Talk:King Edward VI College
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Vandalism
Fixed vandilised college motto. DevAnubis 08:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Additions?
Just a suggestion - would it not be wise to include a list of studied subjects at King Ed's?
Or at least a list of departments.. Maybe in this format:
Department
Head of Department
Subjects included in department
I think the HoD is a must since there is more than one that is "externally" well-known within their field.
I also think there should be a separate section for EdPod and Folding@Home.
Maybe "College Clubs" or "Student organisations"?
Also possibly remove the NPOV tag - I don't see what's wrong with the article now?
Worley-d 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- eh, I don't know... naming teachers isn't exactly a good idea, and listing the subjects Keds offers doesn't seem that interesting. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement for them after all... but I agree, I can't really see a reason for the NPOV tag.DevAnubis 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Duly noted. Worley-d 00:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding NPOV and tone, for example, "one of the finest educational institutions", "record is extremely impressive". This sort of phrase (there are others) do not belong in any article at all, even if they were sourced—and they're not. The article is currently just glowing and aggrandizing and reads as though it was written from a promotional brochure of the school. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to diasgree - this is widely accepted. I can quite easily source the college results. The college's record IS extremely impressive - whichever way you look at it. I see your point with the "finest educational insitutions yadayadayada" but the college's record is a matter of fact, not opinion. Worley-d 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the one part I *would* note as biased is the EdPod section - it's certainly advertising in my eyes. Are we not supposed to find out what's in it for ourself? Worley-d 01:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- If the record is indeed impressive, then at least it should not be difficult to find several independent reliable sources that use those terms. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I mean about sources is sources that actually describe it as "impressive". Even daily newspapers would be unlikely to use that language when characterizing a school. They might describe it as "elite", though that is different. The sources must also be independent of the school, and there must be more than one. Looking at the scores and as a Wikipedia editor describing them as "impressive" is alternatively original research or your own point of view. You could, instead, state the scores exactly as they are, without characterizing them. —Centrx→talk • 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll trawl through the Express and Star archives and see what I can come up with. When you say state the scores you basically mean give examples: i.e. 100% pass rate in most subjects? and so on?
- Perhaps stating the scores is not necessary, but something like the current "second best performing college nationally and the best performing college" would be better, as long as that information is indeed verifiable by looking at the schools (and should be "best performing on the A-level examinations", or somesuch). The article needs secondary sources though (whereas the raw score data is a primary source). —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I copy a source directly as long as I immediately quote the source afterwards? Worley-d 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
