Talk:Wellington College, Berkshire/GA1

GA Review

After reviewing this article, I have identified a number of issues which indicate it is not yet ready for good article status. Rather than fail it directly, I am putting it on hold, which gives you a week or so to address these issues.

Good article criteria:

• Well written/Broad in coverage

This is the greatest failing. I've put these criteria together, since they are inter-related.

1. The lead is not comprehensive enough: it should provide a summary of the article's content. See WP:LEAD
2. Terms are used without explanation: I shouldn't need to follow links in order to know what a "visitor" is, or the "G20 Schools group". Give a brief explanation of the terms for the average reader.
3. It contains many words and phrases which should be avoided, since they are meaningless or inappropriate for an encyclopedia, such as weasel and peacock words. eg:
   • "the national monument to Duke of Wellington" Really? Or just one of them? Set up to be a monument, or just named after him? Did the government decide this was to be the monument? How does this impact the school? (And perhaps explain why Wellington deserved a monument, and why this should be a school.)
   • "the design of the college was unusual compared to the popular form" what does this mean? What was the popular form, that this should be unusual? What style is this?
   • "historically, pupils at the school have excelled at rugby union" meaningless, weaselly peacocky phrasing. All the pupils? Some? Why? What have they won? Who says they've excelled?
   • "Like many of the major public schools, Wellington College is no stranger to press attention." What does this mean? Is this because they're a public school, or because they're large? Meaningless phrase, without some kind of analysis.
   • "a long tradition of pastoral care at Wellington" huh? What does it mean? (RE isn't pastoral care, either: it's an academic subject)
   • "achieved fame"? Meaningless. (and also mentioned under sport)
4. Some phrasings could be clarified. It has 900 pupils. When? Now? Ever? Has it always had this many? Do they all board? (Actually, we hear nothing about boarders until the "houses" section: this needs to be mentioned and discussed earlier.)
5. The article suffers greatly from recentism: most of the information discusses teh current set up, or recent events (such as "press coverage") with little information at all about the previous 150 years. A history of the school is essential for this to be a good article.
6. What is significant about the first master that he should be mentioned in the lead? What influence did he have? Why was he chosen? Were there other masters with influence, or notable for other reasons?
7. Architecture: too short. Tell us something about the architecture, not just the architect. How many buildings? Are they all in this style? How about later developments? How long did it take to build? How big is it? What are the interiors like? How is the school arranged: in one building or several? (You mention in and out houses later; that might be worth mentioning here.) How did people resond to the arhictecture? Who paid for it? See also notes about meaningless phrases above. (And why did Prince Albert have a say in the arhictecture style?) And so on...
8. Sport: again too short. Is the Daily Mail Cup in 2008 the only significant achievement for the school in its 150 years? Why don't they have Eton Fives courts anymore? How much sport do the students play? Any notable athletes/ rugby players, etc? What is significant about being a founding member of the RFU? Do they still play rugby now?
9. "Location" poorly placed: should come earlier. And why is some of the architecture discussed here, not under architecture? And are the ants the only notable thing about the grounds? (A fact not cited, by the way.) Where did the land come from? Government purchase? Private grant? How does the location impact on the school? Do they mainly operate on site or take advantage of local facilities? Where are the students drawn from? What is the large site used for? All playing fields? Other facilities?
10. You say it's coeducational. What proportion girls? When did it become co-ed? Was there resistance to this? How does it operate dormitories and houses? Co-ed all the way through, or just senior years?
11. Former pupils. Why do we care about these people? How do they impact on the school? do they say anything about their time at Wellington? Were they affected/influenced by Wellington, or is this just random trivia? No citations, either, so I've no way of knowing if it's true they attended Wellington, and for how long. A day? Their whole life?
12. Why are the cadet force notable? Is the military connection significant? Or is this just another extracurricular activity, and you could have easily told me about the chess club?
13. Press: another example of recentism. When was the bullying a problem? Was it true? What did people say about the school 50 years ago? 100? When it was built?
14. "Houses": suffers from recentism (have they always been this many houses? When were they instituted? What makes the current house master more notable than the first or last. WP is not a directory of school staff members. The section also raises concerns about undue weight. There is more kb given up to the colours of the houses than to the history of the school, or the facilities, etc. While they might be important to students of the school, it means little to the average reader, who wants to know more general things about the school.
15. "Old wellingtonians". So the society was set up. What do they do, aside form keeping a register? Play sports together? Fund raise? Come back on Old Wellingtonian days? etc etc.

• Factually accurate and verifiable:

I've added some citation needed tags. These are a minimum.

• Neutral

Fairly neutral, although some peacocky words cause it to read like a prospectus.

• Stable

Y appears stable. No edit wars.

• Illustrated, if possible, by images:

Adequate. Logo has fair use claim. An image of the school with appropriate free licence.

This is just a quick summary of the major issues. Don't feel you must resolve all of these immediately: if the article is not ready after a week, you can always renominate it when you feel it is ready. You might find it helpful to look at other school articles which have made GA. Also, feel free to discuss with me any concerns you might have about this review. All the best. Gwinva (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

GA: Not listed

A week has passed, and these issues have not been resolved, so I am failing this article for GA. Please don't feel discouraged: you can still use the above comments to improve the article, and renominate once you feel it is ready. All the best. Gwinva (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)