Talk:Wisbech Grammar School/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this later. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

File:WGS aerial photograph area highlighted.jpg has an unacceptable permission claim and an inappropriate copyright claim. The company who took the picture need to give specific permission for use on Wikipedia which means that the image may be copied for free by anyone else and used for their own commercial benefit, though a credit to aerialimpressions would be given. SilkTork *^YES! 19:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA issue so it won't impact listing, but there are a lot of images. As most of the images are unexciting photographs of buildings, the value of their use needs to be considered. What educational value is being added by this image, for example - File:Wisbech Grammar School grounds 2005.jpg. If there is to be a point made about the architectural style, or cultural impact, age, layout, etc, of the buildings, then an image is worthwhile - though one image showing modern brick built buildings is enough to let the reader know that the school contains such buildings; three in a row is questionable, and one telling image could be selected, and the other two removed. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are an impressive amount of inline cites; though of the 110+ cites, something like 33% are from the school website, which is a primary source. Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, though care has to be taken in their use. Looking closely at those statements which are supported by the primary source, there is little there that might be considered contentious by a reasonable reader, apart from a claim that the school gives financial assistance to those in need. As the claim is not verified by an independent source, it might be challenged. The article appears neutral in tone, and gives a balanced account of its history, so I am not too concerned about this. The important stuff appears appropriately sourced.

However, while on the question of use of sources, as well as neutrality and balance in the article, there is an interesting statement that the school "resisted" plans to become comprehensive. Unfortunately there are few details. The source listed - [1] - gives some interesting background material on that incident, which might be useful. Plus other stuff, such as that at the time of the debate the school was accepting pupils at age 13 not 11 - when did that change? The main point, though, is that there appears to be some unrest about the school - "The education system in this case is not only bad but unsatisfactory and divisive, and Wisbech has, many feel as a direct result, one of the highest per capita rates in Britain for juvenile crime....It is time that the Government sought to have powers to change a system which does as much harm to a community as the continued existence of an elitist grammar school does to the town of Wisbech." In the interest of balance, I feel it would be worthwhile to expand upon this statement: "In 1980, the school resisted plans by Cambridgeshire County Council to merge it with Queen's Girls' and Queen's Boys' Schools to form a comprehensive school. As a result the council ceased to maintain the school, which became independent on 1 September 1983." I think this may be a minor matter, though I wouldn't like to list as a Good Article an article that presents a topic as being less controversial than it actually is. If there is or has been local opposition to the school then let's have it. Let's not sweep a contentious battle under the rug with a bland (almost heroic) statement that the school "resisted" becoming comprehensive (which 90% of schools in the UK are) and decided to become fee paying instead. Also, the question of assisted places is controversial, with some debate about the appropriateness of giving money to independent schools to "prop them up" - Wisbech is mentioned as, at the time of that debate, 50% of the places were financed by the government. How many places are financially supported by the school now that the assisted places scheme has been withdrawn? Wisbech apparently has a very high unemployment rate, yet became a fee paying school. Interesting stuff. Difficult to incorporate this material, I know, but it seems fair to at least try to bring such stuff to the attention of the reader. Wikipedia:Five pillars says: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as 'the truth' or 'the best view'." I'm not unduly concerned, though I think care has to be taken to ensure this article is not perceived as a brochure selling the school, and that local debates regarding the school - especially potentially interesting ones such as this - should be mentioned where appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complies with MoS apart from WP:Lead. Most GA nominees don't get this right first time. Many people feel that the lead is an introduction to the topic, and so don't put enough information into it. The lead needs to be able to stand alone by itself - under the view that many (most?) readers want a quick overview of the topic, and will only read the main body when they want greater detail in some aspect of the topic. The school has a long history which isn't adequately covered in the lead - it does jump from 1549 to 1970, skipping out what happened in between. A few highlights are all that is needed. SilkTork *^YES! 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a decent article which is well presented. There are some minor issues regarding the use of images, but that's not a GA matter. What is holding this from GA listing is:

Use of an image where permission is not clear.
Lead not following WP:Lead - more details on history would be useful
Lack of detail regarding the "resistance" to becoming a comprehensive, and the decision to become fee-paying
A little more detail on the change of intake from age 13 to age 11 (not a deal breaker)

There may be room to explore the school's relationship with the local community, because a fee-paying school in such a poor community is quite interesting. This would be for future development, as part of the comprehensiveness required for FA status, and if information cannot be readily found, then not having it wouldn't hold this back from GA listing. The article appears neutral, though selection of information is always an issue, and where there has been negative reports on the school these should be included in the interests of fair balance and complete impartial information for our readers.

Review on hold for seven days. SilkTork *^YES! 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for this thorough review - some good points, and I will be having a look at implementing your suggestions in the next few days. With regards to the neutrality, I'm hoping it's not too one-sided, although I should probably inform you that I did attend this school from 1998 to 2005, so probably see it with a more "pro" standpoint than the way a non-attending Wisbech person may view it. Having said that, I'm not affiliated (i.e not employed) by them, I'm really just writing it out of personal interest.Rob (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI is a bit of a bogey. A person affiliated with a topic can write a well balanced article; while a person unaffiliated, completely neutral, and with the best intention, can end up writing a very biased article by relying too much on the wrong sources. Fans of pop stars/bands/games/tv shows tend to be biased in favour of them, even though not actually affiliated, and the tendency is to write articles of praise, perhaps without intending. There's a lot of unintended bias on Wikipedia - both in terms of the topics we choose, and the way we collect and present information on those topics. Sometimes that bias can come from too much reliance on primary sources. Sometimes bias can come from avoiding sources that are critical, out of natural concern for creating an inappropriately harmful attack article. I feel that WP's collegiate collaborative approach to article creation assists in removing bias. People may argue over the use of a single word, and it may look petty, but through those sorts of debates an article is strengthened. I think it's an asset that you know the school well. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to a few points:

