Talk:Langley School, Loddon

Article tone: reads like a prospectus.

I've added the "Tone" tag to this article as, with the greatest respect, it does read rather like the school prospectus. This is inappropriate for Wikipedia as it violates the Neutral Point of View policy; it also contains quantities of detail which are not necessary and not notable. Since the encyclopaedia needs to be neutral, and does not need to list minutiae, I think some editing is called for.

Some of the material is fine, I feel. The lead paragraph and the History section, for example, just tell us some non-contentious facts about the school: great. But soon after that we are off into things like "Varied programmes in the arts and music, as well as an enviable record upon the sports field, continue to make student places at Langley School the most sought after in the county." This isn't encyclopaedic language: it is marketing-speak. I could pick you out plenty of equally objectionable examples.

The other sort of information that this article offers but should not is excessive detail, or explaining the obvious. When I read things like: "the weather and degree of daylight in the late afternoon hinders the ease with which some activities can be enjoyed (namely sports and other activities that take place outside)" or "All meals are taken in the dining room and the food is both plentiful and varied" I just despair, to be honest. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which this article needs this information. There must be some quite large proportion of the article in which almost every sentence could be followed with "Just like every other school in the UK." I very much hope that an editor with some knowledge of the school, or at least this area, which look carefully at the article with a view to seriously improving it. I do not feel qualified to do so myself and I think it might get a more sympathetic edit from someone less irritated by it than I am. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone put the "tone" tag on this article. It has a lot of flowery and promotional language that needs to be removed and replaced with more neutral and encyclopedic words. Terms such as "enviable", "challenging", "excellent", and "unrivaled" (among many others) are not only WP:POV but are unsourced. Really, the entire "present" section is a big advertisement section and needs a complete rewrite with proper sources. See also WP:NPOV. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not as bad as some I've seen. A bit more jargon though. Need to use generally understandable terms and not merely English idioms. Still needs reorganization which I will attempt in a few days. Student7 (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jargon

All countries have their own jargon. Some of it is included in formal language, formal English in this case. "Pitch" without an adjective is not going to be understood by non-cricket playing Americans and Canadians, who constitute the bulk of English readers. It is also the nth definition down in the dictionary. It is also not applied to non-cricket venues. Fields have multiple uses and people normally slop those over to other sports as well. But it is local jargon.

"Matrons" is funny. I'm not going to change it. To American and probably Canadian ears, it sounds like the old name for woman prison guards! Be my guest.

As far as "British English" goes, there was a determination made that nearly all British English words could be turned into English common to all versions. That is, that most if not all "American spelling" were English also though less accepted. Even the -ise for -ize. I was one of the demurrers here and defended British spelling.

But I think the determined use of words that are local jargon is not good. I have not seen British authors use them, nor other British/English articles that I have edited. Right now, you have half-dozen people reading this article daily, most of them editors, the rest, kids from the school. Probably all you can expect with this level of scholarship (no references). Jargon doesn't help.

If it weren't for the antiquity of the school it would be nn and I would recommend an Afd. Student7 (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article. I think it is much better with a lot of the fluff removed. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I was not able to agree with some of your comments on AmE and BrE, and have left a note on your Talk page. I have reverted some of your minor edits but provided links in the hope of de-confusing some readers. DBaK (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep School Merger

There seems much contradictory evidence in play at present. The official line (the Langley web site and the press) seems to be that the merger is complete (as per the references) but 91.125.77.10 suggests it is still in progress. I'm happy for the article to say it's still in progress if we have references that back up the suggestion. At present, though, the refs say the merger is complete and that, I think, is what the article should say. It's not much helped by the fact that the Taverham Hall website seems not to have been updated to reflect the merger; it's information that is rather tucked away. Rather than the junior and senior school sections of one school website, we seem to have a senior school website that thinks they've merged and a junior school website that thinks it's still a completely separate school.

Equally, the line about the majority of pupils proceeding to the senior school is a direct quote from the Inspection Report cited as a reference. If someone can provide a reliable reference showing that the report (which is five years old) is wrong, I'd be happy for the line to change.

Thirdly, the line regarding languages; the school's website specifically states "French (Express set only)". Again, if somebody can provide a better reference, I'd be happy with the change but otherwise think it should remain as it is (i.e. not contradicting the sources.)

Perhaps someone "on the ground" there could encourage the school(s) to get a move on and produce some decently quotable, uncontradictory web pages! It would also be jolly useful to have a post-merger inspection document, but I suspect that if you tell the school to hurry up and be inspected again, they'll send you away with (at the very least) a flea in your ear! Misha An interested observer of this and that 23:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Plus - the senior school website says the senior school starts at the beginning of year 7 (11+) but the prep school website says it ends after year 8 (13+). Do these poor children have to attend both schools for two years?!Misha An interested observer of this and that 23:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langley School, Loddon. 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/20161225130725/http://www.langleyschool.co.uk/index.php/about/history to http://www.langleyschool.co.uk/index.php/about/history

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) 21:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)