Talk:Bishop Ramsey School

TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the original creator of the article. I have added an {{underconstruction}} tag as I have not completed the article. You are welcome to help, but please be aware that I am not leaving it. Thank you :) --ZoomDude (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 Assessment[edit]

I have rated this article Start/Low. The article is short and poorly referenced, and will require a large amount of expansion to achieve a higher category. References to claims such as the exam results should be provided and a picture of the school would also be nice. For some ideas on how to expand this article have a look at WP:WPSCH/A#Examples for some examples of what is required for each category, good luck with editing :). TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has now almost quintupled in size and has been submitted for a reassessment. -78.147.232.155 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (June 2021)[edit]

The revised wording of the article is highly promotional, this reads like an extension of the school's website. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag, and reverted to the last version of the article prior to Heichō's recent edits. If there are specific points of fact that need to be updated then they could be reintroduced, but there was too much problematic stuff for me to address myself. Specific issues:

and takes the vision for education of ‘I have come that you may have life... Vision statements and the like are not encyclopaedic, they are marketing speak.
The second paragraph of the lead was entirely supported by affiliated sources. If we're going to go into detail about history, we need sources that are independent and reliable.
The entire 'History' section was supported by the school's own website, company's house (a primary source), and Hillingdon SCITT's website (an affiliated source).
The 'Academia' section was similarly sourced.
The 'Extra-curricular activities' section was similarly sourced, and excessively promotional in its language. It also suffered from the 'vision statement' issues.
The 'Bishop Arden School' section was similarly sourced.
There were also numerous manual of style issues, but these could easily be fixed if the content was appropriately written, and properly sourced.

That's about it. I'd be happy to look at additions to the article, but they need to be properly sourced and non-promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an extension of the school's web presence. Wikipedia does not exist to make the school look good (or bad), we merely seek to summarise what reliable, independent sources have to say about it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]