Talk:The King's School, Sydney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 The King's School, Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Schools 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
High This article has been rated as High-Importance within Schools.
Assessment:

supportI support the merge proposed...there is nothing in the other article not in thie one.

Contents

[edit] TKS Parramatta

The King's School is properly called The King's School Parramatta (the suburb it is located in). In 1831 there were two schools that were planned to be built, TKS Sydney and TKS Parramatta. TKS Sydney was located in the CBD but closed down. Can somebody please change that?

The King's School is the only school of that name in Sydney, therefore the articles current name is appropriate. Loopla 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Validity of the Inclusion of the 'Notable Alumni' Section

Can any person tell me a valid reason for not deleting this section? On no other school's wiki is there such a section, instead a separate link which is in a list format. Could somebody please do this or I will simply delete the list.

[edit] Please don't delete the headmaster's section

We are making a bio of Dr Hawkes do please don;t delete it-it its still in progress —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassoonist123 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Dr Hawkes probally meets the notability criteria to have his own article. He has certainlty built a profile that extends beyond his position at King's Rafy 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Who's he? The guy who supports intelligent design? Hmmmm ... Tony 15:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
He's outspoken, but really not nearly as notable as he'd have us think in his speeches and newsletter articles... He is an author of several unsuccessful books and claims to be a leader in boy's education... I'd like to see an external article that says he's important before he gets his own Wiki... DemonicTruism 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd put up with him if it weren't for his highly embarrassing promotion of so-called intelligent design; to think that this guy is in a position of influence among so many impressionable kids, and is peddling this medieval crap. His books do, unfortunately, rule him in as notable, but I'll certainly be taking a look-see if/when that article sees the light of day. I hope it's short. Tony (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Id have thought this school to be of Top Importance (atleast in the eyes of WP:Schools - it is like the most notable school in Aus. Twenty Years 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a tall claim that would be hotly disputed by many people. Wait until the text is more than rubbish to even thinking about asking for the "importance" of the article to be raised. Tony 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glaring omission and trivial inclusions

The elephant in the living room is that there's no history section; yet this school probably has one of the richest histories of all Australian schools. There's a good job for someone who has a copy of the school's history—summarise the relevant points and reference them. It should include information on the role of the school in the colony and state. The lead should definitly contain something about this history, and about the demography and philosophy/aims of the institution.

More pictures required.

There're a tendency for people to slip in trivia, and highly topical points at that. They rob the article of authority and dignity. Tony 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Grover

I see that "Peter Grover - Jewish activist and outspoken critic of the Nazi reigime" has been removed and reistated recently from the list of notable alumni. I'm uncomfortable not knowing just why Grover is worthy of special mention. Can the person who reinstated his name please enlighten us? Tony 08:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the removal because there was no discussion or edit summary explaining why it was removed, therefore I assumed it was vandalism. Perhaps the person who first included Peter Grover would be a better person to ask. Loopla 10:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Given that Peter Grover is a leaving Year 12, it was a probably a student... DemonicTruism 11:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style

This piece was predominantly written by a King's School teacher, and it reads like promotional literature for the school. Someone should, at some stage, go through the article and weed out the one eyed crap that is passing for fact in order to make it sound at least a little less like something Dr Timothy Hawkes would be writing about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonicTruism (talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it's very poorly written, too. Tony (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So ... when is someone—a staff member or an old-boy—going to do a proper job on this article, without cruft or POV? I'm not volunteering to do that, but I'll certainly come along later to point out MOS breaches and instances of parochial/inappropriate information, POV and appallling prose. Tony (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a former student (1997-2005) and I will shortly be reviewing the entire article. --Rcandelori 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have briefly edited some of the more poorly written information, particularly the poor spelling and grammar, although I feel this article probably deserves to be rewritten. The tone and style is inconsistent throughout, with a lot of pointless information.--Rcandelori 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; please note MOS guidelines for en dashes and hyphens. Tony (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Despite the MOS guidelines, I have moved the image back to the left hand side for pure formatting purposes. The reason for this lies in the fact that a right-oriented image ruins the formatting of the article. Effectively, it means the Campus heading is 10 to 12 centimetres above the text to which the heading refers which looks strange.--Rcandelori 11:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Why not put the infoblot further down, or at least chop most of the superfluous information in it? The image looks wrong on the left-hand side. Tony (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at it from both right and left and between them I can't see any difference in the spacing between the heading and text. Is that just me? Left just looks confusing. I definately think it should be right. Loopla 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it could be the screen resolution with which I'm viewing the site (1920x1200) but there is an enormous gap between the heading and text when I'm viewing this article, hence my earlier remarks about moving the picture to the left hand side.--Rcandelori 16:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NEW HISTORY SECTION

