Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 14 May 2010 [1].

Royal National College for the Blind

Featured article review/Royal National College for the Blind/archive1

Nominator(s): Paul Largo (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at nominating this for FAC. It was nominated a few weeks ago, but not promoted due to several source issues at the time. It was suggested that I should deal with these then have another go. All but one of the sources listed have now either been validated (I believe) or replaced with others (See here for further details). The only one outstanding is from a magazine of several years standing which is highly regarded in its industry, but which appears to be less well known on the web. This can, however, be removed if objections are raised. Other than that the article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well. Paul Largo (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No dab links; external links working. Ucucha 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Interesting article that I think could use some expanding. Some comments and suggestions:

The Lead should be expanded a bit with a mind towards relative weight. It glosses over the history and assistive technology, says nothing about the restructuring, academics, or extracurriculars. It should better summarize the article as a whole.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some parts will be confusing for US readers. What is a registered charity and is that unusual for a UK school? What is a patron? Brief explanations of OFSTED~~, GCSE, AS and A level will also help those unfamiliar with British education.

I would remove the Ethos section entirely. It seems like fluff. With no discussion of its development or distinctiveness, it detracts from the rest of the article. Most school articles omit them for that reason.

"With donations of £3,000 and the support of the nobility..." Which nobility exactly?

~~"...the word "Normal" being an American expression referring to the training offered by the college." "Normal School" refers to a teachers' college in the US. Did RNC train teachers?~~

You could expand a bit on the Relocation section. Details of the locations? Fuller reasons behind each move?

* You should also expand the Assistive technology section more than a bit. It seems to be one of the more interesting and important contributions of the school. Can you say more, for example, about the T3? How it was developed? What role the school played? What about the other devices?

It seems a shame there is only the one image. Are there images of the founder? Any students? The devices? What about some of the Blind Art or sports?

The notable supporters seem out of place here. They seem only peripherally connected to the school. Notable people suggests those who worked or went there. ~~Perhaps there is more to say about the alumni you mention and how the school impacted their later careers?~~

The fair use logo rationale is valid but not quite right. Look at WP:FURG.

* Is there a citation for Dr Colin Housby-Smith?

Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the suggestions. Some good ideas here and I should be able to deal with most of the issues you've raised. The only thing which might be a problem is the Relocation section as available information on this period of the college's history is a bit patchy, but I'll see what I can find. Getting more pictures might also present a problem. I have made enquiries about this, but sadly without luck. Also, just wondered if you could expand on a couple of things for me;

With regard to the alumni and how the college impacted on their later lives, could you be a bit more specific on the sort of information you're looking for? Do you mean the careers they followed, their achievements and that sort of thing?
With regard to explaining the qualifications, is there an article I could look at for comparison so I can see the sort of thing that is required?

Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

A few changes I have made to this;

Lede - Lede now expanded, but needs a little more work.
Ethos - Section now removed.
Nobility - It's really the British nobility although the Perkins Institute website (confusingly) refers to the English Nobility. In any case I've been more specific. I might move some of the information from Patrons and Supporters to this part so I can clarify which members of the nobility - i.e., the Royal Family and several prominent politicians of the day.
Asssistive technology - Expanded information in this section on the T3 and will add more on some of the other devices. The colleg's website has some quite interesting information so I might use some of this.
Registered charity - Have changed this to say the college is a charitable organisation registered with the Charity Commission (which is basically what a registered charity is). Generally most schools and colleges in the United Kingdom are state funded. RNC receives state funding as well, but I think it probably began life as a charitable organisation as education in Victorian Britain (particularly for blind people) was less comprehensive than it is these days. I'll see if I can find anything that talks about education funding in the UK and try to incorporate it into the article somehow.
GCSE/A-Level - For those outside the UK or other countries that have a UK-style education system, these are qualifications taken during secondary education (GCSE at 16 and A-Level at 18, although anyone at any age can study for them and lots of people do so). The U.S. equivalent for an A-Level is probably High school graduation examination.
Normal college - The history page of the college's website makes reference to teacher training, and there are other passing references to this in other articles, but I have found nothing that expands on this. I'll keep looking though.
Patron - A patron is a celebrity or public figure who is willing to become a figurehead for a particular charity or cause. Not sure how to factor this in yet or whether a good reference is available. Interestingly Prince Charles is Patron of about 400 charities.

