Talk:Wesley College, Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Flag
Portal
 Wesley College, Melbourne 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.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Wesley College might be editing the article to suit their own needs

If you notice, most of the article is written like an ad. I have no doubt that "Notable Alumni and Staff" was most definitly written by the school. 58.106.97.236 tried to delete a whole section of the article, probably because it was the only part not written by the school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Penguinboy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

It is to be expected that contributions can come from all sources, including ones quite close to an institution. I agree that an entry must not come across as self-promoting. Conversely however, an entry shouldn't include subjective criticism and the inclusion of commentary that is insignificant or irrelevant to a general understanding of a topic. Murtoa 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As a student of the school, i consider myself able to decide what is subjective and objective with regards to this article. The section you deleted was not vandalism, it was a statement of the facts. How are facts "not encyclopedic". But even if you did find sections of the article that were "approaching vandalism" then you should have edited them, rather than deleting facts and content from the article. --Penguinboy 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As a student of the school, you may be too close to the subject to be objective. The technology section that was deleted has several problems. Firstly much of it was non-notable. Many schools have integrated computers into the school. It would require something more, ie the first, or recognized as particularly innovative in approach, for this to be notable. Secondly it is entirely unsourced. This is particularly important in the section discussing the release of viruses and worms, which borders on libelous. Everything on Wikipedia should be sourced, and anything contentious must be. Unfortunately what you hear around the school yard does not count. --Michael Johnson 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You'll find that most of the edits on this page, excluding all of the vandalism, has been created by Students or Staff of Wesley College, Melbourne. I understand the WP rules, however, for a small article like this, does it really matter if the user is too close to the subject? Also, to Penguinboy, if you want to create a new section of the article, it really needs more content then a one line statement. --DogGunn 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Understanding the relevant guidelines then, you'll have a good appreciation for the dangers inherent in an article largely authored by insiders, and school articles are regrettably a major breeding ground for poor practices, usually associated with notability and verifiability. Murtoa 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Performing Arts

I edited this material to eliminate subjective and non-notable material. Every private school in Australia has its own theatre productions, so material in this article should be restricted to notable features, such as awards won. The list of productions is not-notable and description shouldn't contain editorial commentary as to the reputation of the respective companies. Murtoa 06:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recognised logo or "official" crest?

I notice there's been some swapping between the well-recognised logo seen at every Wesley campus and in marketing material, versus the claimed "official" crest, which I must admit I've never seen anywhere but in this instance. I would have thought the Wesley website might be a good reference point here, and unless I haven't looked far enough I can't see any instance of the "official" crest, but many instances of the logo. The "official" crest appears no longer in regular or common use, and the image that should headline this article should help reinforce the current branding used by the school. Therefore I strongly suggest that the logo be used in place of the "official" crest. Murtoa 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The official crest was actually found on the Wesley website. I think it should be used as this article exists for encyclopedic purposes not marketing purposes.Loopla 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the article must use encyclopaedic and not promotional content. The term "marketing logo" was being used here (and I didn't coin the term) to try to distinguish from the "crest" that has been displayed. To be clear, I don't think the crest currently displayed is in common use at all (and I have trawled the Wesley website but regret I am having troubling finding it), whereas the other representation is almost ubiquitous. On that basis I would change the image. Murtoa 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The crest can be found a few times on the site (usually on official documentation), e.g. at http://www.wesleycollege.net/v3/app2/files/GE_App_form_2008.doc It is also used constantly by the Old Collegians.Loopla 15:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Addition of substantial material - not NPOV, editorial, advertorial

I have reverted to a previous version after large amounts of editorial content were added, which has not been drawn from independent sources, which is not NPOV, and includes a great deal of school policy, values, vision etc which belongs only in school websites, history books, but not here. Have then examined legitimate changes during the period that this extraneous material has been added. Murtoa 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it was all copywrited too ~~

[edit] Wesley College enrollment figures

Orginally on Wesley's Wikipedia page, the college enrolment claimed to be 2980 students. With further investigation. I have discovered that the person who calculated student population, didn't include the Elsterwick Campus (which is another 450 students!). (Glen Waverly Campus and St Kilda Rd campus student population together equals this figure, but not the Elstie campus!!!) Thus after counting the college rolls in the chronicle (yes, I'm procrastinating), there is a population of around 3448.

