Talk:Monmouth School/Archive 1

NPOV Please!

Goodness this page is declining into POV-ness! "It is the only boarding house with a garden" well so what! As well as this being a little liberal on the truth front, the addition of a specific Chapel House section (the point of which is debatable in its own right) without any other houses is ever so slightly biased. I have had to correct this sort of thing on here before, when only boarding houses were mentioned in the house list for example. Could we please keep the rivalry inside the school bounds? Dan 21:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, why on earth does Chapel House have its own section? Either this should be removed or incorporated into a section which covers each of the houses in more depth. SillyWilly

The School has far more interesting buildings than Chapel House. It's pretty POV to keep it in on its own. Perhaps a section on the different buildings in the school - in particular the original part of the school, the Chapel and Library Anthropax 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the quote about Chapel having the only garden since its not true. School house has a garden and I think that you could count that little bit near Wierhead as a garden too. Charles Baynham 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but can you lot stop changing the section about boarding?! New House is not the holder of the cup, School House is, so stop changing it to New House!

The Grange

Do other users think The Grange needs a small section here, as a feeder school to MS? Anthropax 20:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What a certain magister who will remain nameless would think of that I don't know... I agree that it would be the best place and that it is necessary. Whether I shall ever get around to doing it, I don't know.Dan 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Should The Grange not have its own page? There's a list of prep schools here. Probably there isn't enough information available for it to be anything more than a stub. SillyWilly 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince Edward

I hate to be typically pretensious, but the fuller correct form for adressing to the aforementioned person is: His Royal Highness (or HRH) The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. It may sound odd, but it's correct. Unless you'd rather, which is acceptable, just HRH the Earl of Wessex? Dan 20:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, it doesn't sound grammatically correct to me, but I cannot claim to know the protocol for addressing royalty! I accept your revision. SillyWilly 22:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

In what sense was Tom Little "the youngest person to die in world war II"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.85.217.239 (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to steal anyone's thunder, but how famous does someone have to be to warrant inclusion under the Alumni heading? Would a sensible rule of thumb be that they should have their own Wikipedia entry? SillyWilly 18:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm removing the two rowers (Ben Curtis and Rob Hollis), as neither have their own page. Have either won anything? I guess if they have, but don't have a page then they could still be included. Anthropax 14:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

After some background checking I've just deleted Liam somebody and Dan Goodson, neither of whom deserve to be on here at the moment, although good luck to them both for the future. Will also link the Wayne Barnes guy to his own (fairly lengthy) Wikipedia page, but blimey, from the looks of things he's not really considered to be any good, is he? Never mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickpint (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just added Daniel Llewellyn Williams to the list but I just realised that he doesn't have a wikipedia page. He has been in Torchwood and numerous West End Plays though... Cymrog (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In Welsh

In the Welsh language this is Ysgol Trefynwy, right? Paul Silverman 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it's never called that. For a start it would be pretty ironic if it were, as the school doesn't offer Welsh as a subject. The local comprehensive can however be: "Ysgol Gyfun Trefynwy"- Monmouth Comprehensive School. The sites at the link you give, I think, refer to that school. Dan 21:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dan it does offer Welsh if you ask nicely and you are taught by the teacher from the Comprhensive school. I studied Welsh to both GCSE and AS-Level. Cymrog (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Houses

I think that the section about Chapel house should be demoted to a sub-section in a section "Houses", or even put into a table. That way all the other Houses could be mentioned or left space to be mentioned whenever someone with the knowledge gets around to it. Charles Baynham 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous Old Pupils

Would it be possable to add a list of famous old pupils? 80.41.236.212 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is what is trying to be achieved under the Alumni section. Charles Baynham 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

School Motto

Does the school have a motto?
User:Brenont 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - It is "Serve and Obey"

KJP1 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BIAS

Hello charles baynam and daniel wilkes. I know you are surely both massive fans of the school and writers for the lion newspaper so obviously are assigned to "guard" the wikipedia page, however the criticisms of the school must be left on the page even if you do not like them. Even wikipedia criticises itself on its page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no one is assigned to guard this Wikipedia article, however, unsubstantiated and uncited criticism of the school could be considered original research and may be libellous and should be removed. Journalists for The Lion will be very familiar with providing balanced coverage of a subject, judging by your edits, you could learn a great deal from them SillyWilly (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability and Sources

After loking at the recent tag, I read the article and it is true. There is nothing to say that this organistation is notable or even worthy of an article on Wikipedia. There are no sources and the external links are all to the school's own websites. This article needs either a thorough re-write or a quick deletion. 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

It seemed a little ridiculous that such an uncontroversial topic should be tagged in this way. The tagging appears to result from the animus of an individual contributor. I have therefore sought to edit out those comments which might be more suitable for a prospectus for the school, or indeed for a particular house, and, having done so, have removed the NPOV tag. Perhaps any contributors wishing to re-instate the tag could first indicate those sections of the text to which they object. This would enable further improvement. It's certainly true that the article needs more facts, in particular more on the history of the school and, perhaps, on its architecture, although there isn't much that's particularly meritorious. I've added a list of headmasters and a few references as a start and will do more as time allows.

