Jump to content

Talk:Malvern College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by G6934 (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 18 March 2019 (→‎Bayfield: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMalvern College has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject iconSchools GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWorcestershire GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles 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.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Good Article review

We're soon going to nominate this page for a good article review. The article is as complete as it's ever going to be for nearly 4 years online, so it just needs checking and tidying up. No more major edits are needed for the time being. new stuff, if it fulfills all the criteria for notability and verifiability can be added later. If any major edits are suggested, please let's discuss them first.--Kudpung (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting

Hi folks. After saving this comment, I'll save the first of any citation formatting that I might undertake. I never know before commencement of such an exercise how much if any formatting might ensue, nor the amount of time and effort, or the do-ability on my part contingent on such time and effort. One good thing about the Worcestershire project articles is that by and large these sorts of exercises are proving much more containable for me than forays into the multitude of undeveloped Wikepeida articles that are impossible to avoid when one actually tries to use Wikipedia for its claimed purpose - that of an encyclopedia. And credit for such containability goes to the good work of contributing editors.

At time of saving this comment, I'll have formatted two website links: to the Good Schools Guide, and the Guide to Independent Schools. On the former, you'll see that I amended the "ref name=" and removed the .co.uk bit. It's a trivial amendment, but indicative of a rule of thumb I try to follow with the "ref name=" tag. That is, try to keep it uniquely related to the reference, but also as simple as practical. I find it preferable to leave out dots or dashes or ampersands (&) where practical. The reason for this is that it keeps copying-and-pasting easier for subsequent citations of the same reference. When you have a space, dot, dash, etc, you have to consciously ensure you highlight the whole tag name if you are copying it. This creates a source of possible error if one is in a hurry or tired etc. If you have a tag name that reads as one word, all you have to do is doubleclick on the word and job done. Small, trivial, but I've found useful, especially as I say, if in a hurry or a bit tired. I do tend to utilise the ampersand for multiple authors (e.g. "blogs&anotherblogs"), but otherwise I just collapse the key name and date, or words, into one, and that does the job. For websites, I find no gain in placing dots in the name tag, since it's not used as a url - it's just a tag for the ref, and then only of use if the reference is replicated anywhere else. I typically add tags at the outset, because I never know if it will be utilised elsewhere. But that's just a habit, is of course far from critical, given that name tags can be added at any time after the fact.

You'll see I've changed the url for the schoolsguidebook.co.uk, from http://www.schoolsguidebook.co.uk/schools/view/279/Malvern-College/HMC/Malvern-College-Malvern-Worcestershire-WR14-3DF to http://www.guidetoindependentschools.com/schools/view/279/Malvern-College/HMC/Malvern-College-Malvern-Worcestershire-WR14-3DF This is because the browser consistently redirects to that site, so I have to assume that it is the current incarnation of that site. Given that, it makes sense to fomat the reference to reflect that.

There ya go. A couple of trivia points, which I'll not normally trouble people with (it does after all take more time to write one's thoughts in some comprehensible form than to read them!), but which do at least explain (a) rule-of-thumb aspect of my style and (b) changes to the first two citations which I have formatted. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Malvern College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  Begoon•talk 06:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General points

In general, excellent grammar, spelling and use of prose - well written article, pleasant to read. There are a few points I feel need addressing - listed below the General Review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ( - comments now addressed - - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): ( - comments now addressed - - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) ) b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): - ( - comments now addressed - - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: - ( - all comments now addressed - - 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) )