I'll keep working on the article and update this list as and when appropriate. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assistive technology - Section now expandedto include more information on technology developed at the college.
Dr Colin Housby-Smith - Ref now supplied.
Lede - Now includes more information about what appears in the article.

Still need to work on the Notable people and alumni section. Will take out some information and try to make it flow better. Would like to start patron inro with something like "Charities often appoint a notable individual as a patron who can help to raise the organisation's profile. RNC's patron is Charles, Prince of Wales, a position he has held since 1997." This would explain patron nicely, but I'm not sure whether I'd need to reference the first statement. That could prove difficult. Paul Largo (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable upporters - Have trimmed this section, knocking out some people and keeping the most important ones.
Relocation - expanded and added a few more minor detail.
Nobility - Added some of the nobility who were involved at the time of the college's founding.
GCSE/A-Level - now in full.

Paul Largo (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logo - I've now updated this but would be grateful if someone would take a look at it for me. It seems to be repeating one or two things in the infobox. Cheers

I edited the fair-use template to use the default text, which should clear it up so far as a fair-use logo goes. There is still the open question of originality as a text logo noted below. Hopefully an opinion from MCQ will be forthcoming.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the fair-use rationale. I think I've probably done all I can with this article for now. Apart from the College's site itself this is probably now the most comprehensive source of information about RNC on the web. I would liek to have been able to have expanded the Relocation section a bit more than I have done, but seem to have found all the information that's presently available on it. If this doesn't pass FAC this time I'll have to leave it for a while. I'll make some more enquiries about getting a few more images and hopefully when the World Blind Football Championships take place later in the year more information about the college will be available in the media - perhaps even a more in-depth history. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Overlinked.

Opening: a forest of unnecessary links: "co-educational", "English" ... "residential" is cryptic for the reader, so if you want a link to "residential college" (which probably deals with the "further education" bit too), perhaps later in the article, unpiped? Is "blind" necessary when "partially sighted" occurs straight after? WP is not a dictionary. "London" doesn't need to be linked. "Colonel" and "British Army" are not necessary links, and "Home Secretary" is a chain link from "David Blunkett" straight after. Cleansing would focus readers on the high-value links.
"philanthropist": please remove this dictionary term to avoid the bunching of three links together (see WP:LINK). "US", nope. Tony (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Links now hopefully dealt with. Article now opens "The Royal National College for the Blind (RNC) is a co-educational residential college of further education based in the English city of Hereford." Other suggested unlinking now complete. Let me know if this is ok or if I need to tweak it some more.
De-linked partially sighted as it is a redirect page to Visual impairment and have linked to visual impairment later on. Let me know if this is all right.
Should the word philanthropist simply be unlinked or substituted for a different word?

Paul Largo (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my view it's a normal English word, and if little children don't know what it means, they should look it up. It occurs many many times in popular culture articles (celebrities get rich, they donate), and I unlink the item when I see it. But if you objected, I'd back down. It's the right word to use, whether linked or not. Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to it being unlinked. It makes sense not to have too many miscellaneous links, and this would only really be a useful link if the article were about someone who is/was a philanthropist. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. It all needs going through; this is just a sample.

