Talk:Monmouth School for Boys/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Preliminary declaration of interest: the nominator is a personal friend of mine, but as I am habitually even nastier to my friends than to everyone else I don't feel disqualified from reviewing this nomination. More anon. Tim riley talk 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - first, many thanks indeed for picking up the GAR. Second, for transparency on my own part, it's my old school, of some 35 years ago. As such, I'm sure it's full of POV and Puffery. So I shall expect a vigorous review and am sure I'll get it! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Right – here are the results of my first perusal. Nothing to frighten the horses.

• Recurrent phrase

• I clocked "ABC saw XYX" (as in "The early 1850s saw the appointment of an external examiner" and "The Second World War saw the deaths of a further sixty-one Old Monmothians") eight times before I stopped counting. It's a legitimate construction – to Hell with the dim-witted pedants who insist that years haven't got eyes – but one can overdose on it.

• Done - I hope.

• Years of foundation: 1613–1616

• You need to choose between the BrE and AmE forms of possessive for names ending in "s". We have both Jones's and Jones' in this para and later. I recommend standardising on the (BrE) former passim.

• Done

• "the priority given to the preacher illustrates (Jones') concern" – if, as I am guessing, the bracketed name is in lieu of a pronoun that is in the original quote you should put it in square, not round, brackets.

• Done

• "Neither Owen, nor many of his 17th and 18th century successors, lasted very long unlike the school day ..." – that's a delightful piece of writing, but I doubt if its epigrammatic tone is quite suitable for an encyclopedia. But I shall not press the point if you are, understandably, attached to the phrasing.

• Can I keep it. I take the point but I do rather like it!

• I am not objecting, for GA purposes. If you go to FAC, prenez garde! Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• The precarious years: 1616–1800

• "The twentieth century historian of the school, H.A.Ward" – two points here: I'd hyphenate "twentieth-century" when used attributively, as here. And just checking that you intended to omit a space between Ward's first and second initial. If the Manual of Style contains any guidance on the matter I have yet to find it, and I think it is left to individual editors to make up their own minds for each article. I know one of our closest colleagues hates a space (we worked together on Wodehouse, where the matter was of some importance) but left to my own devices I think I prefer one; anyway, it's entirely your call here I think.

• Done & Done

• Years of controversy: 1800–1850

• "maintain the tradition curriculum" – something missing here: either "to maintain the traditional curriculum" or "to maintain the tradition of a curriculum". If the former you want a comma after "which" and if the latter a comma-less "that" would be better.

• Done - with a bit of rewording. But does it work?

• That will do for me. Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Years of expansion: 1851–1914

• "re-organised" – I wouldn't hyphenate (the OED and Collins don't; I'm not at Riley Towers and haven't got Chambers to hand).

• Done

• "a new girls' school ... a boys grammar school" – shockingly unequal treatment, giving the girls an apostrophe but denying the boys one. Shame on you!

• Done

• The modern era: 1945–2018

• "and to that body advising" – I was taught that in such a construction "advising" is a gerund and not a participle, and so needs a possessive: "and to that body's advising". On the other hand I am 4,000 years old, and you may feel that current usage is agin me. Up to you.

• Done

• According to the lead the school is currently in the HMC, or whatever they're calling it now, but the school's expulsion in the post-war period is the last we hear of the organisation. You might add the date of readmission at the appropriate place in the narrative.

• Done

• Fine, though the twin Oracles of the OED and TR don't hyphenate "readmit". Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• "at this time, the elementary" – I think you want a stronger stop than a comma here.

• Done

• Histories of the school

• "the Reverend W M Warlow ... the Reverend K M Pitt" – comically outdated though full stops in people's initials are, they are required by the Manual of Style (the baneful influence of America, alas). And earlier you abbreviated Reverend to Rev; I prefer the latter, but whichever you prefer, best stick to one or the other.

• Done & Done & Done

• "Keith Kissack published his own history" – a bit ambiguous: it was a history of his own, but it wasn't his own history.

• Done

• Buildings

• "1864-5" – doesn't conform with the MoS Diktat on date ranges. It has to be 1864–1865 now, God save us!

• Done and again later for Stock.

• "These buildings are all Grade II listed buildings" – it would read better if you piped to omit the second "buildings"

• Done

• "the Haberdashers' Hall in London that was destroyed during the Blitz" – unless, per impossibile, there was another Haberdashers' Hall in London that wasn't destroyed during the Blitz, this is a restrictive (defining) clause and needs "which" not "that", with a comma in front of it.

• Done

• "most significant architectural merit" – what does it signify? Better to use plain English: "the greatest architectural merit"

• Done - I should have learnt by now!

