Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caulfield Grammar School/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Caulfield Grammar School

This article has been subject to a peer review, of which there was minimal feedback, and has been reviewed by the team at School Watch. I believe it to be one of the best articles on a high school that exists on Wikipedia, and this would provide a great benchmark for all other school articles to meet as a guide for how to write a school article is debated. Harro5 04:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Object - This article contains little information of interest to any significant subsection of the general public. Cedars 04:29, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - I'm not even sure this article should survive VFD, let alone be featured. Firebug 04:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Article is mostly list, it lacks meat. It doesn't draw me to conclude that this is a really encyclopedic subject, perhaps we should establish more notablity? It also fails to draw the reader along, ... frankly it's rather boring at its current state, which is something I have not found to be the case for other featured articles, ... or even most articles in the wikipedia. I must object until these issues can be addressed.--Gmaxwell 04:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It's not the worst article I've seen on a school, but it's a long way short of featured status. The article has a motto, information on each campus, and a bunch of lists. Academics? Debating? Sports? Culture? Caulfield's quite a prestigious school, but you wouldn't learn much about why from this article. Ambi 06:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Have incorporated some of the content suggested by Ambi. Harro5 07:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's now quite a lot improved - kudos, I must say. However, I still think there's a lot of opportunities for expansion. Ambi 09:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I wonder if it mightn't work better to have a history section for the entire school, and then a seperate campuses section describing more the function, infrastructure, location, etc, of each one, potentially leading to the prospect of a spinoff article for each of the two topics. The more I think of it, I think that this would improve the structure quite a bit. Also, as part of the history, it may also be worth mentioning the Nanjing vandalism incident somewhere.
      • I still feel the academics section could be expanded a bit, although it is good already. My high school was undoubtedly worse than Caulfield, but we could've said almost the exact same things about our ENTER and subject scores. Looking at the front page of the site, I wonder if things like learning mentors could go in here. Average class sizes? Virtual campus/lack of laptops?
      • Governance - covering student leadership was a really good idea, but what about parents? Is there a School Council sort of thing?
      • Music - what's there is good, but I notice that it mentions a band as part of a historical note. It may be worth dedicating a paragraph to the school bands themselves (and any other such groups around).
      • Houses?
      • Boarding/day students? Perhaps boarding could be a section of its own?
      • Fees!
      • Intake each year/waiting list?
      • It might be an idea to make Tamsyn Lewis, Ron Walker and Stuart Maxfield into redlinks - I know it looks a bit worse, but they really do deserve articles.
      • Debating - is there an intra-school competition on top of the DAV one?
      • What about competitive public speaking - Rostrum/Rotary?
      • Could we perhaps have a little more information on sport - teams/facilities/major victories?
      • There's some other place in the article when it mentions infrastructure in a historical event without it being previously mentioned in the article - Twin Halls project, for one - was this at Monash or at Caulfield?
      • Uniform! (how could I forget that one?)
      • Scholarships?
        • I've crossed the comments that are now moot. I think there's still a few more things that could be added, and I also agree with what Spangineer has to say. Ambi 08:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: admirable effort to make something more than a stub for a school. It's a lot better than a lot of school articles, I've seen recently. I'll have to read in more detail before I vote, though. Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not going to formally object, but some of the an images are is untagged, and it would be nice to see more about the school's history (almost all of the article content dates from the last 10 years of the school's 125-year history). JYolkowski // talk 14:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC) One image is still untagged. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Tagged now. Harro5 22:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Support then. JYolkowski // talk 00:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not a believer in the "featured article" concept and this is an example of why I dislike it so intensely. The article as of 17 May was quite concise and readable, now after a few hours on FA it's bloated beyond belief. Please withdraw it and revert all the padding. Articles don't need to be featured to be of high quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free to comment on which of the versions you prefer, but I feel the current one has some useful info that should stay. I am open to discussion about most of the new stuff. Harro5 21:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Object, fails on the well written criteria as it is currently a fleshed out list, overwhelming TOC, copyright status on images is unclear. It may well be the best article on a school but it doesn't meet the criteria of a featured article (you ca take up the merits of those criteria in talk).--nixie 03:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like more info on what criteria this article fails to meet. Reading over the criteria list, it is hard to see what is wrong with this page. As for having too long a contents section, it is better to have headings than long unfragmented paragraphs which are difficult to read. Harro5 05:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • How about we start with criteria 1, Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet., explain to me how this page offers anything that isn't covered on the schools excellent website and how it compares with a unique resorce like Imagism--nixie 08:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'll object for now. It's a good article, but it can still use info on uniform, housing, fees, scholarships, etc. as suggested by Ambi. Mgm|^(talk) 16:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added info on fees and scholarships, but adding info on uniforms on creates more lists. I really don't know what more can be added, and whether it actually would be needed. Time for votes! Harro5 06:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection remains for now. I agree that the article needs some proze-ification before it's featureable. I'm quite happy with the content (maybe some more history). Sorry, don't have the time to help ya. Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - good work with the expansion, but practically the whole article needs work on flow and prose. There are disconnected, short paragraphs everywhere—these need to be converted to longer, well-written paragraphs. Also, the lead is too short—you can probably move the vision statement into the lead, for starters, and then touch on the history and other important info (2-3 long paragraphs would be good). --Spangineer ∞ 17:51, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I have single-handedly compiled the info for this article, I would really appreciate it if someone else wants to help with the wording. The current piece is in my own words, and so naturally it's hard for me to see its faults. I can't see the disconnected paragraphs, or the lack of flow, but I'd be grateful if someone who can wanted to edit these sections for wording. Thanks. Harro5 22:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Object to avoid scuttling the ongoing Schools debate that appears to be successfully moving toward compromise. The article is well done. --Unfocused 13:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Objections need to be actionable. If there isn't anything that can be done, your objection can be effectively ignored. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed; the same could be said about a few of the earlier objections as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:56, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
      • Yes, it may be ignored, but it shouldn't. The Wikipedia:Schools issue under discussion has had some very heated moments, and many users don't believe grammar and high school articles should even exist. Featuring this article at this time may ruin all the work that's been done toward compromise. The action I'm suggesting is to wait a month or two before considering this article because that's about how long it will take to know if the concepts we worked out there will be effective at stopping the VfD fights over schools. This is a good article, but I think the prose leans more toward verbose rather than concise. --Unfocused 07:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now with a couple of minor concerns. In the second lead paragraph does Victorian mean the place or the architectural style (I mean, having read the article it is clear, but at least for non-Australian readers I think this might be confusing), "in Victoria" or "in Melbourne" might be a better wording. Also, regarding the Nanjing vandalism incident Ambi noted, it has been incorporated into the article but I'd like to know HOW the issue was resolved, if this is public information. Other than that, prepared to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Support now, although I don't know how I'd feel about this being on the Main Page. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
  • Chris, I've addressed your problems as best I can. I know the people responsible for the vandalism were returned home and suspended, but naturally wasn't able to hear what was said to the Chinese. I know something was said as when I went on the China trip we got a full warning about the repercussions of misbehaviour, and this was cited as an example. Harro5 00:58, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I would ask anyone considering a vote to not go on previous votes, and have a look at the article yourself. It has changed significantly since this FAC began. Thank you. Harro5 01:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Object - while well-written, it reads like a school's information brochure, and it's entirely too verbose with details that aren't interesting unless you live near it. And phrases like "The boarding house and boy's dormitories is located inside the school's boundaries, and next to the main classroom buildings." are redundant since they're true for 90% of all boarding schools. I would support this as a FAC if substantially condensed. Radiant_* 08:21, May 26, 2005 (UTC)