Wikipedia:Peer review/The King's School, Ely/archive1

The King's School, Ely

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have spent a tremendous amount of time creating a neutral article (often difficult with schools) that is well referenced and is thorough, leaving nothing wanting. I believe it is time to face a broader range of editors to see what they thing. I hope that you can give honest feedback, and feel free to improve the article yourself! This is my first time taking an article anywhere, so I hope I haven't messed this up!:-D Many thanks guys, rocketman89 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. There is a lot of information in the article, but there are some gaps and issues of organization. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• The article is not organized as clearly as it could be. As an example, look at the History section. It starts off in 1541, then goes back to 673, then 720, then 1970 and 1973. Next it goes back to 970, then 1882, then WWI (1914-1918), then memoirs from 1955 (not clear when they refer to though) and 2004. Chrononlogical order is almost always helpful, unless there is some other guiding principle used here. It is also not clear from this when the school was founded - is it 1541 (refounded?) or 673 or 970? The following subsections seem to be more like a facilities section than history. Even the Monastic buildings section gives the dates of the buildings, but does not say when they began to be rented / used by the school.
• For a school which has been in existence for so long, most of the article seems to deal with developments of the past 10 years. See WP:RECENTISM Or look at the notable alumni section - there is one ancient alum (Edward the Confessor) and all the rest are modern or recently dead.
• The article has several very short paragraphs (one or tweo sentences) and sections (one paragraph) - these should be looked at carefully and in many cases either combined with other paragraphs or sections, or perhaps expanded.
• Avoid needless repetition - the hoop trundle is in both the History and School traditions sections.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)