Talk:New College, Oxford/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Robminchin (talk · contribs) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
I'm willing to do this review. On an initial read over, there are no banners or inline tags and the prose looks okay (with a few issues that I will expand on below). At an initial glance, referencing looks a bit sparse, but I've not done a thorough check to see what each reference verifies yet. Robminchin (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Leadedit
In the infobox:
Historyedit
Robminchin (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC) College linksedit
Buildings and gardenseditIntroductory section:
Sorry for the delay, I was sick for a few days and now I'm having internet problems. Robminchin (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I've managed to get hold of Sherwood and Pevsner (1974) to check the paragraphs citing that work. Mostly okay, but a couple of items to note:
Halledit
Chapeledit
Gardens and city walledit
Treasuresedit
|
Music
editChoir
editI suggest this subsection needs to be re-written from the ground up. There are problems with the statement of option as fact and virtually nothing is verified by the citations given. Something needs to be said about the college choir to satisfy the broad coverage criteria, so I don't think it can be simply deleted.
- Something certainly needs to be said, and that would need to be similar to what is here; further, much of this is in fact correct, as are most of the citations.
The opening two sentences need citations
- Added.
- I'm not sure what's happening with the second reference - there seems to be an archive link that isn't to an archived version of the original url but to something similar from 2008, but the actual link is live. It would be better to remove the archive link entirely (or at least point it to an archived version of the current page).
- It was a valid archive link but the url-status parameter was missing: fixed.
The claim in the third sentence that "The choir has a reputation as one of the finest Anglican choirs in the world" needs to make it clear among whom it has this reputation and to provide independent citations to support this claim.
- Removed.
The citation given says the choir has a "particular emphasis on British composers of the English Renaissance, the middle Baroque, and the music of Handel" in its recordings, but does not verify that it is "known particularly for its performances of Renaissance and Baroque music".
- Edited.
The citation for the number of recordings still in the catalogue is actually a discography that merely says many of them are available to buy. It does not verify the number available to buy nor, as an archived page from almost a decade ago, can it possibly verify which ones are "still available"
- Let's remove this, as it's close to a cited claim below.
The final sentence of the opening paragraph is verified, but by an archived page from 2009 that may not be current. Also, "appearing a number of times at the BBC Proms" differs only in tense from the "has appeared a number of times at the BBC Proms" of the source.
- Once one has appeared at the Proms, that remains true for all time. Reworded slightly, this is a basic fact and standard form of words.
The citations for the Gramophone awards are undated dead links. From the looks of the Wayback Machine, they've been dead for over a decade.
- Updated the ref for the 2008 Grammy, the URL had been changed. Unfortunately the Grammy archive doesn't go back as far as 1997, but Discogs has republished "Excerpts" from Gramophone for the 1997 awards, so I've cited that.
The sentence about the organist becoming Oxford's first choral professor seems completely unrelated to anything else in this section, and isn't verified by the citation given.
- The connection seems immediately apparent but if others can't see it let's do without.
The 2009 Bartlemas procession is verified, but if this was only a one-off it doesn't seem worth mentioning. It needs evidence that this is a revived tradition.
- Not sure I follow that logic; if the tradition was revived for a procession, that is a matter of interest; if it's repeated, of course that would be nice too, but a different matter.
- We don't want or need a list of everything the choir has done in its history here, so if it was a one-off event that has no ongoing significance then it seems undue to mention it here.
- OK, I'll record that I don't agree, because it is only an active, energetic and outgoing choir that takes the trouble to revive old traditions, but am removing the item now.
Only the 2015 Papal mass is verified by the sources cited; the citation for the 2016 mass does not verify the participation of the college choir.
- Removed 2016.
The Catholic Herald link is dead, but it could be retrieved from the Wayback Machine.
- Archived.
Organ
editThe statement that the organ tuning is "regulated by Bishop and Son of London and Ipswich" is unverified, and not obviously relevant.
- Removed.
The citation verifies that the organ was restored by Goetze and Gwynn in 2014, but the statement about registration changes and the 32 ft Fagot receiving a full-length bass are from a user comment on the news story, this not a reliable source (and the "32 ft Fagot" section is copied verbatim from that comment). If this is included, it should also be re-written to explain what it means.
- Removed.
Organists and directors of music
editIt is unclear why this section exists. It seems to be straying away from focus on the topic of the article.
- The College's centuries-long tradition of professional organists is an integral part of its being.
- The same could be said of having a list of chaplains or librarians, or any other college officer. The argument that a tradition of professional organists is more important than these needs to be made with backing from independent sources.
- Removed for now.
Student life
editMiddle Common Room
editThis section needs more citations. Only the existence of the MCR journal is verified.
- As with the JCR, I'm not sure we've anything worth saying here so let's do without the subsection.
Junior Common Room
editThe citation to the top level of the JCR website doesn't obviously verify anything in the opening sentence.
- We're down to such a minimal statement here, that there are students and a committee, I think we'll be better off not mentioning it.
It's not clear why the student statistics are in this section as they have no apparent connection with the JCR.
- As the section states, the JCR is the body of undergraduates in the college.
- But the JCR has nothing to do with admissions. This would sit better in the "outreach" section.
- Not sure it belongs there either. Let's just drop them.
The webpage cited for the admissions statistics does not verify the claims made in this sentence
- As above.
Outreach
editThe opening sentence makes vague, unreferenced claims she needs to be either tightened up or deleted.
- Removed.
The source cited verified the goals and existence of the Step-Up programme but not that it started in 2017. I also noticed that it is "Step-Up" rather than "Step Up".
- Removed date, added hyphen.
The source cited for Oxford for Wales doesn't verify that this started in 2020.
- Removed the date; we could probably rely on the access-date ("By 2020, the college had founded...") but that's untidy.
People
editAlumni and fellows
editThe reference for the first sentence names Hugh Grant and Susan Rise as alumni of New College, but does not verify 'a legacy of distinguished alumni and staff'.
- Removed.
The reference for the second sentence verifies Richard Dawkins was a Professorial Fellow at New College and held the Simonyi professorship, but does not mention Marcus du Sautoy.
- Removed, there is no need for any text here as the list of New College people is sufficient.
Wardens
editThe reference for this is a bit odd, being a history from 1954. While it states that "The college was governed by the Warden, who was elected for life by a majority of fellows; he had to be a fellow or ex-fellow, 30 years of age at least, a graduate in theology or law, or an M.A., in priest's orders or to take them immediately" this doesn't seem to verify the current role.
- Added refs, and see next.
A section included in many articles on educational institutions is Organization and administration (c.f. WP:HED/AG). It would be more usual to describe the warden (and the governing body) in such a section, as well as the relationship between the college and the university. This would also be a place to mention that the students are divided into an MCR and JCR, without having to have subsections for each common room.
- Good idea, reorganised and said that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Images
editOnly one image with a technical issue:
The image File:Oxford men and their colleges - The Cloister, New College.png used to illustrate the cloisters and chapel in the Chapel section has a copyright tag indicating it is in the public domain in the US because it was published before 1928. However, this contains the note that "If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." There doesn't seem to be any doubt that it is out of copyright as the artist, Frederick Mackenzie, died in 1854, but the tag for this is missing.
- Added PD-old-100 on Commons.
Criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Congratulations!