Talk:Sutton Grammar School

RAF membership

The RAF section retains all male membership? That's not true is it? I'm fairly sure when I was in it, it was mixed gender. Then again, perhaps that's why I left so quickly...

link

The link http://www.oldsuttonians.co.uk/ does not currently work.
John S (a passing past pupil) 5-11-07

October 2016 updates

I've made lots of changes. Could someone please submit the entry to be reassessed now? I think this is warranted for a number of reasons:

• The School's academic performance has significantly increased lately; the latest league tables place it 13th in the country for GCSE results.
• The School has been in the media much more lately, particularly in relation to Theresa May's proposed grammar school reforms. Coverage has included references to the School's academic performance, competitiveness in gaining admission and a child genius pupil (Krtin Nithiyanandam) who has recently been making breakthroughs in medical research aged 15/16.
• Many more references have been included to the School's historical links and importance.
• Photographs have been added showing the School buildings, some of which are architecturally significant.

Thank you.

--Sgspedia (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. It is close to a B. Need to really get a citation on every paragraph if poss. The wide photo seems a bit odd. Look at the template called "Wide" which will give you a hoz scroll to see pic. Bery good effort. well done Victuallers (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but isn't it already B-class according to this talk page? Also, are you referring to the wide photo of the playing fields? Will work on that and add some more references when I get some more time. Just cleaning up some vandalism for the moment. Thanks again. --Grempletonian (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Victuallers (talk), I have implemented the changes you suggested in terms of editing the wide photo and adding citations. I have also added more information, particularly up-to-date information. Most paragraphs (except a few) now contain citations, with many containing multiple citations. Do you think the entry can now be reassessed? --Grempletonian (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking good. Thanks for your work. Most pictures should be left as "thumb" so that readers can choose to click on pictures to see. Not everyone has broadband :-) Also "current" needs to say when. I worry about mentioning names of head boy etc as ephemeral. Next stage is to go for "Good Article" status..... Good luck. Victuallers (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Victuallers (talk)! I'll be sure to make the changes you suggest. I also don't like the mention of names of Head Boy, etc. but someone keeps adding it back in. I'll remove it again. How do we go for 'Good Article' status exactly? Grempletonian (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes made :-) Grempletonian (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

October/November vandalism

Sadly, after all of my updates in October/November, the page was seriously vandalised. I'm no expert on Wikipedia but have put a lot of time and effort into this page over the years. Any idea how to prevent such vandalism in future? I feel like a school Wikipedia article is particularly prone to vandalism like this. Grempletonian (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Put it on your watchlist. I will. Teenagers think its funny. It is very easy to revert hours of vandalism efforts in a second. This usually deters. Where we have silly persistent vandals then we can ban them or protect the page from casual editing - but Wiki prefers to teach good behaviour rather than imposing it. Victuallers (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)