Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harrow School/archive1

Harrow School

Self-nomination. This article covers this topic accurately and extensively, and I can vouch for this as a current member of the school. It has had a peer review and I have dealt with comments. The pictures were all taken by me (and one that is out of copyright). It is already a featured article on the Schools Portal. Overall, I hope (!) that it is interesting, and truly belive it up to feature article standard. --Oli 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object Generally opposed to self-nominations for anything, but specific reasons as follows:
  1. Second on the list of criteria is "It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable." While it seems comprehensive, and I cannot judge on factual accuracy, some of the writing could be better, the tone seems a little too sympathetic, and the edit history shows quite a bit of activity.
  2. The lead section contains quite a bit of information that goes beyond summary
  3. The TOC is huge
  4. Criterion number 5 is It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; In places, the article goes into almost anal detail. If anything, probably a major reason to object is that there is simply too much information here to put this up as a FA in its current state.
  5. References. Two books, of which one does not appear to be publicly available, thus failing WP:V for lack of WP:RS.
  6. Finally (though this may be nit-picking slightly), the photographs are clumped together at the bottom of the article.

  In summary, a good quality article with some good effort behind it, but needs improvement in what I might call "horizontal quality" for featured status. Chris talk back 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Chris, all of these are very reasonable points save one, which I feel compelled to point out. FAC depends on self-nominations--in fact, most successful FACs are self-noms--because otherwise there's no one to answer and deal with any objections. I think a general opposition to self-noms here would be counter-productive. Chick Bowen 01:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Either way, the self-nom part is the least of my objections. Chris talk back 02:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have nothing against self-nominations, but isn't identifying self-noms for transparency, as a precaution against undue personal bias on the part of the nominator? Also, to answer and deal with any objections: shouldn't an FAC have already undergone peer review AND been checked against the extensive FAC criteria by the nominator (so, not in need of much fixing, just replies from the nominator, as objections would really be against the nominator's evaluation/interpretation of the FAC criteria)? It doesn't bother me to have FAC as an article improvement zone, but then, what's the purpose of peer review, or any of the other RfC type mechanisms? (Just trying to learn as I go...) --Tsavage 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Object for some of the same reasons -- too many one-sentence paragraphs, especially at the end of sentences. The lists, especially the campus section, need to be changed to either explain why these things are being mentioned or to simply mention them as prose; an entire heading for "The Beaks Room -- This is for Master's meetings and as a place for masters to meet at break every day." is pointless. The TOC is indeed too long. Further referencing, especially inline citations for the history section, would also be helpful. Overall, however, the article is impressive; good work. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)