User talk:Nasty Housecat

Royal National College for the Blind

Hi. I've been asked to submit the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC by PaulLargo, who is currently away for personal reasons and therefore unable to do it himself. I notice the last review was concluded with a request to submit the article again, but to notify those who had contributed to the discussion to determine whether they had any major objections to it being put forward again. Since the last FAC I've done some minor work on expanding it and, along with another user, have added more images. I feel it's probably ready for submission again, but wanted to run it past those who reviewed it last time before completing the nomination. If there are no objections by Monday 26 July I'll assume everything is ok and submit the FAC and wait for comments. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy take a look over the weekend and share any comments. My first question is if there is a talk page diff showing that you consulted with PaulLargo. I do not doubt that you have, nor do I doubt that he wants this to come back to FAC, but it is the first thing some reviewers look at and many an FAC is archived immediately if the significant contributors have not been consulted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This was the original request he posted me a few weeks ago. I replied on his talk page, but haven't got round to doing anything about it till now (I wanted to familiarise myself with the topic before I put it forward for FAC where I'd probably have to do some work on it). I'll post everything on the request when I open it next week and should hopefully be able to deal with any changes/updates that are needed. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a number of comments on the article talk page in the spirit of what my comments at FAC might be. I hope you find them helpful. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the comments. Some very useful suggestions in there which I think would improve the article dramatically. I'm not sure if I'll be able to address everything that's been raised (e.g., the impact on former students might prove to be a bit difficult), but I'll do as much as I can from the list this afternoon then put it forward this evening. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, I think I've done everything I can with this for now with the sources that are available. I'll put it forward and see what happens. Thanks for checking through the article and making the suggestions. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One thing I may still need to do though is work on the lead, but I can do that over the next few days while the FAC is open. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I've sorted most of the things you've mentioned at the FAC and am about to start expanding the lead. Just one or two things I'm not certain about though so was wondering if you could help.

• School age students - I'm not sure of the best way to approach this since the school leaving age in Britain has changed several times over the years. In the Victorian era people left school at 12, and it was later raised to 14 (which I think it still was at the end of the war). This seems an ambiguous statement to me and without access to the reference I can't check it. Would it be better to take it out?

It seems an important point, since it was a major change in focus for the school. It says here that the leaving age in 1944 was 15 and secondary education began at 11. The reference is here. Perhaps say that before WWII, the school admitted 11 to 15 year olds, but aftercame to and agreement with Worcester...."

• "Outstending" appears to originate from this press release posted by the college. Again I'm not sure of the best way to approach this.

Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a better reference here. All the reports are available as PDFs.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. I should be able to add quite a lot of information from them. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter Bache

Thanks very much for finding the pronunciation for this name. I really appreciate it. Jonyungk (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shimer College seal and logo on User Talk pages

You recently used the Shimer College seal and logo on several User Talk pages. While it's very nice of you to thank those editors for their role in helping improve the article, can you please go back and remove the college's seal and logo from those Talk pages? Sorry but it's not fair use! Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiasm over awareness, that's what that was. Of course you are right. I fixed it. Thanks for calling it to my attention. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And congrats on the FA! ElKevbo (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Shimer FA

Congratulations! It's a fine article about a most interesting school. Finetooth (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I somehow missed this entirely until I saw the note on Finetooth's talk page - congrats from me too! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

School for Creative and Performing Arts PR

I will be glad to look at it - is it at PR or would you rather have the comments on the article talk page? It will take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not listed it at PR, but I can if you prefer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Either one is OK by me - at PR you may get other comments too, but I will comment wherever. As I said though, it will take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've listed it at PR. Look forward to your thoughts. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry it is taking me so long - I have looked at the article and think it looks very good, but just need the time to readi t carefully and slowly and make some nitpicky comments ;-) Hopefully in the next day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, Ruhrfisch. I know you've been busy with your own FAC. Thanks for looking at it and look forward to your comments, the nitpickier the better. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I have taken your comments to heart and made the changes. I am still musing the video issues, since the source is one of the best available for commentary on the curriculum (where sources are otherwise scant) but may be problematic for the reasons you point out. I will think about that and leave it at PR for a short while in case another reviewer wants to comment. I expect to list it at FAC this coming week and will certainly ping you when I do. Many thanks again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Just regards your oppose on The Judd School FAC, is this actionable? If I went through and removed all claims not directly related to the school, or found other sources, would this satisfy your concerns?

Incidentally I got back from the library a few hours ago and the book was printed by Staples Printers, Rochester. It was published by Impress Print Consultancy Ltd, 6 Newton Avenue, Tonbridge, Kent, TN10 4RR, which Google Street View suggests is a residential building. I do not believe that the book was published by the school, but indeed the forward suggests profits would be donated to the school.

I further do not believe that there are any alternative sources; I have spent days trawling through all the local and country libraries, newspaper archives and the internet. I understand concerns about reliable sources, but surely this is just an employee writing a book about his previous employer. Furthermore, he does not cover in any detail the most recent period the school; "The involvement of the author in the events of this chapter makes comments invidious, so there will be more in the way of figures and analyses".

Anyway thanks for reviewing, and I hope this issue can be adequately resolved because I spent a regrettably long time, and a lot of hard work on this article. Cheers, Tom (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the review page. Kindly, --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to let you know I have done some work on The Judd School and added alternative sources. Although the article still relies on Taylor, I am confident that this cannot be helped any further. I spent about 3 hours in libraries looking for alternative sources, and although I found some, there are to my knowledge no more. I hope that you will consider your oppose on this article, and hopefully strike or support as appropriate. I'd like to do some work on other school articles to get them to FA, so I hope this issue can be resolved for the benefit of all british school articles. Thanks, Tom (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FAC3

Thanks for coming by and commenting. I have responded to your concerns. Could you please come by and strike resolved issues and make any further comments that are warranted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Logos Page

Hello Nasty Housecat:

I am seeking a few active volunteers with your expertise to assist with peer review of the logos page and I am hoping that you might help. Please see Wikipedia:Peer_review/Logos/archive1 for details on this request.

Thanks!

Edunoramus (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)