KJP1 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I added tags to specific sections where no sources are given whatsoever. Other sections, such as the section on facilities only include references from the school website itself - this does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing. Assuming that people from the school were involved in the writing of this page, it makes me question the quality of studies at the institution.--86.147.223.141 (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticism regarding the lack of references is well-made, although the motivation still seems rather questionable. I've sought to address this, including the issue of the school's religious affiliation. However, the section entitled "The School Today" is problematic. In effect, it's the school's prospectus. I'm not sure there's any solution but to delete large parts of it. In the interim, I've tried to remove the POV aspects.

KJP1 (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the main, it's now better sourced. However, the section on Houses is a problem. Is it really necessary? It seems, in essence, just to be a list, with a little extra information. Could it be removed? Or can anyone reference it properly? KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Have "solved" the problem of lack of sources re. the Houses section by amalgamating the details into the "The School Today" section. Well aware this may not please everyone, so apologies in advance, but it may help to prevent further unwarranted and ill-motivated attempts to suggest that the article is biased. KJP1 (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Query for User:Matthew_Pryce-Barnett

Hi, can you give a reference for the Stock Gatehouse being Grade I listed, as I don't think this is right? Also, ever thought of registering? KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Have taken out the Grade I listing ref. as I really don't think it is. Newman doesn't say it and, more persuasively, I can't find it in Coflein or Listed Buildings Online. I should have said why I think it would be helpful to register - if you do, you'd have a Talk Page and I could have raised these points with you there. I see the School is the one topic you've edited - have you a particular interest? I was there, but quite a long time ago now. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As previously discussed, we can't have the article claiming Newman lists it as a Grade I listed building when he doesn't. If you can find a source, great, but I'd be surprised as I really don't think it's Grade I quality. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's Grade II, as you can see here [1] KJP1 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alumni revisited

In the discussion above, it was suggested a minimum criteria for inclusion as an alumni would be that the subject has their own Wikipedia entry. I actually wonder whether this is sufficient. Looking at a number of the Sporting and Arts and Entertainment alumni, their Wikipedia articles are of very poor quality. They are often short, poorly referenced - if referenced at all, and a number have all the hallmarks of autobiographical entries, created either by their subjects, or by collaborators. That said, I fully appreciate the very great difficulties of deciding on alternative criteria. Hence, I'd appreciate others' thoughts. KJP1 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have tried to provide citations for all of the listed alumni, as well as the Headmasters. To this end, I have deleted the following:

• Paul Groves (poet) - of the three citations on his article, two are dead links and the third says nothing about his education;
• Mark Porter (general practitioner) - of the citations on his article, one's to his website, one's dead and the others say nothing about Monmouth School.

If these are to be re-instated, can they be reliably sourced. KJP1 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Name Change

Now the school has changed its name, so Monmouth Schools is the name of the family of schools, and the Boys and Girls schools are named appropriately, plus the prep schools and pre-prep, would it would make sense to change the name of this page to the Monmouth School for Boys, to change the Girls' page too, and create an overarching page for the entire school? Or to roll everything together onto one page? I'm happy to do the latter, but not sure how to do the former... --Croesyceiliog (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Croesyceiliog - I see the point. I just wish they hadn't changed the name - it worked for 400 years. I see some problems with the suggestions. Rolling this and HMSfG into one will likely affect the status of this page. It's a GA, which the other definitely isn't. And I'm not sure what content an overarching page would contain? What would it say that isn't said on the individual pages. You could move the article to MSfB, but I strongly suspect the majority of readers would look for MS. A Google hits search would confirm this. All in all, I wonder if the amendment you've made to the lead would meet the need? KJP1 (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I've tweaked the lead a little, as I think we lost some useful information there, and added a para. at the end of the History section. I've also moved this to the bottom of the Talkpage, as new conversations always go at the bottom of pages. KJP1 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

KJP1 - It's definitely a bit of a head scratcher. Thanks for the feedback and improvement, I'm new to this. So, yes, let's stick with it as is. I will look at the girls' school pages and see if any similar tweaks are needed, check on the terminology used throughout and generally tidy up if need be. Thanks for your help -- nice to have such a cordial first encounter as an editor :)

Croesyceiliog - Not at all, I hope you enjoy yourself here, it can be an amazingly productive place. KJP1 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monmouth School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Preliminary declaration of interest: the nominator is a personal friend of mine, but as I am habitually even nastier to my friends than to everyone else I don't feel disqualified from reviewing this nomination. More anon. Tim riley talk 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - first, many thanks indeed for picking up the GAR. Second, for transparency on my own part, it's my old school, of some 35 years ago. As such, I'm sure it's full of POV and Puffery. So I shall expect a vigorous review and am sure I'll get it! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Right – here are the results of my first perusal. Nothing to frighten the horses.

