Talk:Kirkley Community High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Info

Mostly about bands founded out of the school, not the school itself. Needs Some cleanup and referenced expansion. Adam McCormick 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

sewage re-education institute?

A sewage re-education institute? Lol, almost right. I really do want to know why the sixth sense thought Kirkley is the worst of the three, as far as I know, Denes gets lower A level scores.

Denes doesn't get lower A level results. The results of BBHS and KHS are done with the same contributing subjects and grading criteria. Denes adopts a different criteria and although every year the results appear to be that Denes gets lower A level results - this is inaccurate. [[Jwt725 15:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)]]

KITE Media Centre & K Play radio

Shouldn't these have their own article, They are both becoming notable and have their own websites. They arn't invloved much with the school, as the centre is open to the community, as well as the school, lets come to a concensus on this.ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy for this if you can find evidence they are notable (their own websites alone aren't enough), and so that they do not become 'orphaned articles' and that they are not online linked to from this KHS article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A boardley (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The school radio and the media centre on the school site do not have enough evidence of notability or enough material to split out into a stand alone article. When there is enough material and evidence of notability they can be split out in WP:Summary style. Split tag removed. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ofsted

An editor (06readc) keeps trying to put non-NPOV information about a recent Ofsted inspection of the page with wild speculation, too. To try and counter this I have included a relevant, sourced sentence within the article. Feel free to discuss here if it is relevant (I believe it is if from NPOV) and perform changes. Let's not, however, add damning (or any other) opinions within the article or wildly delete fact. User 06readc has been warned, but I welcome their discussion here.a_boardley (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the double reffing to this and worked the section to reflect only what's in the Lowestoft Journal report being cited. I don't have the time to look out the Ofsted report (it may very well not be online yet anyway) or a report in the local press. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed the further references to it. Thanks for being vigilant. Again, I haven't time now to go searching for Ofsted reports so lets jsut ensure if editors do come up with further (quality) references then the text in the article comes from those references. Thanks for your help a_boardley (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)