Specific review points

  • The Events section has no references.
I know about this; It was in the original stub when we completely rewrote and expanded he article. We have been unable to find sources, and assume these iteme were added by alumni. Secondary schools a re de facto notable, but as this item is not directly sourced, if you feel strongly about it, it will just have to go.--Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not controversial, and I wouldn't personally fail it just for that. If anyone feels it is controversial, then it would need to be sourced, but imo it should otherwise be retained, since deleting information believed in good faith to be correct seems wrong to me. I'd be open to other views, but that's my take on it.  Begoon•talk 08:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and possibly Governance (these 2 are suggestions for improvement - not mandatory)  Done - added, but it is only a very short section. --Kudpung (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • History Section - capitalisation of terms like Sports Complex, Boarding Houses, Prep School, where they apply to the school, but not where they apply to other schools - is this appropriate capitalisation?  Done - al decapitalised.
  • Items in lead section but not mentioned in article:
    • it was one of the twenty four Public Schools listed in the Public Schools Yearbook of 1889.  Done Removed to History section.
    • An Ofsted report, following a February 2010 inspection, rated the school against specific criteria and assigned an overall quality rating of Grade 2 (good) with Grade 2 (good) ratings for organisation and health and safety provision and Grade 1 (outstanding) ratings for "helping children to achieve", to "make a positive contibution" and to "enjoy what they do"  Done Removed to new section 'performance'.--Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: The Ofsted site lists the latest report as Feb 2008 (not 2010) - [1]. The link in the article bizarrely took me to a report for Brent Foster Care! (possibly Ofsted have revised their sitelinks since it was added - the URN (unique number part of the url) is the same). I have altered the link in the ref to the one that works for me, and amended the article. The details of this report are as the article describes.  Begoon•talk 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • History section - Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections. note - this can be found in many review checklists - whilst it's probably not hard and fast, in this case the images "sandwich" the text with the infobox - in Google Chrome at least - {{fixbunching}} may help here.  Done - moved

Closing comments

Thank you for addressing all of the review concerns so thoroughly, and quickly. I have closed the review as passed, with no outstanding concerns that would prevent me from doing so.

I encourage, as ongoing improvement, the addition of any references which can be found to the Events section, and the expansion, if possible of the Governance section, and, obviously, improvement to the article should continue in general.

I have enjoyed reviewing this well written article.  Begoon•talk 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi everyone: We have our first comments from the reviewer and we have just 7 days to make any fixes; If you can, please go ahead and fix them. if you are not sure how to do this techniclly, bounce it back to me and I'll try to figure out what to do. Sourcing and expanding for the items requested by the reviewer may be a bit harder. Good luck. --Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed most points already. I like the new logo and the copyediting, both done by the reviewer.--Kudpung (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no outstanding points which prevent me completing the review, so I am concluding it as passed. I encourage anyone who is able to add the outstanding refs to the Events section to do so, and an expanded Governance section would still, imo, be useful, but I see both of these as suggestions for ongoing improvement. Thank you for addressing the points I made quickly and thoroughly.  Begoon•talk 10:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. Good work, and congratulations. I'm glad it came together so readily. I had rather hoped so, as I got could only justify a burst at citation formatting before tending to other pressing matters. I felt a bit guilty that I wouldn't be able to do much more, but I figured the article wouldn't need much more work. I see I managed to stuff up the url for the Ofsted citation. Sorry about that. I see how that must have occurred. Here's the url as I found it when I commenced formatting citations (scroll down to citation unchanged at that time). I clearly found the relevant report, from which I formated the citation authorship and cited identifying information (a deliberate method to faciliate verification, or in this case, error detection). And I see I tried to amend the url, but clearly I didn't check it afterwards, which is a little unusual for me. A by-product of (a) several windows open, and (b) making a conscious attempt to keep the exercise brutally brief (in itself a useful exercise in putting oneself under time pressure) I must have copied the wrong url from an erroneous link. Anyway, I'm glad Begoon was good enough to rectify it. Thanks for that. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted to observe that Good Article status was attained relatively easily and quickly which naturally must come down to the good work undertaken by all the contributors. --Abacchus1974 (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free French cadets at Malvern

I'm surprised there is no mention of the Free French cadets who were at Malvern during WW2. This is documented on the official "Charles de Gaulle" website and in various books including "Les cadets de la France libre" by Erwan Bergot, Presses de la Cité (1978), ISBN 2 266 08850 1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum Mikeo1938 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visits by notables

? worth mentioning visits by notables for purposes other than enrolling or visiting their children, e.g. under History, between "five boarding houses" and "by the end of the 19th Century": "Longfellow visited the school in 1868,[1] Prince and Princess Christian on speech-day in 1870,[1] and Lord Randolph Churchill's comments on education on July 31, 1889 were reported in the Times.[2] Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Malvernians

At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malvern College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Malvern College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Malvern College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malvern College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayfield

Bayfield certainly economised on the dog Latin by using the same song twice.

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference MalvernRegister1865-1904 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Lord Randolph Churchill At Malvern, The Times, Thursday, Aug 01, 1889; pg. 8; Issue 32766; col A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malvern_College&oldid=888316530"