Talk:Carlton le Willows Academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ties[edit]

As the colours are not very distinct in the illustration, might it be a good idea to list them as well as illustrating them? Peridon (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I have been pretty much the sole contributor to this article for a quite a few months now, and I would appreciate some direction. If anyone is involved in either WikiProjects Schools or Nottinghamshire, could you please assess the article on both your scales? Cheers. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:23, 03 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well written for a school article. You may consider taking this to Good article nomination. Good work! EyeTripleE (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tighten up[edit]

I've condensed the content to something a little more like the GA listed Malvern College, the maintained information retains the key elements of the school - but reads a little easier (I had concerns regarding contradictory material). As pretty much the sole contributor to this article, I believe that this is the right way forward.Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Peer review if you would like some input from other editors. EyeTripleE (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carlton le Willows Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carlton le Willows Academy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of hard work[edit]

@Curlymanjaro: @Kudpung: There comes a point in any article, that other editors look and identify you as the 'expert' and walk away. It its a real pity because in this case User:Curlymanjaro has put in a hell of a lot of effort over many years. We do need a GA for a UK state school- as Malvern College is private and very atypical. We do need a model that other editors can refer to. He needs feedback and a comrade in arms.

I suspect that when this goes to GA, the following points are going to be picked up: it is overworked (due I suspect to the lack of a second editor being available to give a second opinion); a lot of the text could be removed if the link sentences and detailed explanations of the peculiar English education system were culled. This is where wikilink would be valuable- and some time spent in working up those articles to do the heavy duty work; there will be serious concerns about the heavy reliance on school published documents (primary sources) (original research);whole sections are fascinating but off-focus and would be better spun off as searate articles - for example that Henry Strutt opened the Chandos Street School in section on 1973–present; there is a lot of overlinking such as Minister of Education, A612, European community; and it is too long.

It should be noted that while the state of Educational achievement in Nottinghamshire is dire, so are most of our school articles (POV). --ClemRutter (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ClemRutter, thanks for taking a look at the article. It's been, for better or worse, my personal sandbox as I've progressed as a Wiki editor. That said, I feel this time that I've done enough for GA. One further admission, and where the extent of our optimism differs, is that I'm completely unoriginal; my format is tried and tested. Though I admit it's fatty in places, two GA state schools in Lincolnshire, St George's Academy and Carre's Grammar, edited by the masterful @Noswall59:, largely served as my model - themselves loosely based on the FA-accredited Judd School, a state grammar. As for original sources, without linking to old scholars' forums, my hands were virtually tied. I'm open to individual critique, but we're dealing with a Nottinghamshire comp here, external sources are rarely up-to-date, let alone particularly insightful; have some faith! Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curlymanjaro. Hi, I noticed you pinged me in this discussion and, while I don't really have the time to carry out a full GAR right now, I wish you the best of luck. State school articles are not the easiest to write due to a lack of sources; I was lucky, for instance, with St George's Academy that it celebrated its centenary in 2008 and uploaded a lot of historical material online which was trawled by the Internet Archive. I did, however, have to dig up a lot of offline sources, which was interesting but time-consuming. Your article here seems broadly in good shape, but I do have a few pieces of advice which you can take or leave:

