Talk:Elizabeth College, Guernsey

Downgrading assessment

I am down grading the Schools assessment to B, as there are two many inconsistancies. The lead does not follow WP:MOS: It contains a rambling essay about war time in Derbyshire, and a refers to a two century break in its history- this is not the place for a discussion like that. The lead refers to this as a boys school- they are admitting girls (later on in text)- the infobox says this is a 11-18 school, the text talks of the Junior School and even about pre-primary provision. Later they extol exam success and explain that many alumni go onto Russell Universities. (many- what percent?); many is prospectus speak for less than average. There is a lot of work for this to become a good schools article.ClemRutter (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: thanks for taking the time to review the article. My own thoughts on the points you raise are as follows:

1. Could you please elaborate on how the lead, in your view, does not follow WP:MOS (and more specifically, MOS:LEAD)? Your criticism here appears to be directed toward the second paragraph, which gives a concise overview of the 'History' section of the school, covering the important points and making the article accessible to the average, fleeting reader. You refer in particular to "a rambling essay about war time in Derbyshire". Currently, there is (and was at the time of your above post) only a brief sentence in the lead section referring to the evacuation ("During the German occupation of the Channel Islands, the school was evacuated to Great Hucklow, Derbyshire, where it operated for five years."), surely a significant period in any school's history. The sentence you refer to is not an 'essay' by any definition, and certainly not a rambling one at that, nor is it out of 'place' for a lead section of an article. Likewise, the succinct summary of the difficult period after its establishment is certainly relevant in giving an overview of the school and in providing context to the article. For my understanding, are you suggesting that a lead section should not provide a concise overview of the history of the school – which comprises a substantial portion of this article – in order to conform with WP:MOS?
2. There is no inconsistency with regards to the description of the school as an all-boys school. Nowhere does the article state that the school is 'admitting girls' at present. As is clearly explained, the school is currently an all-boys school, although from September 2021 it will admit girls. Until then, to describe the school as an all-boys school is accurate.
3. Again, I can only assume you have misread the text. The school is very clearly described as an 11–18 school. The article describes there being an associated junior school (which provides primary and pre-primary education, separately from the school). Can you please explain how exactly that is, in your view, contradictory or inconsistent?
4. Could you point out which section of the article, in your words, 'extols' the examination results of the schools' pupils? The result statistics are presented in a neutral, objective manner, referring to raw statistics and reflecting the findings of inspections undertaken by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (a stark contrast to subjective 'prospectus' speak or extolling).
5. It is a total non sequitur to say that 'many' must mean 'less than average' as you propose. Notwithstanding, the vagueness here isn't helpful and the claim should probably be removed, particularly as it is verified by a primary source.
6. None of the examples you have given suggest any reason for the school to be demoted to an assessment level of B. You haven't given any indication of what such 'work' is required to improve the article. Could you please do so?

I'm keen to make this article as good as it can be, but I don't feel like the points you raised were helpful or accurate and didn't give clear direction as to how to go about improving it. Sorry if any of the above comes across as overly dismissive or demanding (particularly when I'm asking for your response to certain points), that certainly isn't my intention. I hope we can find where the article's pitfalls and issues are and rectify them. Thanks. —Ave (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: My username has changed since last time our paths crossed on here! I used to go by Formulaonewiki, which I changed because, well, it was a bit rubbish. You previously gave me advice and pointers on improving this article back in January 2019, which was very useful. —Ave (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, quick reply. I looked again. It is a long article and the lead is way to detailed. As a rule of thumb - four short paragraphs. Try Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section. So when looking at a school I look to the URN so I can get the GIAS page. The link doesn't work- that alone will downgrade from GA. Back to the first paragraph of the lead- at 1563 this is a fairly late school. I checked the wikilink given- for 1563 the only school created was Sir Roger Manwood's School (1563). This is what I mean about inconsistencies. Gender in the info box, the {{As of| October 2020}} is a useful template and might fix that inconsistency. But, nice to see you back.ClemRutter (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: In my view, we are in very subjective territory with regards the general interpretation of MOS:LEAD, particularly with regards to length. I don't believe it is any longer than necessary. Yes, it is on the longer end of the spectrum, but it does well to summarise concisely >450 years of history, particularly when compared to the length of the article it precedes. If the purpose of a lead paragraph is to summarise its contents while inviting the reader on, I'd say it achieves this.

I can't actually remember when that link was added, but I'm not surprised the URN link does not work/exist, nor that there is no GIAS page for the school. Guernsey, and Elizabeth College, is not in the UK and therefore has nothing to do with the UK government. Therefore, the absence of a GIAS page for a non-UK school is really no reason for it to automatically be demoted. In any case, the broken link should be removed.

