Talk:Norwich School/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Has a reference section. It uses the less popular and awkward short citation method; though it is problematic, it is favoured by some editors, and is not against GA criteria. However, it is worth reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of this method, as it is a style more suited to printing or writing on paper where it usefully saves some space on the bottom of pages, but on Wikipedia it merely creates difficulty for readers wishing to check sources. At least in this article there is a link to the book title, but the title still remains divorced from the page number. It's a small but somewhat frustrating matter as that difficulty can be simply overcome by using the more appropriate and conventional long citation method where all the important details are provided in a single citation. Also, where possible, a link to an online version of the source is helpful - such as the Fleming Report. This makes things easier for the reader (and GA reviewer!) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I will consider changing the citation method in the future, but will leave it alone for now. Thanks for the online version of the Fleming Report. I've added a link. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Citation is rich and helpful. Cites lead to appropriate reliable sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Article is detailed. While at times there seems an excess of minor detail for a general encyclopedia ("The Head Master ... is responsible to the Governors for the whole school from 7 to 18, though is primarily based in the Senior School", "admission is based on assessments in English, mathematics and reasoning, an academic reference from the applicant's current school and an interview", "Art, Art History, Biology, Chemistry, Classical Civilisation, 2D Design, 3D Design, Economics, English Literature, French, Geography, German, Greek, History, Latin, Mathematics, Further Mathematics, Music, Philosophy, Physics, Government & Politics, Religious Studies, Spanish, Sports Science and Theatre Studies"), this is not outside the bounds of the GA criteria, so is a matter for ongoing development and editorial discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up excessive detail. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Images tagged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• No signs of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Valid interpretation from sources where checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Images now tidy and relevant. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Query

*All images are tagged and usable. The article is richly illustrated, and much of the illustration is encyclopaedic, interesting and valuable; however, some images have dubious relevance, and serve more to clutter than inform. File:Norwich School playing fields in snow, Norwich, UK.jpg has little encyclopaedic value, being mainly a picture of snow, trees and the cathedral. File:Norwich Cathedral Close - geograph.org.uk - 290704.jpg and File:Geograph-3692067-by-Richard-Croft.jpg are of the same topic, but from different angles - are both really needed? Is File:Norwich Nelson monument.JPG needed? It's not a good quality image, and appears to add little, especially as there is an image of Nelson further down. Is File:Norwich Cathedral interior.JPG needed? What value is File:Norwich School 1st VIII 2009.jpg adding? See [[WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed several images. Personally I feel the Nelson statue image is worth keeping and have moved it to the Notable people section. What do you think? Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The article looks much neater, and more professional now. I am still not keen on the Nelson image, but it's not a problem. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• On the whole the prose is clear, readable, and of a professional standard; however, at times there is a lack of immediate clarity, and sometimes extra punctuation would be useful. I will copy edit the article as I continue to work through it, and I don't really see this as being a major issue, but it's worth bringing it up so others can also look into cleaning up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Will see if anyone in WP:WPSCH would like to lend a hand. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Article appears to cover all major details - indeed, seems fairly comprehensive; however, I'll do a little more background reading while the article is on hold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• MoS. Inappropriate capital letters - see WP:MOSCAPS. The Notable people section has an appropriate and helpful prose summary for the alumni, but a simple list for staff; as the staff list is short and can be dealt with in prose, perhaps grouping by headmaster, teacher or usher (explaining what the usher is), then it doesn't appear to satisfactorily meet the requirements of WP:EMBED. The layout has images scattered unevenly and squeezing text, and some sub-sections are a little short and perhaps not needed, as in the three in Extracurricular activities. See MOS:LAYOUT SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 03:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've converted the list into prose, removed the subsections in Extracurricular activities and have changed the image layout. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good work - article is looking very presentable. I'm just going through it again now, looking for stray capital letters. I'll change occurrences of Head Master to headteacher, as headteacher is the acceptable use, though mention that Head Master is the usage within the school. I've also just commented out (hidden the text, but left it in place) some material that doesn't appear strictly relevant to the topic, nor would be seen as important to a general reader (background material on Herbert de Losinga, and a minor historical dispute regarding payment to the school). I've left it in place, though, in case the material is seen as important. If not, then it can be cut. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Needs a copyedit to remove inappropriate capital letters. See WP:MOSCAPS. Titles of school subjects, art, biology, etc, are not capitalised, nor are occupations, like headmaster, governor, etc, unless they are part of someone's title, such as President Obama. Headteachers and school governors don't take their occupation as a title on Wikipedia, even though they may do in some literature. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of these now, but I would appreciate it if you could catch any I may have missed. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• The events around 1540 seem a little unclear. Sanderson mentions that the episcopal grammar school, whose history is given in this article, may have been merged with an almonry school, which had been founded by 1311. William White and Saunders indicate that the free school in Blackfriars was either founded there or was founded in 1325 by Salmon. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• When did the school change name from Norwich Grammar School to Norwich School? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't come across the name change in any of the sources unfortunately. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Text says: "founded by Herbert de Losinga, first Bishop of Norwich, shortly after establishing a Benedictine priory in Norwich in 1096". Sources indicate that the school itself was founded in 1096 - is the ambiguity regarding if the school or priory was founded in 1096 deliberate or a phrasing error? Can the details regarding the founding of the school be made clearer, and some of the history of Losinga reduced in order to aid that clarity? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold

This is a fine, detailed and useful article on a significant school. Research appears to have been rigorous, and information presented in an organised and helpful manner. This is the sort of article which helps to improve the reputation of Wikipedia. Quibbles are mainly to do with the presentation, mainly to do with WP:Layout. I suggest removing some of the less relevant images, and laying out the remaining images per WP:LAYIM: generally, avoid bunching them, placing opposite each other, breaking sections; generally images are placed either all down the right hand side, or alternatively right and left - though this is no longer a requirement.

A little bit of minor tidying up, and this article meets GA criteria and can then possibly be worked toward FA if wanted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the thorough review. I'll respond to each of your points individually and will look at implementing your suggestions over the next few days. Duffit ^talk 16:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing

Good work has been done on the relatively minor presentation issues. This is a decent and useful article, and while there are some quibbles remaining about certain aspects of the information (such as the exact history of the school), I don't see a need to hold up the review in order to settle those matters, as I feel they are part of the ongoing development of the article. While sources themselves are unclear on the exact history of the school, but the article doesn't deviate from an accepted history, I don't see a real issue - though I would expect that further and deeper research in the matter would take place to clarify the position regarding the school's history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)