  • The origins and public demand sections is well-research and relevant, but could perhaps be trimmed a tad. The chronology also appears jumbled; you open by saying that "Public demand for the provision of suitable secondary education in the Carlton Urban District was discussed at a meeting of its Council as early as 3 January 1934" but then go on to mention petitions for new schools which dated back to 1932. You then discuss a nine-year-long effort but it's not clear whether this was prior to 1934 (hence dating back to 1925) or going forward therefrom; you also mention campaigning efforts dating back to 1930. Again, we hear about the programme being enacted in 1937 before mention of the 1935 protests; we're then taken to 1949, back to the 1944 Act, then back further to 1933. In the next paragraph we return to 1949 before being taken back to 1944 once again. There is then mention of 1905 and then the 1940s and 1950s. There's nothing wrong with any of this, but I think this section would flow better if, as best as possible, facts are presented in a chronological order.
  • In the section about 1952-73, there is a lot of architectural detail which may be better placed in a 'school buildings' or 'site' section (it's clear that the buildings are noteworthy enough to get this attention); this keeps the reader focused on the historical narrative.
  • I wonder whether the technical grammar school (I didn't realise such things existed) ought to have a spin-off article which could incorporate some of the detail about its history and curriculum which you've included here.
  • ClemRutter is probably right about the schools with which Carlton Le Willows merged; the information about their history ought to be in their own articles and, if they were secondary schools then it's probably best to create them and just link them here. If you don't think it's best to create an article for them, then I'd suggest putting this information into a footnote. That will keep the article more focused.
  • On the whole, the article is well-researched and the remainder well-structured. I'm sure some trimming could be done without losing any key details, but that's probably something the GA reviewer will take up with you when they give it a closer reader.

I think this has the potential to be a GA, and it's clear a lot of research has gone into it! Do ping me if you need any further advice or comments. Anyway, I'm glad to see such a good effort has been put into another school article; I've often thought that if one person in each town were prepared to work on local articles like this, Wikipedia would be a far better resource. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you all for your helpful input, Noswall59 in particular, and many of your recommendations shall be implemented in good time. If it's all the same, I'll wait for the GAR before I refer to these comments again. Plenty to be getting on with here. Curlymanjaro (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Hi Curlymanjaro and others. An excellent job of work on this article. I am here from GOCE pursuant to your request. I am sure that you realise that a request to "shorten this article without removing detail" approaches the oxymoronic, but I shall do my best. A lot of what I need to do seems to be compliance with WP:MOS. If there is anything which you are not happy with or don't understand why I've done it, feel free to query me here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curlymanjaro. No problem. It is what GOCE does. I hope that you will like the final product. Thanks for the clarification on RE. I have now finished my first rough and ready run through. I will hold off from my second more detailed effort until you have had a chance to read, reflect and (optionally) give me feedback. Let me know when I can restart.
Money. You shouldn't. It was referenced anyway. All I did was replace Costing £173,793 with {{Costing the Inflation|UK|173793|1952|r=-5|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}. Every year the magic of Wikipedia will update the index and change the "in 20xx" figure. As you can see, I didn't add any additional information, so it shouldn't need additional referencing.
References. Yes. Where a reference has been completely removed, it needs to come out of the bibliography. I tend not to do this as being certain that it is not used for a different reference is tedious and if an editor disagreed with my bold edits they then have the chore of re-keying it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Sorry to trouble you, but I can't work out what this means "religious education is given throughout the school". Could you elucidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild:, thanks so much for taking a look at the article. Apologies for my vague annotation, "too much detail" was the intention! As for your initial query, "religious education" is just referring to the fact that pupils are taught about religion from the beginning of their school career and have the option to pursue qualifications in that area later on. Just a quick note from me, I presume the two monetary equivalents in the "History" section will need referencing and bibliographical details made obsolete by the CE shall be removed. I'm happy to do this if you haven't the time. Once again, very grateful for your efforts. Curlymanjaro (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Curlymanjaro: I'm just another editor. This is Wikipedia. Of course you can revert. While no one is the WP:OWNER of an article, I think that you come close on this one. Plus you have it up for GA, so you won't want anything in that you are not happy to defend if pressed. You have probably done this already, but here is the diff with all of my suggested changes in. If you need any further help, or just someone to bounce ideas off, feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so understanding, was silly of me to attract your fine input at this stage. I'll get over this GAR with what I have so far before I once again consult your additions, and, if need be, your spontaneous insights. Speak then! Curlymanjaro (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governance[edit]

There is a problem with this sentence:

Managed by the Greater Nottingham Education Trust, Carlton le Willows operates on a single, 32-acre campus, which 1,513 students attended during the 2016–17

