Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Grammar School Worcester/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Royal Grammar School Worcester

This is a self-nomination for an article I have been working on with several other editors. I feel that it meets all of the FA Guidlines and that it is a very useful addition to Wikipedia. From looking at several other school articles I feel this is of a very high standard, both in its content, research, and also style. I'd welcome any constructive comments if you feel that it is currently not at FA standard. --Wisden17 17:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs footnotes, and possibly more references. RyanGerbil10 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:WIAFA requires inline cites, but not necessarily footnotes. There's some paranthetical citation in the lead, which is acceptable, but I agree that facts throughtout the article definitely need to be cited using an acceptable method before this article is considered. The Disco King 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, when just tidying up the article today I was debating whether to use footnotes, but went instead for the Harvard style. Could you perhaps give more example of the facts which you feel need direct citation? --Wisden17 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Outside of the lead paragraph, I count one paranthetical citation. All facts and claims need to be cited. It's easier to read if you use footnotes, and they really aren't that hard, but paranthetical citation works too. The Disco King 19:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Have just added Footnotes to the article, and found one more reference, so hopefully this address the original concern above. --Wisden17 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Conditional Support. My referencing concerns have been addressed, the only thing left is that the article has too many lists, some of which do not display very well. For example, the "School houses" list looks very sloppy on my configuration, Internet Explorer with a 1900x1280 resolution. The houses list could be expanded and explained more thoroughly as well. Happy to be of help, RyanGerbil10 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The problem is, some of the green dots are lost behind the picture of the small version of the school's crest. RyanGerbil10 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Much better. The houses section is great. However, Scm83x brings up some good points. RyanGerbil10 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. No fair use rationales, also not comprehensive. Messy formatting and one sentence paragraphs abound. Take a better look at Hopkins School and Caulfield Grammar School. — Scm83x hook 'em 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale now added, and more info added to remove all one sentence paragraphs, plus some ideas gleaned (e.g. maps etc.) from the two FAs suggested. --Wisden17 14:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Object per Scm83x, and also am not a fan of the non-standard infobox (best to use {{Infobox Secondary school}}). Although, as always I am greatly appreciative of fellow editors working to improve high school articles to such levels on Wikipedia. Harro5 07:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The non-standard infobox is still a sore spot with me, and Scm83x's opposition on the grounds of poor prose in areas remains. Harro5 01:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support varied article with history and good pictures about a well known english school. --Newton2 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)