I would invite you to have another look at the list of old schools you referred to. You will indeed find Elizabeth College under the 'Channel Islands' heading (see here), with its year of foundation as being 1563. Again, there is no inconsistency here. —Ave (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You are making my point for me. It used to be a GA- it has deteriorated and no longer is. We can't have errors like displaying the wrong URN- List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom#Channel_Islands would have pointed me at the right spot- yes I missed it. As schoolboys we joked the Manchester Grammar School(1515) was a 'secondary modern school' having been founded after 1500. That was Stockport, and now living in Kent where I have a school dating from 604 within walking distance, The article cant regain its GA until all this has been cleaned up. Adding more text is not going to help- cutting back may. I am pinging @Kudpung: so he can give his opinion (when he has time) ClemRutter (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello ClemRutter and Ave, I'm not sure why the Get information about schools page is not working for this school, I wonder if this might be a temporary database problem? This independent school in Guernsey works perfectly fine. Strange, Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Coming out of retirement to answer this because I was pinged: Yes, at that level of wrong information, a GA school needs to be either downgraded or very quickly put right by cutting out the offending information as long as this does not leave the article incomplete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the fault is ours- but GIAS. I looked at This independent school then tried the GIAS search on the Post Code. Search on name and URN does work. I have sent GIAS a message.(Request AF267722979) ClemRutter (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am very willing to make the necessary changes immediately to rectify and issues. Consolidating the above, I believe the issues are addressed as follows:

1. Faulty URN link – ClemRutter has made an enquiry and I trust they will rectify that once GIAS reply (thanks for that). I have temporarily hidden the link while it is not working.
2. Russel Group claim – I have removed the sentence as it is unclear and referenced only by a primary source.
3. Oldest schools list – No issue.
4. Gender – It is clear enough in the text that the school will be co-ed from September 2021, but I have added 'As of 2020-21' to the infobox to avoid confusion (Update 1: this has since been reverted).
5. Lead length – I strongly believe this isn't an issue at all, especially after reading MOS:LEAD and WP:CREATELEAD. If you believe it could be shorter then I respect that, but I'd hope we can agree that this is not an issue requiring urgent action to save the article from demotion. It is worth pointing out that the lead is, in fact, more concise and shorter than it was at the time of its promotion. (Update 2: I have found a couple of lines to remove, though I really cannot see how any more could be cut without making the lead worse.)

I believe that is all the urgent issues addressed, though please let me know if there are any other serious issues which need rectifying ASAP. While it is a long article, I do believe what's there serves its purpose; no more, no less. A firm believer in the maxim "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away", I have on a number of occasions been through with a fine-tooth comb finding fat to trim and ways to remove fat from the article. —Ave (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed the 'As of 2020-21' from the gender parameter as I don't see any confusion here. What it tells us is that at present the school is for Boys (11 to 18 years) and Mixed (2½ to 11 years). The introduction text also talks about this. When the school becomes fully co-educational, then both of these can be removed? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

That's my view on that also. —Ave (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Awesome :D Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the lead text is alright, what do you think about this revision where I toned down most of the alumni part and combined with above paragraph, and put the "Having been a boarding school..." text as a new paragraph? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate that the revision has reduced the size of the paragraphs, I think it is inferior to the status quo as it effectively just dedicates two paragraphs to summarising the history section instead of just one. —Ave (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it did reduce the amount of text in the lead, but I think the alumni part can be reduced, and by linking the Old Elizabethan's text to the notable alumni section, it makes the text about its alumni kind of redundant so the lead can be reduced here? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

See my edit summaries for why I removed the link to the alumni section (it was already linked later on in the paragraph anyway). I have removed some more from the lead which I think can be cut. I still don't believe the history paragraph can or needs to be reduced any further (at least not until 2025 when the transition to co-ed can probably be simplified). —Ave (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any need to link directly to the category and instead linking Old Elizabethans directly to the Notable alumni section is better, as it has a hatnote link to the category and information about the school's alumni? You've switched the links around so Old Elizabethans in the lead now links to the section and the one in the infobox to the category which seems unnecessary here — maybe delink the infobox one and link the lead one to the section? I think the history paragraph is ok, my suggestion was to split it into two after toning down the alumni text and combining with above paragraph Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah I forgot about the hatnote. I agree with you on that – I'll go make the change now. —Ave (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Self reverting. All the issues I raised have been addressed, so it is correct to restore Elizabeth College to its hard won status. This is no longer a question of class, but more a question of improving within the class- and editing again for enjoyment.ClemRutter (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that and for a productive discussion. Indeed, there are always ways to improve and make more concise. I'll have a crack this weekend at really going through in detail and finding where the article could be improved within its class. —Ave (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the references

It really is a pleasure to read now. Well done. I read the text through and found the section Elizabeth College, Guernsey#Academic performance to be unduely promotional in tone- and then I looked at the references in that section. WP:RS refers. Some are primary sources, the 3 schools funding application document [ref 64]was written to attract funding- and was brilliantly successful. [ref 66] is entitled Why choose Elizabeth College.and was published by the school. Also I couldn't find some of the statistics or facts contained in the cited references. Somewhere I fould a reference to a twitter account held by the school. I think the prioriy now is to identify and delete the dud references. See you all Sunday I hope at London Virtual Meetup 161. ClemRutter (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: I'm glad to hear! Thanks for taking another look. I'll hopefully have time to address the source issues you raise over the week. Re the virtual meetup – I'll take a look and see if I can make it! —Ave (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)