images, but that may also be possible. I don't see any problem with the list: it's small and appropriately placed, perhaps you could create a List of even older Norvicensians? (I jest: there is no need!) Be sure to run through the article and ensure all text is properly sourced, there are some areas that lack citations and that's necessary for GA promotion. --LT910001 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I will leave the list as it is and hope the image requirements can be resolved in a GA review. In the meantime I'll check for any remaining missing citations. Thanks for the advice. Duffit5 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]