I have begun writing a new history section detailing the 175-year past of the school. Thus far, the initial year or so has been recorded. Most of the information comes from either the book entitled The King's School 1831-1981 or the official School Diary of which I have a copy from 2005, as a former student. Be aware that this is a work of going-concern and is incomplete. I intend to have it finished in the next few days and I ask that no-one surreptitiously deletes it for some arbitrary reason.--Rcandelori 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One reference per paragraph would be nice. Under the circumstances, I think it's OK to rely entirely on that book, but if the book itself references information, there's a chance to widen the reference base for this article. Strictly speaking, you're supposed to say "... as cited in ...", with the page number of the TKS book. It may be possible to stretch it a bit by not providing the intermediary reference, where the original reference would be recoverable independently. I presume that the TKS book has a number of references to newspaper articles ...? Tony (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still working on it. I'll gradually add referencing as I go. To be honest, the idea of strict adherence to clunky language like "as cited in", is a little infantile.--Rcandelori 02:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing "clunky" about it at all. As I said, strictly speaking, it's required, since citing something really means that you've seen it. But you can get away without if the reader can potentially recover the source without going to the intermediary. So if the source is, say, private correspondence that is still in private hands, you must indicate the intermediary source. If it's a newspaper article that is in the Mitchell Library, no problem. However, if the intermediary couches an otherwise recoverable reference in a context that is important under the circumstances, its' more likely that you'll cite it. Tony (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest still functioning, or not?

Don't we know? Why does it say "one of the oldest"?

BTW, the reference is not authoritative: it's to what seems to be a semi-commercial site (I'm sure that schools pay a subscription to be listed, and the text looks as though it was written by the TKS publicity manager). I think this reference should be removed, or a better one found. Wasn't a history of the school written some time in the 80s? Tony (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure..its all a bit confusing really. I just did a google search of "oldest school in Australia" and got the following:
  • Kings claims to be "the oldest independent school in Australia"
  • Newcastle East Public School claims to be "The oldest School in Australia - established 1816"
  • This interview states that Sydney Grammar "is the oldest school in Australia, even though the Kings School claims the crest; Grammar was founded before Kings." (But Grammar did close for a short while)
  • Launceston Church Grammar School claims in their wiki article that it is "the longest continuously running independent school in Australia". (Founded 1846)
There are a few other sites backing each of the above claims ofcourse, and a discussion on this very topic at Talk:Launceston Church Grammar School.
My thinking is that King's is the oldest continuously running independent school in Australia, however the fact that it has only been located on its current site for a relatively short time may mean that others are claiming it (it hasn't closed at all in its past has it?). So I guess I have no answer for you..sorry! Loopla 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the school has been closed for a period of time during the 1860s. Due to damage from severe storms which caused the roof of the main premises to collapse, the school was closed in 1864 and was then re-opened in 1869.--Rcandelori 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Tony (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History?

See Frederic Barker ... Victuallers 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor standards: can we lift our game?

"Broughton was a protege of the Duke of Wellington, at that time the Prime Minister of the U.K. The Duke helped get Royal patronage, in which it was stated that, with the authority of King George IV, such schools be named "The King's Schools"."

  • at the time Prime Minister of
  • "U.K." is never dotted; it didn't exist as a term—maybe even as a concept—at the time. Check whether "Great Britain" would be correct.
  • "Helped get" is pretty awful. "Helped to obtain"? But how? Just a brief phrase letting us in on the secret. Where is the reference? And if the royal patronage (do you mean the text that embodies it?) is not at that source, where can the hapless reader locate it? Lower-case for "royal", unless you're making a proper title out of it (which would require at least a P—even then, it seems generic to me).

This is not good writing. Sorry to be blunt. You might consider posting slabs of proposed text here for comment if you have doubts about the expression. TONY (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I wrote the entire history section. Most of it was adapted from the official school diary or "The King's School 1831-1981" and as such a few clunky sentences have been clumsily migrated. I have supplemented those sources with other internet references wherever possible, however due to the age of the topics I cannot cite an additional source as to how royal patronage was secured, or where the text is located. In any event, I accept your grammatical criticisms and have modified the text to a superior standard as per your request. --Rcandelori (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Senior school" section needs surgery throughout. TONY (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to the "surgery" required? It is an entirely factual account.--Rcandelori (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK—are there chunks of text longer than single phrases that are directly copied? If so, consider direct quotes, or paraphrase. Usually, text from sources can be improved, which solves the problem. TONY (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of it is paraphrased. Notwithstanding your original criticisms, I think the history section is reasonably well-written. There is still a lot of work to be done on this article, however it should be noted that it is difficult to write about the facilities and various educational programs of the school without the article appearing to sound like a marketing brochure for prospective students. As a former student myself, I am taking as much care as reasonably possible to ensure a balanced view is provided.--Rcandelori (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do exercise that balance you talk of; WP is fussy about what might be self-promotion. I'll have a look now at what you've done. TONY (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hardly any change; 28 and 8 pounds for boarders and dayboys. Looks like a different ratio to the current one (infobox; BTW, why are the day fees over such a huge range (10 to 20 thousand dollars)?). Query the 100 pound a year salary for Broughton in the 1830s—sounds like a HUMUNGOUS salary. It's 12.5 day fees and almost four boarders. Compare with today's fees. Looks OK. So I'd question the assumption in that source that it was a low salary. TONY (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)