Talk:King George V School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King George V School article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-Importance within Schools.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

King George V School has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

King George V School was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-06

The IP number User:210.0.177.84 serves the King George V School. It has remained a long-standing source of constant and exclusive vandalism of Wikipedia. Among the hundreds of thousands of Internet users, this is the sole feature of the King George V School that comes to mind. --Wetman 06:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue of what and who the Headmaster is should not be censored. I thought people were supposed to respect other peoples' view on things, no? I made the assessment at a B-class; I don't feel able to judge the importance. The main reason it won't get any higher at present is a lack of references. The whole article needs citing. It's also weak on history, and a bit too focused on more recent events. --Trebor 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 General Points 2 Introduction 3 School song 4 Horrible School 5 Curriculum - KS3 section 6 Teaching staff 7 GA nomination - on hold 7.1 Failed 8 Category 9 Userbox 10 Help! reliable citations needed 11 Staff list 12 Failed "good article" nomination 13 Minor points

[edit] General Points

This article needs a cleanup - there are a large number of grammatical errors and some sentences could do with a bit of re-shuffling. A good effort nonetheless!

[edit] Introduction

I would like to improve on the introduction of this article but i don't know what to add. KGV 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School song

I've removed the lyrics. They may be copyrighted. This needs to be addressed before we include them here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't copyrighted. It's the school song which is printed on thousands of sheets of paper, as well as programmes, with no copyright notice. Also, I think it's in the public domain. So, should it be re-added? - Jlao04 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lyrics should be re-added. As far much as I can remember, the lyrics were written by a teacher and set to a tune. The lyrics have been reproduced countless times in various media with no copyright notice. A book detailing the history of KGV has been written by an ex-history teacher, David Clinton. Copies of the book were available for the Centenary celebration, but it was a small publishing effort and not generally available in stores. Unfortunately as it lacks an ISBN, I don't think we can quote it as a source to back up a lot of the history of the School for the purposes of this article. Earthmage 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the lyrics. - jlao⁰⁴ 06:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ISBN numbers are only a relatively recent innovation. A book does not have to have an ISBN number to be used as a source. If you have a copy of the book about the history of the school then you should be using it as your principal source. It is exactly the sort of material which should be used as the basis for an article such as this. It would also be helpful to list the book in a section on Further Reading. Check out Worldcat too (see the Wikpedia Schools Project page) as there are at least two other books listed about the school which could be used as sources for this article. The copyright of the school song will expire something like 70 years after the death of the teacher who wrote the song. I'm not sure of the precise limit and copyright rules will no doubt vary from country to country. You should only be using the school lyrics if you have definite proof that copyright has expired. Dahliarose 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible School

This is a very bad school, hated every minute I went to it.

Please remember to be civil. - ⁰⁴ 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. All those bully happening in this school makes me hate it so much.

It is a great school. The teachers are nice and I enjoyed every minute of it, unlike jlao KGV 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curriculum - KS3 section

I am currently creating a section for the KS3 curriculum. It is here - KGV Curriculum - KS3 Section. Comments? - jlao⁰⁴ 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to the article here. - jlao⁰⁴ 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teaching staff

I have restructured the section on "teachers" (now renamed "teaching staff") into another chapter. Please add to it - it is not yet complete. Zero76 11:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Its complete now.KGV 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody just deleted. Should it be put back on? Zero76 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination - on hold

The content of the article is okay, but a lot of changes are needed before it can become a GA. Please address:

• The table of contents is very long.
• Yet, many subsections are very short. For example, the 1-sentence subsection about the swimming pool is unnecessary.
• The existing citations are not in the proper format, and almost all of them have spelling mistakes.
• Don't put external links within the main article body.
• Copyedit to weed out grammar and spelling issues, such as "Japanese occupationand" and "...the school site is taken over by the japanese as a hospital for prisoners of war." (tense).
• The school has a dress code; why is this not mentioned in the text?
• Awkward introduction paragraph. It's not important to mention the 4 houses and 4 buildings in the lead.
• Headings should be lower-case except for proper nouns and beginnings of headings.
• School council - is it necessary to mention these people? If so, explain what they do, and organize them into a table.
• Consider whether the average reader of the page would care about certain details, like whether teachers being impersonated have to sign release forms (Year 13 Pantomime).
• How well does the school perform compared to other schools in Hong Kong?
• Explain the Hong Kong educational system (Year n) briefly so readers have a basic knowledge of what is being referred to when talking about the curriculum.

Carson 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

It's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold and issues relating to the original reviewer's comments still exist.

