Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Ganesha811[reply]
This sentence in lead "Upper Canada...based on the school" isn't important enough to be in lead, and should be removed or moved to appropriate section.
As this is the only notable prose issue not already addressed I'll be WP:BOLD and take care of it myself before finishing up the review.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Pass. No issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
* [1] has quite a few examples, but perhaps the most egregious is this:
* From the source: "During the 19th century, the school catered for many boys whose parents were employed by the British government in far-flung outposts of the British Empire. A number of those same boys themselves followed distinguished colonial careers. In the same era, the College was noted for its ability to prepare boys for entry into the army and naval colleges on the mainland... no fewer than four Old Elizabethans have been awarded the Victoria Cross."
* From the article: "Throughout the rest of the 19th century, the school gained a reputation for catering for many boys whose parents were employed by the British government across the British Empire and a number of those same boys themselves followed distinguished colonial careers. In this era, the school was noted for its ability to prepare boys for entry into the army and naval colleges in the United Kingdom.... Four Old Elizabethans have been awarded the Victoria Cross."
* There are others, too.
After edits by nominator, will re-check for copyright violations.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Some places may have a surplus of detail:
"removing 'skip after skip' of outdated materials" - what is this? If the term is not obvious in meaning, it should be linked to an explanation or defined in text
The whole 'Modern period' section suffers from WP:recentism. As I see it, the things of real note in the section include the fact that the school needed to be expanded to deal with an influx of students (but not every particular detail of that expansion), the integration of the first female pupils, the decline in boarding, and the merger of Acorn House and Beechwood.
The extensive discussion of various things being converted into other things, as well as detailed coverage of all new renovation and construction, can be summarized or removed altogether.
Pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Pass. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Pass. No issues.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
