Talk:The Bewdley School

Assessment

I am assessing this article as Start / Low. Article is quite lengthy but needs work, the main two problems at present are that the article is a) Very promotional, it should be neutral. b) Unreferenced, content should be verified. For B-class the article will need better referencing and be made more neutral, the lead (article introduction) in particular should summarise the article with balance and not read like the start of a leaflet. I am giving the school low importance due to lack of evidence it deserves higher than this, the article makes a few claims which could give it Mid-importance, but lack of sourcing means I cannot really give these much weight. The Ofsted report sourced seems to make claims very different to that of the article e.g. it says "students' attainment is broadly average" and gave the school an overall rating of 3 (satisfactory) on a four point scale of outstanding (1), good (2), satisfactory (3), and unsatisfactory (4). Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Information!

Ofsted payed another visit to the school in january 2009, when they rated the school grade 1, Outstanding. Plus the school achieved Outstanding results, which the new report does mention. I Have put the logo on now.

The New ofsted report include's " Students make Outstanding personal progress, which is helped by good, if not outstanding teaching". " The school is now very well regared, as it claimed Leading edge status in 2008".

When the report is officialy published i shall post it on the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Worcsinfo (talk • contribs)

Until it is properly sourced it cannot really be considered in the articles importance rating. Please bear in mind that only editors which have had little no involvement in the article should be altering its importance or class assessments. If editors of this article want that changed they should request re-assessment at WP:WPSCH/A#R. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that removing tags in the article without attempting to resolve the issue they present is not helpful nor will it increase the rating or quality of the article. All three references in the article do not fully verify the text they are citing, for example [1] has no mention of this school in it, so it fails verification. There are many claims in the article which need verification, an easier way of dealing with them is just to remove the claims completely though I would rather avoid that. Please note WP:BURDEN. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

References

I've had a go at tidying this article up. There were a lot of unreferenced claims which I've removed. Such claims really should not be included unless they can be backed up by reliable secondary sources. Some of the claims were also too vague to have any meaning. One claim was that the school is in the "top 5% nationally". You need to say what it is in the top 5% for? The highest truancy or absenteeism rate, A level results, GCSCE results? Was this for just one year or averaged out over many years? Dahliarose (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Leading edge?

I can find no support for the Leading Edge claim. Neither the Ofsted page for the school nor the Standards Site list this school as having a specialism, so they could hardly be a High Performing Specialist School, which is the entry point for Leading Edge. The Leading Edge site mentions a partnership between Haybridge High School and Baxter College, but not this school. A rating of Satisfactory in the latest Ofsted inspection raises more doubts. Kanguole 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the claim altogether. There seems to be nothing to support it. Leading Edge schools have first of all to be specialist schools, and then they have to be identified as high-performing specialist schools. As far as I can make Bewdledy doesn't even have a specialism as yet. Dahliarose (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Description

Most school articles include a basic description of the campus, and much more. One way to expand a school article is to take a look at the more informative articles of some of the other schools in Worcestershire and see the kind of information they include. A Wikipedeia article would be an excellent project for a group of alumni or senior students and regular Wiki editors are always on hand to help.--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Heathfield School

There appears to be a discrepancy between the information in the Bewdley School article and the November 2008 Ofsted report to the extent that the article and the report do not refer to the same schools. Moreover, in an article about Heathfield School, Wolverley it is claimed that it merged with Bewdley. However, a website exists for a Heathfield school in Wolverly about an independent school. Very little online information exists about this school. There is clearly some confusion concerning these two schools and their affiliation.--Kudpung (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On initial glance I do not see any obvious discrepancy between this article and the Oftead report they appear to refer to the same school - can you elaborate on the problem that you see. I am ignoring Heathfield School at the moment. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ofsted report I saw was this one: Inspection report The Bewdley School & Sixth Form Centre, 26–27 November 2008. it states: The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre opened in September 2007 as a new school. It was formed from the amalgamation of two middle schools and a high school. If the article is about the same school, it may be an out-of-date article about a former school that was closed, and a new one was opened with the same name. There is some mention of a merger, but it is highly unlikely that it merged with Heathfield. The Heathfield connection is a complete mystery and I have PROD'ed its article.--Kudpung (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I remember deleting some WP:PEACOCK stuff from this page a while back that seemed to have been put in by a functionary of the local authority. Leaving Heathfield aside for the moment, I agree with Keith D that this article tallies with the Ofsted report on school 135035 - opened in its present form in 2007 as a merger of the former high and middle schools, which is what our history section says. The only discrepancy I see is that our wording doesn't lay as much stress as Ofsted does on the fact that it was essentially a new school in 2007 - we start off talking about its 1955 antecedents, so maybe that is what is misleading. What if we rewrite it thus:

