Talk:Chinthurst School

Merge

This article will be merged into the Tadworth article shortly. Fmph (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Article is properly cited and notable Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Content is a clone of the school's web site

The content of the article is nearly entirely that of the school's own history web-page here, which isn't great. I'll see what I can find to improve things … (declaration of interest: I was at school there in the 1970s) Alexbrn 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The enormous copyright violation is now gone. But the article is now in a very poor state. Even so it is less vulnerable than when containing the violation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is no problem or COI as an alumnus provided you do everything with total neutrality. It is not as if you are the marketing manager there (unless you are!). But you knew that! Most school articles would fail unless edited by alumni. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no COI really ;-) just kidding around Alexbrn 20:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a better article

Re "...the article is now in a very poor state", I am doing some researching on external sources and have started to expand the article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. It's currently in my sandbox. I expect to present the result in late August or early September 2013.SCHolar44 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am having to research some details in greater depth because of apparent inaccuracies in the material I have. I would hope to have resolved this in November 2013. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article now uploaded

I reported previously that I was "doing some researching on external sources and have started to expand the article in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines". This took far longer than I had expected because, contrary to my expectations, I was unable to obtain some documentary material that would have made for a more interesting article better supported by external sources.

I did however discover and use some new reference sources and added them to previous third-party references that are still extant -- plus, inevitably, material published by the school. No alternatives exist for this latter material and without it the article would be deficient.

In the process of the re-writing I have also:

checked all links and references and discarded obsolete ones

deleted superfluous text such as the lengthy discussion of an alumnus career (already covered in a Wikipedia article) and overly long quoting of barely relevant newspaper articles

absorbed the listing of head teachers into the "school history" narrative, which covers all names and dates

updated alumnus details.

In the absence of photographs from the school I have added two that I had taken myself (an easy task since I live a short distance away).

I’d be gratified if someone else contributes more material but at this stage I believe that the amount of information now comprising the article is appropriate. SCHolar44 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- other than the third-party Independent Schools Inspectorate report, just published, from which I have added extracts.SCHolar44 (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Ad" tag

I have reversed the "Ad" tag, which read "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view". The tag was initiated by the person known as "mean as custard" (mac). I believe the tag should be subject to further discussion, since its insertion appears to involve a "mean" interpretation of the guidelines.

My reasons are these: I have difficulty in understanding what content is advertising material. The interpretation of "promotional" and "inappropriate" is, without being told her/his reasons, only a matter of mac's opinion. I wrote the material I contributed so as to be as close as practicable to encyclopedic content for this type of subject, and was rigorous in researching and writing from a neutral point of view. Inevitably, some facts had to be obtained from the school's prospectus and website since no other source of essential material appeared to be available. The caveat "the school considers itself ..." also introduces an explicit arm's-length dimension. As to "inappropriate external links", I can't see how, apart for the prospectus and website included for reasons just mentioned, the other three -- external -- sources could possibly be considered inappropriate. The referenced Independent Schools Inspectorate's report, for example, includes some critical comment about teaching being "not always sufficiently challenging", amongst assessments indicating that the school is a high-achieving one. The critical passage is included in the body of the article.

It would be useful to learn of mac's particular reasons for his/her opinion. SCHolar44 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (Ehrenkater) has peremptorily reinserted the "ad" tag without any evidence to support it. "The article currently clearly goes beyond what is encyclopaedic" is, again, an opinion so far without supporting evidence. If it's so clear, let's hear the reasons please. SCHolar44 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenkater has reinserted the ad tag again and has commented "I have read the talk page, a lot of this material is suitable for a school prospectus but not for an encyclopaedia" -- but has not bothered to provide anything beyond this opinion. I would have expected him/her to nominate what is written like an advertisement or promotional content; what is not written from a neutral point of view; and which external links are inappropriate. I am not yet moved to defer to someone who deigns only to provide an unsubstantiated opinion. SCHolar44 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinthurst 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423044314/http://chinthurstschool.co.uk/docs/CS_Prospectus_INT.pdf to http://chinthurstschool.co.uk/docs/CS_Prospectus_INT.pdf/

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) 09:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]