• "Situated on the Hereford Road, away from the main school site, the architectural historian John Newman" – why is poor Mr Newman marooned in the Hereford Road? You need to recast so that the geographical location refers to the Chapel House, not to him. I note you have gone over to the Americans, and write "on So-and-so Road" rather than the traditional English "in", but I know a lost cause when I see one, and I am not going to waste energy in a doomed rearguard battle, here or anywhere else.

• Done

• "Blake Theatre" – why the italics?

• Done

• "Lord Bishop of Monmouth" – I'd drop the Trollopian "Lord" here.

• Done

• "Wright described them" – He described them?

• Done

• "by the former Welsh and British Lions captain" – if you're going to link to the British Lions you should probably link to the Welsh national rugby team as well.

• Done

• There's a virulent outbreak of seeing in this section: "2011 saw the commencement of the Heart Project. This saw the sale of some outlying sites."

• Done - I hope!

• "in order to assist" – two unnecessary words: just "to assist" would be shorter and better.

• Done

• "William Jones Building" – further unexpected italics.

• Done

• "Further phases are planned, as funds allow." – MOS:DATED. It would benefit from the insertion of the current year in the text.

• Done - by removal. I always thought it a weak sentence, with a hint of the prospectus.

• The school today

• "Tatler magazine's 2017 Schools Guide" – is this regarded as an authoritative guide? (I'm not disputing it, but merely ask.)

• I think it is pretty authoritative, [1].

• "a significant bursary programme" – again, I ask what does it signify?

• Done by replacing with substantial?

• Houses

• "As at 2014" – and as at 2018?

• Done

• Extra-curricular activities

• The OED doesn't hyphenate "extracurricular" and nor does Collins (nor Riley, come to that).

• Done

• "HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex" – far too much flummery. Either Prince Edward or the Earl of Wessex and certainly no HRH.

• Done

• I see you have now slipped a painful false title in for the donor of the hall, but I do not press the point (at GA level, that is. Watch my chariot wheels at FAC.) Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The school also has a music school, the Glover Music School" – that's a helluva lot of schools within ten words. And the whole paragraph contains no fewer than twelve "schools". Some surely could be pruned, e.g. "The school's strong musical tradition owes much to Michael Eveleigh, Director of Music at the school from 1950–1986, and his successors. The school has had only five Directors of Music since the Second World War." rejigged as "The school has a strong musical tradition, fostered by its five post-war Directors of Music, notably Michael Eveleigh (1950–1986)." (There is here, as throughout, a question of excessive capitalisation, but as I will always raise two fingers to the MoS and refuse to write "lord chancellor" or "archbishops of York", I am not going to object to your Directors of Music. Others will assuredly disagree if you ever take the article to FAC.)

• Done - Heavens, there were a lot! I've trimmed them and demoted DoM to dom.

• Sport

• If you're going to link to rugby, I'd link to Rugby union. And if linking to the muddied oafs, why not to the flannelled fools? We pass over the Article of Faith that cricket is not a sport, but a game, which seems to me – not a word to BB! – a distinction without a difference.

• Done

• "The sports facilities include a new sports complex which houses a six-lane swimming pool, indoor sports facilities, a weight and fitness suite, tennis courts, and a full size astroturf pitch. The Butler sports pavilion..." – You could painlessly lose two of the four "sports" from this.

• Done

• Headmasters

• The postnominals are baffling. If Robert Brabourne (1657) didn't get his MA from Oxford or Cambridge, where on earth did he get it? Scotland? Likewise Messrs Morris, Bassett, Wright, Cuthbert, Birt, Barnes, Crowe and Prosser. And are we really to believe that no headmaster since Jane Glover's dad has had a degree? I'd blitz all the postnominals. I'd also lose the extremely tangential information about Mesdames Pleydell and Glover, which is nothing to do with the school.

• Done & Done - Ward gave them religiously, and I quite liked them, but no one else did, so I'm sure you're right re. removal.

• References

• Ample, clear and consistently set out, but refs 80 and 118 are no longer working, and are not archived at the Wayback machine.

• Hum - you're quite right and, on further checking, there's another that gives me a 404 error. Blast. Shall ping you when I've sorted them.

• And now sorted.

That's all I can find to quibble about. This is an admirable article, with no visible evidence of Old Boy’s bias, and I think we can cut the ceremonial ribbon fairly soonish, once you've had a chance to address my few comments. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you'd prefer me to. – Tim riley talk 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim - very much appreciated, and much improved, as ever. The ref.s are a b*gger and I'll attack them now and ping you when I'm done. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - I think we are done. Thanks so much. And congratulations on Sir Osbert. I'm very sorry I didn't get to him, but he managed quite well without my input. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I confidently leave those two (or three) uncontentious citation points in your hands and move to cutting the tape:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Fine work. Your old school can be proud of your efforts on its article. – Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)