There has definitely been some work since the last reviewer went through the article. However, this article still falls short of the good article criteria (see WP:WIAGA). The citations still contain spelling errors and are not formatted properly. Other general grammer and spelling errors exist in the article. It needs a good read-through to catch and fix these errors.

For citation help, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. To assist with copy-editing, see Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit

Work on this article, and address all the issues raised by Carson and myself and then try to re-submit this article for good article review. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started to work over the grammar and so forth, as my maiden project for the League of Copyeditors. As I don't find the article that interesting, forgive me if I do it gradually. I'll work on putting some refs in too.--Wehwalt 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I have added a category on Users whos secondary school is KGV, if you are one of them, please add [[catergory:users whos secondary school is King George V School]] on your user page.KGV 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I have created a userbox for users whos secondary school is KGV, if you are one of them, please add {{user kgv}} on your user page.KGV 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help! reliable citations needed

This article needs immediate attention as it don't have much citations. Please help. ThanksKGV 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staff list

Why is this section always being deleted? As this is an encyclopedia I think no information should be considered "irrelevant". Zero76 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The staff list is of no interest to anyone outside the school. Members of staff could of course be included in the article if they are particularly noteworthy in their own right. Lots of school information is trivial and not relevant for an encyclopaedic article. The article should focus on noteworthy and non-trivial subjects. Dahliarose 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't know who these people are, and we don't particularly care. The article is written for the purpose of informing interested people, mostly outside the school, about the school. To have a list of names that means nothing to any outsider, and goes on for screen after screen, is counterproductive as it may well cause the reader to turn away from the article. WP is not a collection of random information.--Wehwalt 06:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to delete the staff list yet again. If anyone really thinks the staff list is necessary please discuss the issue here and provide justification for its inclusion. The consensus so far is that the list is unnecessary and counter-productive. Such information is also impossible to verify and impossible to maintain in the long term. Dahliarose 11:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is mostly well-written. It could use a copyedit for minor grammar and usage issues and to bring it fully in line with WP:MOS.

2. Factually accurate?: This article needs more sources. There are only eight citations total. Entire sections are wholly uncited ("Facilities") or largely uncited despite exceptional claims ("History"). 7 of the 8 existing citations appear to cite non-independent sources; independent secondary sources should be sought out. This is the largest issue at the moment; sources are lacking in both quantity and quality.

3. Broad in coverage?: Clicking on 'edit' I am greeted with the following comment: "Please don't re-add the section called "Controversy" -- it has been removed several times for a reason." If there is a notable controversy regarding this school, it should be a part of the article. I don't see anything about it on the talk page. Going through the history, it appears as if this was a non-NPOV and unsourced section, deleted many months ago, which is fine -- but the note concerns me. We should not appear to forbid the addition of a sourced section dealing with any controversies regarding the school. Aside from that, the article appears thorough.

4. Neutral point of view?: A few potential issues in the History section, but these should be addressed by the addition of citations. There's also the note mentioned above. No other issues though.

5. Article stability? Seems stable since mid-February; no problems here.

6. Images?: The school logo doesn't have a fair use rationale. Other images seem okay.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --Shimeru 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On a separate note, it seems the school webpage is down, so I can't check the composition date of the song. Please note that it may be a copyright violation. If the lyrics are still under copyright, that section should be removed from the article. Shimeru 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor points

I don't think that pavilion rooms are prefixed X: there aren't any classrooms there

The JCSRC is NOT part of the KGV school, except for the jr. pastoral offices. KGV does NOT use the garden rooms for teaching.

The section on teaching staff would be wonderful if it were added again in a table.

Do we need a longer trivia section? Or should we delete it altogether?

The school song should be all right to be on here. I don't think it's copyright. It's online at [1]

students can choose 2 languages out of four, and EAL is taught to the children with bad English (it's not a choice for them).

Section on buildings doesn't include DS rooms? BS rooms? MS rooms? K rooms? LO rooms? we could have a rooms section instead, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

The sentences

"The school motto and song is Honestas Ante Honores "Honesty Before Glory" in Latin. It is sung at school events such as the Junior School Celebration and Speech Day."

"In 1974, the principal Miss A. Smith decided to join the English Schools Foundation, and in 1979, the transfer was complete. KGV is currently the oldest school in the ESF.[2] [3]"

are confusing.

The form letter G seems to stand for Galaxy instead of Ganymede, so alter it + the "heavenly bodies and planets".

you could reorganize the sections so that the Senior Student Council could be below School Council, and curriculum could be higher up.

Else well done.

219.77.16.13 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)