Talk:King Edward VI College, Stourbridge

Schools Mid‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandalism[edit]

Fixed vandilised college motto. DevAnubis 08:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Additions?[edit]

Just a suggestion - would it not be wise to include a list of studied subjects at King Ed's?

Or at least a list of departments.. Maybe in this format:

Department
Head of Department
Subjects included in department

I think the HoD is a must since there is more than one that is "externally" well-known within their field.

I also think there should be a separate section for EdPod and Folding@Home.

Maybe "College Clubs" or "Student organisations"?

Also possibly remove the NPOV tag - I don't see what's wrong with the article now?

Worley-d 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh, I don't know... naming teachers isn't exactly a good idea, and listing the subjects Keds offers doesn't seem that interesting. Wikipedia isn't an advertisement for them after all... but I agree, I can't really see a reason for the NPOV tag.DevAnubis 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted. Worley-d 00:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV and tone, for example, "one of the finest educational institutions", "record is extremely impressive". This sort of phrase (there are others) do not belong in any article at all, even if they were sourced—and they're not. The article is currently just glowing and aggrandizing and reads as though it was written from a promotional brochure of the school. —Centrx→talk • 01:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to diasgree - this is widely accepted. I can quite easily source the college results. The college's record IS extremely impressive - whichever way you look at it. I see your point with the "finest educational insitutions yadayadayada" but the college's record is a matter of fact, not opinion. Worley-d 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the one part I *would* note as biased is the EdPod section - it's certainly advertising in my eyes. Are we not supposed to find out what's in it for ourself? Worley-d 01:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the record is indeed impressive, then at least it should not be difficult to find several independent reliable sources that use those terms. —Centrx→talk • 03:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean about sources is sources that actually describe it as "impressive". Even daily newspapers would be unlikely to use that language when characterizing a school. They might describe it as "elite", though that is different. The sources must also be independent of the school, and there must be more than one. Looking at the scores and as a Wikipedia editor describing them as "impressive" is alternatively original research or your own point of view. You could, instead, state the scores exactly as they are, without characterizing them. —Centrx→talk • 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll trawl through the Express and Star archives and see what I can come up with. When you say state the scores you basically mean give examples: i.e. 100% pass rate in most subjects? and so on?

Perhaps stating the scores is not necessary, but something like the current "second best performing college nationally and the best performing college" would be better, as long as that information is indeed verifiable by looking at the schools (and should be "best performing on the A-level examinations", or somesuch). The article needs secondary sources though (whereas the raw score data is a primary source). —Centrx→talk • 21:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I copy a source directly as long as I immediately quote the source afterwards? Worley-d 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal, but a proper encyclopedia article makes authoritative statements rather than using a lot of quotes, especially since something should be attested in multiple sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon[edit]

I've attatched the Virginia Tech Ribbon to this article, I don't intend on leaving it there forever, I figured it might be a nice gesture for a few weeks. I forget to remove it, then could somebody do it for me in about 6 weeks time or so? Of course, if you think it should stay, then feel free to leave it?90.192.84.121 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Collegelogo.gif[edit]

Image:Collegelogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar within this article is appalling considering how boastful it is of its academic credentials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.88.218 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

The articloe has undergone a major cleanup by the WP:GOCE and WP:SCHOOLS in September 2010. --Kudpung (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material[edit]

I have removed the unsourced controversy section to here:

Protest controversy: The college caused controversy when it was revealed that in November 2010 a member of college staff had circulated an email encouraging students to attend a left wing demo in London. Whilst the leaked email seemed to imply that any absence from college would be unauthorized, the message strongly persuaded and encouraged students to attend. The controversy was heightened, when it was reported by the local press in late 2010 that a college student had actually been arrested for causing criminal damage at Conservative headquarters in London.
--Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]