The location settled in Hereford?
"This accommodation had limited space, but plans to enlarge the site were seriously affected when, in 1953 fire destroyed much of the buildings"—Why "but"? It doesn't exactly contradict the previous statement. Plural "buildings" after "much" is slightly awkward. Can't think how to rephrase at the moment; a synonym for "accommodation"?
Do be careful with those "new angle" flags like "but" and "however". "However, in 1978 ...".
You don't have to have a comma after a sentence-initial preposition, but here it might avoid jostling: "In the early 2000s RNC's halls of residence ...".
The new WP:Words to watch guideline says to watch such words as "prestigious". Here, you don't need it, given the rap in the remainder of the sentence. Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now updated all of the above mentioned points. I'll have another read through the article in a day or so and look for other examples of things which might need to be changed. Cheeers Paul Largo (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rnc-logo.png - Does this image cross the Threshold of originality? If not it should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} Fasach Nua (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this as legal stuff isn't one of my strengths. It's mentioned above that the fair use rationale is ok, but not quite right. I'll have to ask someone here for advice. Paul Largo (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC3 Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Several points:-

There are several citations to the RNIB magazine New Beacon. Only one ([58]) gives an article name. Are article names not available for the others? Page numbers?
Ref [93] refers to "NB", which is presumably New Beacon.Why is this formatted differently from the other New Beacon refs?
The several references to the RNIB annual report, ([68], [72], [99]), should be combined under a ref name, since the pdf applies to them all.
Ref [101]: The publisher should be given as "Oxford Music Online", which is not the same as the hardprint Grove. The article author's name should be given, and you should add (registration required).
Ref [103]: publisher given as "Sunday Mercury". This is a very commom name for a newspaper so you need to be specific. The one you are using appears to be an online newspaper, "Sunday Mercury.net"
Ref [60] gives the publisher as "RNIB" whereas in other publisher details the name is spelt out in full.

I will leave it for other reviewers to decide whether the reliance on RNIB-published sources represents a difficulty. As none have picked this up so far, this may not be pereived as a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for taking a look at this. I've responded to each of the points below.

New Beacon - Sadly most of the New Beacon references are missing article names. I took the information from copies which were available online at the time, but which have since been removed. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of any titles and have to confess I can't actually remember whether they had any. I notice the later NB ref does so in theory it's possible they also did. Incidentally NB appears differently because that is how it appeared in the ref. I suppose the magazine must have changed its name, but I'm not sure. I don't know anyone to ask about this, but could probably ask at an RNIB forum or something.
RNC Annual Report - Unsure how to combine the RNC annual report refs into one as each refers to a different page. I might turn out to be a bit of a dummy here, but I'll post a helpme request and ask someone for help.
Grove Dictionary/Oxford Music Online - Should be no problem to change that and add subscription required. I don't recall seeing an author, but I'll check again.
Sunday Mercury - Refers to the Midlands based paper. It's offices are in Birmingham so I'll add a location parameter.
RNIB - I can spell the publisher's name out in full.

I should also stress here that the Royal National College for the Blind and Royal National Institute for Blind People are two separate organisations with no affiliation to each other so an RNIB ref should be no problem. Whenever I've used an RNC ref I have tried to back it up with a second third party source. Paul Largo (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with as much as I can for the time being. Added extra parameters to Mercury ref, tweaks to RNIB and Grove Dictionary. Will ask about combining refs and subscription, and I'll take a look at the Oxford Music site later and look for an author. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now used Harvard method for refs from same documents, and added a subscription to the Oxford Music ref. Will now check for author. Paul Largo (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. There is an author, so I've added him. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Charities often appoint a notable individual as a patron who can help to raise the organisation's profile. RNC's patron is Charles, Prince of Wales, a position he has held since 1997." Er... you're actually more or less stating there that Charles has been Prince of Wales since 1997. Please fix. I think "who has held the position since 1997" would work. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I didn't actually change that in the end. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but I couldn't find a reference to support the statement that charities often appoint a patron. :) Currently the sentence about this reads; "It has a number of high profile supporters which include Charles, Prince of Wales, who is the current Patron, a position he has held since 1997". Paul Largo (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks, no support, but several good reviews this time. Please bring it back in a few weeks, after checking with previous opposers, for a fresh start! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.