Talk:City of London School for Girls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is related to the WikiProject Schools. This Project is an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
|
| Current Collaborations: | Greenwich High School - New Albany High School (Indiana) - St. Mary's High School (Calgary) - St Albans School (Hertfordshire) - Wesley College, Melbourne - Pope John Paul II Catholic Secondary School - Mundelein High School | |
|---|---|---|
[edit] NPOV
This passage is obviously not from a neutral point of view: "The school has a growing academic reputation which is demonstrated in rising league table results, although some accuse it of anti-intellectualism in favour of exam performance. Most notably, the school achieves far higher results in the intellectually undemanding GCSE examinations than it does in the more challenging A-Level examinations. This stands the school in stark contrast to its brother school, where the trend is the exact reverse." Who are the "some" who "accuse it" - can we have names? References? The point about GCSE/A level performance is interesting, but how can "results" in the girls' school be compared with a "trend" in the boys' school? This could be fixed by stating hard facts so that readers could make their own judgments: what years are referred to and what are the results relied upon for this point in those years? There may be a debate about causes - for example, does the girls' school lose some of its most able pupils to mixed sixth forms in other schools (such as Westminster School)? But the passage needs to alter the balance between fact and opinion first. Chelseaboy 09:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Section removed
Removed the section: History of the City of London School for Girls, Précis of 'Daughters of the City' by Joan Carden, Jean Cardy, Rosemary Hamilton, Pat Bawden and Anne Savage. Likely not public domain. ed g2s • talk 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Seems a pity, unless you're sure it's not public domain. The editor has described it as a precis and, if it is a precis (and not cut and paste) it cannot be a copyright violation. Copyright is in the exact words, not in the meaning or content. Even if it is not a precis but a cut and paste job in breach of copyright, summarising what you have removed would solve copyright problems without losing information.Chelseaboy 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