Further, I have also discovered that Wesley is also the LARGEST school by enrolment, not the 2nd. Haileybury's wikipedia page claims to be the largest, but they have a population of 3,200 -wesley college has 3,450 - 3,500. Many past newspaper articles (the age - 2006) have claimed that wesley is the largest school in Victoria.

If anybody has further information that condradicts these statements, please feel free to correct me! :) 58.107.228.3 (talk)

Claim has since expanded to biggest in Australia, then biggest in Southern Hemisphere. Either requires substantiation Murtoa (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainability Section

Hi guys, I'm new to all this and i don't know how i should cite, but i have found the citations needed for the sustainability section. I'm still looking for the first citation but i have found the one needed for the second citation. It is "http://www.wesleycollege.net/resources/issue_101.pdf" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.22 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Inserted ref and adjusted text Murtoa (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Trimmed quite a lot of additional info on sustainability just added. It's obviously a subject Wesley takes seriously, but the amount of material added is disproportionate to the entire article and a lot (eg. arrangement of rubbish bins according to their recyclability of the contents) is just not notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

I have substantially expanded the History section (which was about two or three sentences previously). I have largely drawn on the 2004 history of the school to source this. Although the book was the result of a project initiated by the school, it has been written by an independent historian and in my view is a reasonably weighted treatment of the topic and not afraid to be critical where deemed necessary. This book also drew on previous histories such as that written by Blainey and others for the school's centenary. Murtoa (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facilities

The section on facilities should be restricted to elements that are unique or particularly notable about the College. Simply being a large school with many facilities isn't in itself notable. Naming the various function spaces etc is not encyclopedic. Furthermore, this section shouldn't mimic what would be typically found in the school's own website, and thus should be devoid of any marketing flavour or "showing the school in its best light". Also, intranet references are unhelpful. Murtoa (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Have edited additions. The audit of facilities appears to incorrectly imply facilities Wesley owns on its campuses, when in some cases they seem to refer to off-site facilities that Wesley hires?
  • as far as I know Wesley doesn't boast a 50-metre pool unless you're claiming use of the town pool at Clunes?
  • I believe there are no more than three indoor basketball courts across the campuses. Wesley has access to, but does not control indoor courts elsewhere.
  • the locations of the six rowing centres need to be verified; where are they apart from at its rowing shed on the Yarra and the newly completed facility at Glen Waverley?
  • the mentions of academic facilities such as libraries, study areas, dark rooms, music and performing arts buildings, music lesson rooms, orchestra/band rehearsal rooms and recital rooms are not notable - they would be found at most schools similar to Wesley. Similarly, nearly every other school has "plans underway to build new facilities and refurbish old ones." Murtoa (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Have subsequently revised quoted the number of sporting facilities which I believe was previously misleading at best. My reference was local knowledge, but is verifiable by observation from Google Earth. St Kilda Rd campus has one football pitch (which doubles as a cricket pitch in summer), one soccer pitch and six tennis courts (over Punt Rd). Glen Waverley has 3 football ovals and 3 soccer pitches in winter - between them they allow for 5 cricket pitches in summer) - plus four tennis courts. Elsternwick has 4 tennis courts. Have totalled these for the revised entry. Murtoa (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Murtoa... Just letting you know I have inquired with the College's Community College - Facilities Hire Department and I'm able to confirm that all the facilities listed above and on the article are surprisingly true and available, I have requested the college to send me a fact sheet, once received I will post the facilities available on this talk page for reference. They confirmed that the college has 6 rowing centres and they are located at: Glen Waverley, St. Kilda Road, Elsternwick, Albert Park (Albert Park Sports Complex with Wesley's Ovals and tennis centre), Yarra Boat Shed and Clunes. The GW campus has 8 Ovals, the elsternwick campus has 3 ovals and the skr campus has 7 at both the junior campus and middle + senior campus, the college controls/manages/has rights over 4 ovals at albert park, which they have incorporated into their tenis/hockey centre and rowing facility. There are like the article stated 45 tennis courts, 4 and 3 indoor sports complexes, however the college only has 22 drama and dance studios not 25, there are 3 25m swimming pool not 2, 4 multi-media centres, 3 recording studios which had won an engineering award. Will post new information once i have received the fact sheet and will make further inquires about the developments. Thanks for your contribution Murtoa.Sheepunderscore (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your follow up, and I'm sorry to be a pain, but the figures you have quoted simply don't ring true. One matter to settle first - a campus hiring or having access to an oval or tennis court off-campus doesn't in my opinion mean that you can state x campus has y ovals etc. It incorrectly implies that the facilities reside on campus. Accepting this, it is simply untrue to say that the Elsternwick campus has three ovals - I have been there and it has ... no ovals! But don't take my word for it - please have a look at Google Earth. The St Kilda Road campus has just one oval (football in winter, cricket in summer) and one soccer pitch on its campus. Regarding the rowing centres, how can Wesley lay claim to a facility at Albert Park? It may be able to use it, but it is simply misleading to state or imply that the College has these facilities within its campuses. On a similar basis I simply can't agree with the claim regarding tennis courts. In pure Wiki terms, these claims have to be verifiable preferably through independent sources. There is simply no source that can truthfully state that for example Elsternwick has three ovals! I note that the school itself [1] makes no claim to anything more than two swimming pools across all campuses, any ovals at Elsternwick or more than the two areas (football/soccer) at St Kilda Rd.
- Ultimately, quoting such large inaccurate numbers presents an unbalanced view of the school. Also, importantly for Wikipedia, the article should only mention aspects of the facilities that are notable. In this regard, I don't think many of the facilities at Wesley are particularly notable - they're actually quite good, but apart from Wesley boasting more campuses than other schools, the facilities per campus are not much different to similar private schools across Australia. Therefore the article shouldn't in my view, include such voluminous details. As stated earlier, such material belongs instead to a school marketing document, not this encyclopedia. Murtoa (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Murtoa, Im arraging to attend a school tour this next wednesday as I have a day off. I will confirm facilities and clear up this mess once and for all:P. Cheers,Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