• Recurrent phrase

• I clocked "ABC saw XYX" (as in "The early 1850s saw the appointment of an external examiner" and "The Second World War saw the deaths of a further sixty-one Old Monmothians") eight times before I stopped counting. It's a legitimate construction – to Hell with the dim-witted pedants who insist that years haven't got eyes – but one can overdose on it.

• Done - I hope.

• Years of foundation: 1613–1616

• You need to choose between the BrE and AmE forms of possessive for names ending in "s". We have both Jones's and Jones' in this para and later. I recommend standardising on the (BrE) former passim.

• Done

• "the priority given to the preacher illustrates (Jones') concern" – if, as I am guessing, the bracketed name is in lieu of a pronoun that is in the original quote you should put it in square, not round, brackets.

• Done

• "Neither Owen, nor many of his 17th and 18th century successors, lasted very long unlike the school day ..." – that's a delightful piece of writing, but I doubt if its epigrammatic tone is quite suitable for an encyclopedia. But I shall not press the point if you are, understandably, attached to the phrasing.

• Can I keep it. I take the point but I do rather like it!

• I am not objecting, for GA purposes. If you go to FAC, prenez garde! Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• The precarious years: 1616–1800

• "The twentieth century historian of the school, H.A.Ward" – two points here: I'd hyphenate "twentieth-century" when used attributively, as here. And just checking that you intended to omit a space between Ward's first and second initial. If the Manual of Style contains any guidance on the matter I have yet to find it, and I think it is left to individual editors to make up their own minds for each article. I know one of our closest colleagues hates a space (we worked together on Wodehouse, where the matter was of some importance) but left to my own devices I think I prefer one; anyway, it's entirely your call here I think.

• Done & Done

• Years of controversy: 1800–1850

• "maintain the tradition curriculum" – something missing here: either "to maintain the traditional curriculum" or "to maintain the tradition of a curriculum". If the former you want a comma after "which" and if the latter a comma-less "that" would be better.

• Done - with a bit of rewording. But does it work?

• That will do for me. Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Years of expansion: 1851–1914

• "re-organised" – I wouldn't hyphenate (the OED and Collins don't; I'm not at Riley Towers and haven't got Chambers to hand).

• Done

• "a new girls' school ... a boys grammar school" – shockingly unequal treatment, giving the girls an apostrophe but denying the boys one. Shame on you!

• Done

• The modern era: 1945–2018

• "and to that body advising" – I was taught that in such a construction "advising" is a gerund and not a participle, and so needs a possessive: "and to that body's advising". On the other hand I am 4,000 years old, and you may feel that current usage is agin me. Up to you.

• Done

• According to the lead the school is currently in the HMC, or whatever they're calling it now, but the school's expulsion in the post-war period is the last we hear of the organisation. You might add the date of readmission at the appropriate place in the narrative.

• Done

• Fine, though the twin Oracles of the OED and TR don't hyphenate "readmit". Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• "at this time, the elementary" – I think you want a stronger stop than a comma here.

• Done

• Histories of the school

• "the Reverend W M Warlow ... the Reverend K M Pitt" – comically outdated though full stops in people's initials are, they are required by the Manual of Style (the baneful influence of America, alas). And earlier you abbreviated Reverend to Rev; I prefer the latter, but whichever you prefer, best stick to one or the other.

• Done & Done & Done

• "Keith Kissack published his own history" – a bit ambiguous: it was a history of his own, but it wasn't his own history.

• Done

• Buildings

• "1864-5" – doesn't conform with the MoS Diktat on date ranges. It has to be 1864–1865 now, God save us!

• Done and again later for Stock.

• "These buildings are all Grade II listed buildings" – it would read better if you piped to omit the second "buildings"

• Done

• "the Haberdashers' Hall in London that was destroyed during the Blitz" – unless, per impossibile, there was another Haberdashers' Hall in London that wasn't destroyed during the Blitz, this is a restrictive (defining) clause and needs "which" not "that", with a comma in front of it.

• Done

• "most significant architectural merit" – what does it signify? Better to use plain English: "the greatest architectural merit"

• Done - I should have learnt by now!