Managed is a technical term usually applied to CofE primarry schools. It is unclear whether GNET runs C le W or C le W runs GNET . GNET is a MAT but with two schools- I am unclear on the wording we should use ClemRutter (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as GNET runs the school, perhaps "overseen" would be better? Curlymanjaro (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carlton le Willows Academy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fingrmouse (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now reviewing this article, which seems to have been waiting a very long time! Fingrmouse (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression[edit]

  • Good writing style
  • Structure makes sense
  • Lead provides a good introduction
  • Encouraged by a large number of citations

Individual sections[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Generally well-composed
  • Second paragraph begins with a very long sentence; would be better as two sentences

History[edit]

  • '…proposals to implement it…' here, 'it' could refer to demand or the school
  • Well-referenced and written
  • 'That said…' (end of Demands and origins) sounds a bit 'chatty'
  • 'Grammar School' section onwards is slightly problematic. There are many sections of text in quotes without any author given. Readers should not have to go digging through the references to work out the context. Direct quotes should be attributed inline, along with a citation next to the quote. As all of the information presented does appear to be well-supported, consider writing supported facts directly rather than selectively quoting.
  • An example of the above is: 'Appointees hoped that these furnishing would fulfil "the main purpose of the school … to reduce travelling distances", while still providing for scholars from as far afield as Beeston'. Why is the central section quoted directly, and who said it? The reference is via the British Newspaper Archive, which is not available to all readers. It might read better to just say 'Appointees hoped that these furnishing would fulfil the main purpose of the school, which was to reduce travelling distance while still providing for scholars from as far afield as Beeston.'

School structure[edit]

  • Good writing and layout
  • Again, some unattributed quotes. Please fix.

Curriculum[edit]

  • No problems with this section

Extra-curricular activities[edit]

  • No problems
  • Good, restrained tone without hyperbole or bias

Notable former pupils[edit]

  • A good, well-referenced list
  • The order seems a little random and might be made more readable by using a bulleted list or dividing into sections

Notes, citations and bibliography[edit]

  • Well-sourced and comprehensive
  • Have not reviewed every one of the citations but what I have checked seems to match up well

Summary[edit]

A very good article, of a much higher standard than the vast majority on Wikipedia.

Does it pass as a Good Article?

  1. Well written: Yes, although with some issues regarding quotes
  2. Verifiable: Yes
  3. Broad in coverage: Yes
  4. Neutral: Yes
  5. Stable: Yes
  6. Illustrated: Yes

A definite pass, but only once the issues with quoting unattributed authors is resolved. Will put on hold for the moment. Fingrmouse (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for looking at this @Fingrmouse: a long-term pursuit at last put to bed. Quite right regarding the quotes, I've removed them where the author isn't mentioned in-line. As for the notable pupils section, I've done my best to rearrange a dislocated bunch cohesively; since I'd rather avoid a bulleted list, I hope my amendments are to your overall satisfaction. Curlymanjaro (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Curlymanjaro:. The paragraphs with the problematic quotes read much better now, and I can't find anything else that would prevent the article from qualifying as a GA. I can understand preferring to avoid bullets in the notable pupils section; it's not something that I'm going to push, particularly as it's not a Wikipedia standard. It's hard to write a section like that which is easy to read so I think you've done the best that anybody could realistically expect there. I'm going to bite the bullet and pass it as a GA — congratulations on a very well-written and complete article! Fingrmouse (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

I came here to check sourcing for DYK, and of the four I checked, one was completely broken for me (Sam Beeton as an alumni), both the original and the archive, and I couldn't get to it at the Wayback Machine either, and I couldn't reproduce it via a google search on the source title or replace it by googling Sam Beeton (all sources were suspect.) I haven't checked any of the others, but two have bad parameters noted, and I'm a little concerned about this for GA status. I think it would be a good idea for someone who has some time to systematically check the references on this article to make sure they're all still working. --valereee (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlton_le_Willows_Academy&oldid=1206550519"