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre has its origins in the Bewdley County Secondary School which opened in April 1955. In 1972 the area adopted a three-tier system, and the school became Bewdley High School. When the area returned to a two-tier system in 2007, the high and middle schools were merged into a new entity, the Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre, with Mrs Reilly as new headteacher.

I have deleted, in the above suggested draft, the reference to some of the buildings being used by Wribbenhall Middle School, which just seems to confuse the issue and in any case is not supported by the citation given, which just leads to a school-portal.co.uk page that doesn't mention either Bewdley or Wribbenhall! Alarics (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The school-portal link used to point at a page about Bewdley High School, giving some details of its history, including the role of Wribbenhall Middle School. Unfortunately that page has now disappeared. It is routine for government publications to describe schools resulting from a reorganization as "new", regardless of the extent of continuity in each case. It would be more informative to emphasize the Ofsted report's description of this school as an amalgamation of the high school with two middle schools. Kanguole 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now found this which explains Heathfield's history. I have no idea what somebody meant by linking Heathfield with Bewdley. Heathfield is clearly an independent school of some substance and I think its article should be retained (see talk page for that article) but I have deleted from it the reference to Bewdley in the absence of any explanation. Alarics (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed information

Why are people deleting all the right information?? This article has been filled with out of fate facts for ages and as soon as somebody tries to update it, It gets deleted making the bewdley schools wiki file pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally688 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which requires information added to articles is sourced. Information added to articles which is not sourced may be removed by any user. CT Cooper · talk 15:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sally, if you want to write an article about your school, do take a moment to check out some of the other articles on schools in Worcestershire. ::They will give you an idea on what to include, how to prove it, and how to do the layout of the page. here are some ideas:

• Hanley Castle High School
• Dyson Perrins CE Sports College
• The Chase (school)
• Prince Henry's High School

--Kudpung (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and see THIS too. --Kudpung (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

logo

The Logo I have uploaded is the schools official emblem as is available on the prospectus, available for download on the school website.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.146.26 (talk)

Well in that case the copyright status of this logo is unclear, and it should not be used until it is resolved. It is claimed at File:Bewdleyschool.png that the image is the own work of the uploader, yet it is being stated here that it is from the prospectus. Which is true? It looks like a replica to me and per long standing practice Wikipedia uses the actual logos of organisations which are copyrighted but are allowed under the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. If the image is from the school prospectus, then it is copyrighted, and should not be on Wikimedia Commons, which accepts free media only. If it is a user created replica then it is probably also copyrighted as a derivative work of copyrighted material, so there is no gain from using it rather the actual logo of the school. CT Cooper · talk 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have to say I am rather suspicious if this IP and several others used recently are connected to blocked Worcsinfo (talk · contribs), who is not allowed to edit Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 20:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Upon review of the prospectus, it is clear this logo was taken from there and is copyrighted, so should not be on Commons, hence I'm nominating it for speedy deletion. CT Cooper · talk 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

... May I ask if your from the UK? as the logo is property of Worcestershire County Council it is copy right free. Bewdley is a government funded school and there for all images owned or featured by or with the school or county council is copy right free.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.146.26 (talk)