I was a little unsure about the aerial photograph as well - it was sent to me by the school's press officer, who has cleared it with the aerial photography company, although as you point out the release licence is rather unclear as it's sortof based on hearsay. What I may do is see about going through the Commons OTRS system, although I agree that for the time being it would be best to remove/delete it and then perhaps look into the licence. I also agree that there are rather too many images, so I'll look into trimming the number down a bit there.
Will look into expanding the lead.
I also agree that it would be interesting to know a little more about when it changed from 13 to 11 and the transition to independence. Unfortunately, the school hasn't really had a properly published school history book since 1939, so even if I was able to find this out, it may be difficult to find an acceptable, widely available source to confirm it. Rob (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't fail this because some minor dates or details dates are missing, such as the change from 13 to 11, though I feel we do need more info on the change to independence. The local paper would have reports on that. Are you able to visit Wisbech library, or do you live elsewhere? SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hansard references are quite a useful reference, especially for the apparent opposition by Clement Freud, so I may be able to expand that section using that. It appears from the Hansard ref that it was the governors who were opposed to the change, which is an extra detail I may be able to incorporate. However, I wonder whether to present Wisbech as a socially deprived area with an elitist school may also be slightly inaccurate and out of date (this is quoting a politician speaking, after all!). I mean, as independent schools go, the grammar school isn't exactly a posh school. Queen's boys and girls schools (now Thomas Clarkson Community College) merged to become a single co-educational state comprehensive school soon after WGS became independent. While I can see that the situation of a "creaming off" at aged 13, and the suggestion that one person was a governor for both institutions, is not great, I'm not sure how mentioning Freud's implication that having a grammar school increases the crime rate and social deprevation is really relevant. I'll look into expanding this a bit, anyway.Rob (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the school had over 50% of places financially assisted by the government, which was the most of any fee paying school in the UK, does support the view that Wisbech was socially deprived at that time. There's an interesting story there of how the school managed that transition to fee-paying - clearly quite heavily subsidised by the government at one point. The school's bursar may have looked at the APS and the school's catchment area, and made some astute financial calculations. The problem for the school would have come when the APS was scrapped - and the story of how the school survived that would be quite interesting. But, as you say, it depends on finding the right sources, and interpretation is not part of Wikipedia. Find the facts and report them. Let the reader join the dots. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure how discussing the appropriateness of the Assisted Places Scheme would aid understanding of the school either. As it stands, it simply states that 50% of pupils received assistance, the highest in the scheme, which just presents the facts without any one-sided argument. I wonder whether discussing this further, or stating that this was "controversial" might put a positive/negative slant on it, which I've been trying to avoid, as ultimately the government's policy changed some thirteen years ago anyway. Judging by this debate, just before the cancellation of the scheme, a section about this would probably just end up as a "Conservative minister said this, Labour minister said this"-type discussion. Rob (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Interpretation is not what WP does. But researching and digging out commentary by others is what we do best. I do feel there would have been something about this in the local paper. The online version of the Wisbech Standard only archives back to Jan 2008, so that isn't very helpful, but the local library is almost certain to have copies of the paper from 1983. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I have expanded the opening, removed some of the redundant images and the aerial photograph, and elaborated on the sections on the 1983 independence and the Assisted Places Scheme, although I have mainly explained the background of the two segments rather than given any explicit discussion of the rights/wrongs of the matter. I have also added a reference to the ISI report to back up the section about bursaries. Let me know if there's anything else that ought to be clarified/expanded and so forth. Thanks! Rob (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and let you know. SilkTork *^YES! 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British History Online has been a useful source for other articles. It appears to have some information on the school's history, so may be worth looking at. SilkTork *^YES! 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Ah! I see you have already made use of it! SilkTork *^YES! 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your amendments. I'll take another look tomorrow to see if anything else needs doing. Bloody good work! SilkTork *^YES! 23:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I did use British History Online for quite a bit of the history section (although I have largely cited the works that the website is built from in the references, with a link to the relevant bit). I live quite near Wisbech, although I may not be able to get over to the library in time for the seven day deadline (work, snow and so forth!), but yes I expect the local newspaper archives may have a few snippets. I remember the Riverline from that year is quite interesting, but I don't have a copy of that - I think there's a bound copy of them in the Wisbech library, so I may be able to have a look when I go over.

As to the effect on the school with the end of Assisted Places, I think I was witness to that, as I was in the first year that didn't have any. I know my "year" had one class fewer than the 1997 year, and there was also a noticable change in backgrounds of people compared to the years above - I don't think they'd got the bursary scheme going properly at the time. I suppose WGS suffered from losing the APS because it wasn't a boarding "public school" like King's Ely or Gresham's, and didn't have the local wealth like the Perse School either - its fees are certainly lower. Obviously, that's all original research! Rob (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

The ammendments are enough to satisfy GA criteria. Well done. The article will now be listed.

I like what you have done with the information regarding the independance issue - you have informed the reader of the debate without leading them in any direction. There is room for development on the issue, and I hope you will keep on with it, and perhaps aim for FA. A Peer Review when you have developed the article further will help with any aim for FA status. FA would require more comprehensive coverage, and that might include digging deeper into the school's long history. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Rob (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]