Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:46, 8 April 2010 [1].

Royal National College for the Blind[edit]

Royal National College for the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Paul Largo (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I believe this article meets the criteria for FA Status. It was promoted to GA in December 2008 and received a peer review in January 2010. All issues raised in the PR have been addressed. The article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well. Paul Largo (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: A dead link to http://www.rncb.ac.uk/deasandjobbrokers/referral.shtml. No dab links. I added alt text. Do you really need the separate section about "Criticism"—can't that go under "History"? There are a few other small sections that could perhaps be merged. Ucucha 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dead link fixed. I suppose the criticisms section could be merged with History, although I'm concerned it might make that section a bit cumbersome to edit. Any ideas on how to approach this would be welcome. Also which other sections do you have in mind for a merge? Paul Largo (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merged and renamed 'Athletics' section as 'Extracurricular activities' and merged 'Cutting Edge documentary' section into 'History'. Suggest renaming 'Criticism' as 'Restructuring' or something like that. Paul Largo (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could add subsections to "History"; I think the restructuring is part of the history, isn't it? (Note that these are only suggestions.) Ucucha 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right that it is part of the history. I'll give it a go tomorrow evening. I might create a draft first and post a link to it here. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've moved 'Criticism' to the 'History' section and renamed it 'Restructuring'. I've also split 'History' into four subsections. Seems to look ok, but let me know what you think. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Better yes, thanks. Ucucha 00:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Comments -
    • Firstly, thanks for reviewing the article. This is the first artcle I've submitted to FAC so I'm on a bit of a learning curve. Therefore I have one or two questions.
    • Are you saying the listed sources are unreliable? If so, please say that. If this is the case then I should be able to replace most of them with other references.
    • With regard to the work paremeter, for example, should the Hereford Times refs appear as "work= Hereford Times|publisher= Newsquest Media Ltd"?
    • The Rose reference was taken from an online copy of the book which is no longer available and which didn't have page numbers inluded (it was basically one large document). I will be able to replace this with a reference from the Illingworth book (including page numbers), but there's another reference slightly further on (Bell) which I probably won't be able to do this (though I have made inquiries about it).
    • THanks Paul Largo (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not that I'm saying they are unreliable, but that I'm not sure they are reliable. If you have a case for the fact that they shoudl be relialbe, you can make it, otherwise, replacing them is probalby best. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can replace most of them so am happy to do so. If I wanted to argue they were reliable how would I go about doing that? Paul Largo (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've replaced the MyHerefordshire link as that is questionable as a source. I think Patient UK is probably ok since it appears to me to be well researched and was compiled by medical experts. The Learning and Skills Improvement Service is a UK government body so that's probably reliable. I notice the Response Source article was posted by the college, I've left that in for now but added a reference from the TES - there are surprisingly few reliable online references for the beacon status and the RS article contains som interesting information. MusicWeb references one of the students who attended the college, but that can be removed if necessary. The only other reference outstanding is the LeisureOpportunities article, which references information about the leisure complex, but again that can be removed if necessary along with the information it supports (though this would be a piry as it makes an important statement about the facility). Finally I've swapped the Rose book for the Illingworth book which contained much the same information and can be properly referenced so should be all right. Let me know if there are any more problems with it and I'll take another look. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for getting back to me. I'll take a look over the weekend and see what I can find out about them. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music Web International has an onsite blurb which describes the main players http://www.musicweb-international.com/historyMotW2000.html - but if you find it hard to tie down indications of reliability, Hollins has an article in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians which also mentions that he was a pupil at the Royal Normal College - there's an online version at http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/42802 (access is normally subscriber only, but most UK libraries offer access via institutional arrangements, normally you just need to enter your library ticket barcode, check your local libary website for details). David Underdown (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. I've checked it out and it seems ok so I've used it to replace the Music Web link. I'll take a look at the other sites as soon as I can, definitely some time today. Paul Largo (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Websites

Here are links to the "About Us" pages of the websites in question together with some brief information;

  • Patient UK appears to be a comprehensive health information website authored by a number of doctors and other qualified professionals. Information is updated every two years or as required. Could be reliable due to the calibre of those operating/editing the site.
  • Response Source appears to be an information gathering service for journalists, and connected with SourceWire. Not sure how reliable it is, however, although it's been going for a number of years. The College actually posted the press release concerning their Beacon Status. I think the same information is probably available on RNC's website and certainly the Response Source link could be removed as the same information is available from the TES article I added earlier in the week.
  • Excellence Gateway seems to be a government run website connected with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (itself a government body). Government sites tend to be fairly reliable so is probably ok.
  • Leisure Opportunities is part of The Leisure Media Company Ltd, which was established in 1981 and which several business magazines and online services for professionals working in the leisure industry. The company says it is in partnership with over 20 trade bodies and has over 100,000 contacts in the industry (these are not listed though). Is probably reliable if used extensively in the leisure industry. Perhaps someone who works in leisure can help here.

Not sure how helpful this information is. I was talking to a friend off-wiki yesterday about this and he suggested I could ask for help at WP:RSN in determining whether or not these are reliable sources. I have to be away from my computer for a while shortly so will post a question there later this evening. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep everyone up to date on this, I've opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Validating Sources (Permanent link). Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (very minor)
    • Needs consistency throughout in use of quotation marks: there are some single quotes that need replacing with doubles.
    • In "Principals" section, "tendered her resignation" is needlessly wordy: how about "resigned"?
    • Paralympic – sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.
    • RNC – the contracted title is sometimes given as "the RNC" and sometimes just as "RNC". Need for consistency.
    • Braille – with or without capital? Again, usage varies within the article.

Hope these, though pernickety, are helpful. – Tim riley (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Thanks for the comments. I think I've sorted everything out. I've capitalised Paralympics and Braille, tweaked the "Principals" section and changed the contracted title so it refers to "RNC". I've think I've also sorted out the quotes - everything in the main body of the text should now be in double quotes (let me know if I've missed anything). I should just add that I haven't changed any quotes in references though as I've left the text how it appeared in the original articles. Again, let me know if I need to change these too and I'll be happy to di it. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Full (but not too full) of relevant and evidently comprehensive information, well referenced and well written. - Tim riley (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest upgrading the sourcing concerns before bringing this back to FAC; reviewers are unlikely to support with so many sourcing concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Royal_National_College_for_the_Blind/archive1&oldid=1078805905"