I don't see the point of engaging further. It is quite obvious that this is either sock puppetry or meat puppetry going on here linked Worcsinfo (talk · contribs), and I now have enough evidence to go for a block. Wikipedia has had to up with months of disruption from IPs and accounts claiming to work or represent Worcestershire County Council, who have ignored conflict of interest guidelines and persistently engaged in trying to re-write articles, with all attempts at warnings and links to policy having failed. Block evasion will not be tolerated, regardless of who is behind it. All edits done by users violating blocks may be reverted indiscriminately. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blatant promotion

I have removed 6 recent edits by an IP user. There is too much emphasis on results and peacock terms extolling the virtues of this school. The Wikipedia is not a school promotion site. Please discuss on this talk page before adding any further information about the performance of this establishment. A consensus will decide what is to be inserted.--Kudpung (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The user is clearly Worcsinfo evading a block, which is in itself a violation of policy before you even consider the merits of the edits been made. However, if the user indicates they are willing to turn a new leaf a new approach can be sought. CT Cooper · talk 10:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistent Disruption

Providing nobody now disrupts this article, I'm satisfied the information on here is accurate. Im keeping a close eye on this one looking at the history of disruptive edits. As for the 09 OFSTED Report there is No evidence to suggest there has been one. How ever reading the schools newsletter online there has recently been another so I will update this article when appropriate May I also ask the "unsigned" person below to stop purposefully adding incorrect information. It took a lot of work to find everthing to back up the now accurate points! . --Wonderfull778 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, firstly please add new topics to the bottom of the page. Unfortunately the content you added was quite similar to what had been added previously by the blocked Worcsinfo (talk · contribs) and his sock puppets, however I'm taking this comment to mean that you are someone else that wishes to contribute constructively. It is good to see more people working on the article. CT Cooper · talk 23:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional content was again removed today. If the content is replacde, the editor(s) concerned may be warned, and eventually blocked for disruptive editing.--Kudpung (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Results are not Promotional Material

In the UK, Schools release their GCSE and A-Level results on a yearly basis which provide an accurate picture of performance. Just because this school has released the best results does not mean they are promotional. I would ask that the disruption on this page is terminated or I think it would be necessary to investigate the motive behind the disruptive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderfull778 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have investigated, and what I know is that this article has a long history of an organised effort of sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry by Worcsinfo (talk · contribs) to add promotional material to the article, and that is why additions made to this article are under much greater scrutiny than they would be normally. To be fair, the section is not very promotional in comparison to what has been added in the past; in fact I would say "Nest of Love School - Haiti" is the most promotional section. Furthermore, to see users adding content bringing the issue to the talk page rather than just silently reverting is a welcome improvement from past edits. My reservations on the "Results and school relationships" section are that the comparison to other schools is unnecessary, and any such comparisons if appropriate, should go in the district/local area article. Also, re-writing the section every year makes this article look more like a press release than an encyclopaedic article, and strengthens any case to be made that the article is promotional. Encyclopaedic article should be written from an historical perspective, and results/Ofsted inspections in the distant past are just as important as those recently - see Wikipedia:Recentism. CT Cooper · talk 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220154850/http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk:80/home/wccindex/wcc-edu-wfsr.htm to http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-edu-wfsr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Promotional edits

This article has been subject to persistent promotional edits for over a decade. We will continue to revert any edits that are an attempt to promote this school or enhance the SEO of the Wikipedia article. Thank you for your comprehension. If the long term abuse continues, the article will be protected so that only administrators can edit it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been a recent spate of inappropriate edits. We don't list non-notable alumni, and we don't mention student popularity contests about their teachers (and a source which consists of nothing but a description of an online student poll is not even a source, let alone a reliable one). Meters (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can I clarify something - do you mean that people should suggest edits and gain consensus to add the material, after which admins will add the material? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Full Protection

I noticed that Kudpung Fully Protected the page, I do agree that a decade of promotion and SEO attempts is not good. But normaly the first thing would be to do either Pending Changes Protection, Extened Confirmed Protection, or Semi Protection. Can you explain your reasoning for going straight to Full? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with LakesideMiners that full protection may of been jumping the gun and other protection levels should of been pursued before full protection was chosen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this right now. I have unprotected the page and pinged Tedder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an admin eye on this page and protect as necessary. tedder (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)