Talk:Dulwich College/GA1

GA Review

Unfortunately, this article requires a substantial amount of work before it meets the Good Article criteria. Several issues are:

• The lead needs more work. The first paragraph of the lead, for instance, is only a single sentence; either merge the paragraphs so there are two paragraphs in the lead, or expand them further.
• Remove bold formatting from the article's body (reserve it only for the lead to identify the article's subject.)
• Several sections including "School Uniform", "School Slang", and "Recent developments" are completely unreferenced.

Gary King (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the above GA "Review"

If I had been an active editor on the Dulwich College article, I think I would find the above GA review rather perfunctory and dismissive. The article is not yet up to GA standard, and the criticisms raised are valid enough, but the article deserved a more thoughtful critique than it seems to have got. Are these three points the reviewer's sole concerns, or are there others he has not mentioned? If there is more, the editors are entitled to know, so that they can make a comprehensive effort to improve the article. Unfortunately, I don't see here from the reviewer any indication of engagement with the editors, or of a readiness to help, or indeed of any sense of interest in the article at all. There is no reference to the six GA criteria - how did the article fare against each of these? All in all, this is in my view a good example of how not to carry out GA reviews.

If the editors would like some constructive ideas as to how the article might be improved, over and above the points indicated, I'd be pleased to help - just leave a message on my talk page. I have no connection with the college, but I would very much like to see this as the first UK school article to make it to GA. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the Good Article process is not to critique articles; rather, it is to assess articles that are at or almost at Good Article standards. Per the quoted text at WP:GAN, "If you believe an article meets the good article criteria", then you should submit it for nomination. This article is clearly not even close to the standards. If the article's editors wish some light to be shed on what can be done to improve it, then getting a Peer Review at WP:PR is the way to go. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that, instead of blaming the nominators for presenting a flawed product, you consult WP:Reviewing good articles, which states: "The Good Article process is one of the main systems which provides a critical review of the article" (emphasis added). It also says "When reviewing an article, keep in mind that nominators want guidance (emphasis added) on improving an article which is not yet up to standard, and appreciate specific comments on how to bring the article up to standard". Also: "Reviewing is a serious responsibility, and the most dedicated reviewers spend considerable time on each article". Your personal view that the purpose of the process is merely to assess articles that are at or nearly at the required standard is obviously contrary to these guidelines. Any article that is not within the quick fail criteria (and this article isn't) deserves more time, consideration and respect than you gave it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not blame editors, ever. I point out flaws in articles, period. People should take a look at WP:GNGA before nominating an article; even though it is not a guideline, it is prominently linked to from WP:GAN. Also, I have given actionable suggestions on this page for the article's editors to work on; once they have been done, they are always free to respond back on this page. I always watch Good Article reviews that I give out, and am willing to follow up on them at all times. Gary King (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, and it might help if you gave that impression when wording your review comments. But perhaps, having had WP:Reviewing good articles brought to your attention, you will review in that spirit, in future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I nominated this article was because all of the probllems highlighted in teh first GA review seemed to have been addressed. (Lack of scope, lack of references &c.) Indeed, your 3 points can be easily addressed with a little amount of work. So I would dispute the assertion that: "This article is clearly not even close to the standards." I will, however, have a look at the criteria and do some editing as and when ?I have the time. Bensonby (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough; you are free to disagree with my assessment. Every reviewer has their own opinion, and my own can certainly be disputed. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)