Talk:The Doon School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleThe Doon School was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
April 3, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
April 24, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 18, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 19, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Individual re-assessment[edit]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Doon School/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Criterion 1 - well-written[edit]

  • The article is written in continuous prose but is far from "concise".
    • Too many irrelevant or frivolous factoids are given such as a whole paragraph on the daily school routine.
    • There are multiple instances of incorrect usage of plurals such as "None of them is associated..." and frequent switching between "million" and "millions".
  • Some of the manual of style guidelines are met, but not to the extent of a good article.
    • The section layout is not tightly-structured enough to warrant good article status. The list of headmasters is in a different section from the list of former teachers.
    • There are some incorporated lists, such as a bullet-point list of former teachers and a paragraph list of affiliated schools.

Criterion 2 - verifiability[edit]

  • The article contains an extensive list of inline citations.
    • However, the "Further reading" section contains 19 items, some of which are used as inline citations anyway.
    • There are multiple instances of overcitation, one example would be the use of three sources to verify a non-controversial claim that a commemorative stamp was published. Some of the citations could be amalgamated in that significant coverage is very well-established and an article on a single school having over 200 individual citations seems slightly overkill.

Criterion 3 - coverage[edit]

  • The article is not focused.
    • As mentioned under "Criterion 1" above, the number of irrelevant factoids like school bell timings fails the requirement of being focused. One section is almost a trivia section.
    • There are already content forks from the article, such as a standalone article on the periodical newspaper of the school, meaning that the extreme detail given in the section in the main article is superfluous.

Criterion 4 - neutrality[edit]

  • The claims the article makes about the high quality education at the school are well-sourced.
    • However, some of the prose gives undue coverage to these aspects. The use of phrases such as "Academic life" comes across as something one would read on a school website.
    • There have been controversies at the school which have not been mentioned which could be considered undue by omission, for example a sustained row over the meat served at the school (source) is glossed over. If trivial positive information is present, trivial negative information must not be swept under the carpet.

Criterion 5 - stable[edit]

  • The article is stable.

Criterion 6 - illustrated[edit]

  • The article is well illustrated.

Conclusion[edit]

While the length of the article and the dearth of citations may immediately scream "good article", on in-depth examination these aspects are quite superficial. Its length and coverage is padded out with irrelevant information and the citation bombing makes the article quite difficult to navigate. Some of the criteria are partially met, but only criterion 5 and criterion 6 are definitely met and the others are lacking in areas I have explained upon above. Furthermore, the original assessment was done with very little elucidation or further comments.

DrStrauss talk 16:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Doon School. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 07:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)