• "Situated on the Hereford Road, away from the main school site, the architectural historian John Newman" – why is poor Mr Newman marooned in the Hereford Road? You need to recast so that the geographical location refers to the Chapel House, not to him. I note you have gone over to the Americans, and write "on So-and-so Road" rather than the traditional English "in", but I know a lost cause when I see one, and I am not going to waste energy in a doomed rearguard battle, here or anywhere else.

• Done

• "Blake Theatre" – why the italics?

• Done

• "Lord Bishop of Monmouth" – I'd drop the Trollopian "Lord" here.

• Done

• "Wright described them" – He described them?

• Done

• "by the former Welsh and British Lions captain" – if you're going to link to the British Lions you should probably link to the Welsh national rugby team as well.

• Done

• There's a virulent outbreak of seeing in this section: "2011 saw the commencement of the Heart Project. This saw the sale of some outlying sites."

• Done - I hope!

• "in order to assist" – two unnecessary words: just "to assist" would be shorter and better.

• Done

• "William Jones Building" – further unexpected italics.

• Done

• "Further phases are planned, as funds allow." – MOS:DATED. It would benefit from the insertion of the current year in the text.

• Done - by removal. I always thought it a weak sentence, with a hint of the prospectus.

• The school today

• "Tatler magazine's 2017 Schools Guide" – is this regarded as an authoritative guide? (I'm not disputing it, but merely ask.)

• I think it is pretty authoritative, [2].

• "a significant bursary programme" – again, I ask what does it signify?

• Done by replacing with substantial?

• Houses

• "As at 2014" – and as at 2018?

• Done

• Extra-curricular activities

• The OED doesn't hyphenate "extracurricular" and nor does Collins (nor Riley, come to that).

• Done

• "HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex" – far too much flummery. Either Prince Edward or the Earl of Wessex and certainly no HRH.

• Done

• I see you have now slipped a painful false title in for the donor of the hall, but I do not press the point (at GA level, that is. Watch my chariot wheels at FAC.) Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• "The school also has a music school, the Glover Music School" – that's a helluva lot of schools within ten words. And the whole paragraph contains no fewer than twelve "schools". Some surely could be pruned, e.g. "The school's strong musical tradition owes much to Michael Eveleigh, Director of Music at the school from 1950–1986, and his successors. The school has had only five Directors of Music since the Second World War." rejigged as "The school has a strong musical tradition, fostered by its five post-war Directors of Music, notably Michael Eveleigh (1950–1986)." (There is here, as throughout, a question of excessive capitalisation, but as I will always raise two fingers to the MoS and refuse to write "lord chancellor" or "archbishops of York", I am not going to object to your Directors of Music. Others will assuredly disagree if you ever take the article to FAC.)

• Done - Heavens, there were a lot! I've trimmed them and demoted DoM to dom.

• Sport

• If you're going to link to rugby, I'd link to Rugby union. And if linking to the muddied oafs, why not to the flannelled fools? We pass over the Article of Faith that cricket is not a sport, but a game, which seems to me – not a word to BB! – a distinction without a difference.

• Done

• "The sports facilities include a new sports complex which houses a six-lane swimming pool, indoor sports facilities, a weight and fitness suite, tennis courts, and a full size astroturf pitch. The Butler sports pavilion..." – You could painlessly lose two of the four "sports" from this.

• Done

• Headmasters

• The postnominals are baffling. If Robert Brabourne (1657) didn't get his MA from Oxford or Cambridge, where on earth did he get it? Scotland? Likewise Messrs Morris, Bassett, Wright, Cuthbert, Birt, Barnes, Crowe and Prosser. And are we really to believe that no headmaster since Jane Glover's dad has had a degree? I'd blitz all the postnominals. I'd also lose the extremely tangential information about Mesdames Pleydell and Glover, which is nothing to do with the school.

• Done & Done - Ward gave them religiously, and I quite liked them, but no one else did, so I'm sure you're right re. removal.

• References

• Ample, clear and consistently set out, but refs 80 and 118 are no longer working, and are not archived at the Wayback machine.

• Hum - you're quite right and, on further checking, there's another that gives me a 404 error. Blast. Shall ping you when I've sorted them.

• And now sorted.

That's all I can find to quibble about. This is an admirable article, with no visible evidence of Old Boy’s bias, and I think we can cut the ceremonial ribbon fairly soonish, once you've had a chance to address my few comments. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold, unless you'd prefer me to. – Tim riley talk 12:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim - very much appreciated, and much improved, as ever. The ref.s are a b*gger and I'll attack them now and ping you when I'm done. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - I think we are done. Thanks so much. And congratulations on Sir Osbert. I'm very sorry I didn't get to him, but he managed quite well without my input. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I confidently leave those two (or three) uncontentious citation points in your hands and move to cutting the tape:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Fine work. Your old school can be proud of your efforts on its article. – Tim riley talk 21:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)