Talk:Bridgnorth Endowed School

Assessment

This article has gone from being up for deletion to being a pretty good piece of work, and this article has clear potential to be a good article (GA) or even featured (FA). Under WP:ASSESS I am granting this article C-class for its present state. For B-class or higher the article will need to be meet the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria, of which this article does not yet fully meet. The first issue is that this article lacks references, it has some but not enough for the length of the article, and more should be added. In particular there are no references at all for the alumni section, there should be at least one per claim, and {{cite web}} and other similar templates should be used if possible. The article is also rather short on coverage, which would need to be resolved fully for GA or FA class, and improved a bit for B class. The article contains a lot on history on alumni, but not much else. Much more content can be added on issues such as notable staff, curriculum, Ofsted inspections, extra curricular activities, and the uniform if there is one and it is worthy of note. The pictures are good but the infobox should contain the school logo if possible. The importance of this school could be debated, it certainly beyond low importance and is above the average mid importance school, while it is probably not nationally well known enough for top importance, hence I am giving the article high importance. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am re-assessing this article following a request, overall I have to say I am quite impressed on how this article has come on. I am generally now satisfied it meets Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. The article is generally well referenced, a few gaps perhaps and use of {{cite web}} is encouraged though is not required for B-class. The article is full of lots of material, and contains most of the stuff needed for a good article. The structure is okay, though the history section is very long and might need to be split into multiple sub-sections. Some things should probably have their own sections, see WP:WPSCH/AG for suggested layouts. Overall, I am giving this article B-class and I will list it under GA potential candidates at WP:WPSCH. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked to re-assess this article once again, it is good to see it is being given a lot of care and attention and looks better every time I look at it. This article has already been given the highest rating that is given through WikiProject Schools assessment requests which is B-class. The high importance rating seems right though a case could be made for top importance with the history. The next rating this article can be given is GA class, but it would need to go through the good article process to achieve this. I would recommend listing this article at peer review so it can get some scrutiny from a wider group of editors, then when ready list it for GA at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobel peace prize

Authors/members of the IPCC are not winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Their contribution is acknowledged but they cannot be said to be winners or nobel laureates etc. See here: [1]. I fixed this on 27 Oct 2012 [2] but it was reverted later. I will fix it again. Don't revert without providing a source that over-rides the source I gave above from the IPCC itself, which states "it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner." TimOsborn (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)