Wikipedia:Featured article review/Caulfield Grammar School/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.

Caulfield Grammar School[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Talk messages left at Harro5, Schools and Australia. LuciferMorgan 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original FAC shows indecision:

This article passed in 2005, when standard for articles was a lot lower than it is now. It currently does not meet FA criteria.

  • 1a) It does not contain brilliant prose. Some paragraphs are two sentences long. Some of the grammer may be questionable. A thorough copyedit is required.
  • 1b) Leadership program is not mentioned. Extra-curricular academic opportunities are forgotten. Information on school philosophy, motto, song, past achievements, mission etc. are not given.
  • 1c) This is the biggest problem. Half of the article is unsourced. A featured article shouldn't have [citation needed] tags lying around everywhere.
  • 1d) The article contains a very pro-Caulfield point of view. For example: "Five debates are held each year, and Caulfield teams debate against other Melbourne schools - both independent and government schools - on various current interest topics. Debaters in Year 12 compete in the A-Grade division, many having begun in the Year 9 D-Grade and been involved in all four divisions of the DAV competition." It gives a feeling of experience and strength in debating when this is quite the norm in all schools in Australia.
  • 2a) The lead doesn't summarize the topic. Mentions of the fee and of the school mission statement are not made in the rest of the article. Two paragraphs of the lead are unimportant and don't belong there.
  • 2b) Very minor but the history seems awkwardly sorted into ToC.
  • 3) More images might be nice.

Those are my views. Sfdasfr 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sfdasfr, per the FAR instructions above, pls notify the original article author/nominator and the WikiProjects listed on the article talk page, with {{subst:FARMessage|Caulfield Grammar School}}~~~~ Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have been notified. Sfdasfr 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lucifer (just thinking it's time we started prompting nominators to do this, per instructions.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you have a point. Perhaps we can instruct them to do so and give them two days before we take action ourself? LuciferMorgan 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it next time. Sfdasfr 05:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. LuciferMorgan 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main contributor to this article, but am currently not able to edit very much. (Hint: Great Firewall of China). I will do what I can to address any concerns, but need more specifics from the original comments. Harro5 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of my comments are fairly specific. I have added cn tags in places in which the comments are not verifiable. The school uniform is unsourced but I'm being lax there because it's harder to find a source for. There are numerous other completely sunsourced sections. There is pro-Caulfield POV in places. The VCE section is POV and unsourced. The Nanjing campus section is POV and unsourced. A major copyedit would do well. The article isn't deserving of FA status in current times. Sfdasfr 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one at all is working on this article and the problems have still not been addressed. Should we go to FARC?? Sfdasfr 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and POV (1d). Marskell 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - I don't see anyone ready and knowledgeable enough to fix the problems this article has. It certainly doesn't meet the standard of currently promoted FAs. Sfdasfr 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove No real progress to fix 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d. Jay32183 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove—the four criteria specified; no progress. A school FAC has to be pretty special, IMV. Tony 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Jay's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 20:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Caulfield_Grammar_School/archive1&oldid=1138476729"