tour of all three campuses? big day ahead! Have you had a look at Google Earth? That at least verifies the big green spaces and tennis courts... Murtoa (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
hey Mutoa and everyone else, I will be attending a tour of the elsternwick and both SKR campuses this wednesday, and a tour of the gw campus in two weeks (unfortunately the tour for next week is full and i only get days off on wednesday) i will be personally making notes on the facilities instead of the much unreliable sourced stated in the article, if you guys want me 2 find out anything else please post your requests here. CheersSheepunderscore (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the campuses - Glen Waverley the most, Elsternwick the least. One challenge you will have even after the tour is the issue of verifiability. While I may take your word for your findings, original "research" is a no-no per WP:NOR, and to ensure that content won't be challenged the trick will be to find independently verifiable sources. Ultimately, the issue of notability will arise - whether Glen Waverley boasts three football ovals or four is irrelevant if it's not notable info - and a lot of it won't be in my view. Murtoa (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Good point Murtoa, will try to look for independent sources, however tour will allow me to confirm sources:P....

Sheepunderscore(talk) 11:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

PS i think this discussion page needs a cleanup what do you think?Sheepunderscore (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC) - No, leave as is Murtoa (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Big day tomorrow...:p.... will leave page as it is...Sheepunderscore (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, i will be posting a correct list of facilties after ive been on the gw tour in 2 weeks...:P... happy winter...:P....Sheepunderscore (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of further amplification of figures (ovals, courts etc) which I suspect includes off site facilities not owned or perhaps even controlled by Wesley, I have reduced the part of the section to those which can be verified. Murtoa (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Houses, pastoral care, facilities

I have edited the recently expanded content on Houses, Pastoral Care and Facilities. In the case of Houses and Pastoral Care, the content added was largely not notable in that it would mirror what all schools similar to Wesley would have. I attempted to edit the content to increase its relevance and notability. In the case of facilities, I think the statistics on ovals etc is either incorrect or highly misleading in that it encompasses facilities used by Wesley that are not actually on Wesley campuses. Unless there is verification of these claims they shouldn't be on the page. I'm happy to debate and refine the content to improve the quality of the article. Murtoa (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Work

I thought the facilities by 58.175.154.98 and history section was excellent, keep up the good work. I will be reviewing this article next month so keep up the good work and lets see if I can rated as a GA and move up the importence scale to mid. Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The challenge is to maintain the encyclopaedic nature of the article (refer my additional comments above). The facilities section in my view still remains quite voluminous and has too many elements which come across as not NPOV but more of a marketing flavour. I think the size of this section needs to be of appropriate size with regards rest of article. Info about the orchards at Glen Waverley have little to do with facilities, and other elements eg. darkrooms - are not notable, since they would be found at many similar schools. They should not find their way into this article for sake of completeness, and are more appropriately referenced in a school website. Murtoa (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed 58.175.154.122 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)