Talk:Kennet School/Archive 1

Text to be added to

• Exchanges in more detail
• School development section
• PTA section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertvan1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures to be added to page

• None

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 19, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some sections are well written, but the article as a whole is not. It contains an excessive number of lists and tables. It contains an excessive number of sections, some of which have as little as a single sentence of text within them. It contains speculative information about future developments without offering any sources to those claims. It is overly broad in its coverage -- I question the necessity of listing each of the heads of department, for instance. (On the other hand, if they are in fact important to a reader's understanding of the school, then the article should include them but should make their importance clear. It currently does not.) The article contains information that seems irrelevant to the school itself, such as "The school council was informed of Mr. German's decision to change the skirt style shortly before the general announcement was made, although they could make no objections to the action." -- if this is relevant, then why? Other parts of the article are not necessarily clear to the casual reader: What is an "NC," for instance, and is it exceptional to offer two of them? The article seems mostly to serve those who are already aware of the school; it needs also to serve the general public before it can be considered a Good Article.

2. Factually accurate?: Poor. Though the article is fairly long, it offers only seven citations. Of these, four are to the school newspaper, which is not an independent source and may not be a reliably neutral one. Many sections are entirely unsourced, including those dealing with the development project, with charity events, with Anti-Bullying Week, with awards the school has won, and with teaching aids. There is at least one quote ('Part way into the year, Mr. Dick returned to St. Michael house to inform that he "needed Mr. Loveridge back" to do his regular job.') whose source is not cited, and this I consider a serious enough breach to prevent the article from passing even if there were no other issues with it -- a quoted passage absolutely must state its source.

3. Broad in coverage?: While there is no trouble with the broadness of the article -- it may if anything be overly broad -- its depth is lacking in many areas, as mentioned above.

4. Neutral point of view?: No major issues, although the article seems inappropriately sympathetic toward the school at times, eg. "It is hoped that by the end of the 2006 Autumn term, the house will be informed of a permanent change." Care should be taken to maintain neutrality of tone throughout, but I would not consider it egregious enough in its current state to prevent passing GA.

5. Article stability? Although there have been a lot of edits recently, there have been few major changes to the article content. I do not consider stability an issue.

6. Images?: Potential issues here. While all are tagged, I'm not certain they're tagged accurately. The three black-and-white headmaster images are tagged "permission granted to distribute under GFDL," but there is no indication of who the creator(s) of the images is (are). The photo of the current headmaster is tagged as a poster for an event -- this seems obviously wrong to me, in the absence of any further information. The same is true of the picture of the four VI Form instructors. The image of the students is tagged as a copyrighted publicity photo, but the source is the school website, not a press kit -- and the content is replaceable by a free image in any case, so should not be here.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Shimeru 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Well written?: The numerous lists and tables have been reduced and sections that are unnotable have been scrapped. Speculative imformation has been removed and unclear information has been clarified.

2. Factually accurate?: More citations have been added to total upto fifteen, although it is unfortunately very difficult to verify the information. The quote has been removed as it cannot be cited.

3. Broad in coverage?: Areas have been extended to add depth.

4. Neutral point of view?: The St. Michael House section has been removed to allow a fully neutral point of view.

6. Images?: Image tags have been reviewed.

CR7 12:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

If it's of any help I thought I would make a few suggestions to help to improve this article. I broadly agree with the points raised above. The history section in particular should be a priority and would benefit from being written in a prose style. I'm sure there must be some published sources which could be used as references for the school history.

There is to my mind too much emphasis on current events, many of which are not of any notable interest. The article should adopt a more encylopaedic style. Most of the current events in the article do not seem particularly noteworthy. Didn't all Berkshire schools have an anti-bullying week? What is so special about the one at the Kennet School? The entire section on school uniform should be deleted. There is nothing notable about the school uniform and this type of information belongs in a prospectus not in an encylopaedia article. Take a look at WP:SCHOOL for some guidelines.

There are some noteworthy points which have not been brought out in the article. There can't be many schools in the UK which have three specialisms. This is a particularly noteworthy feature which should be highlighted. What did the headteacher do to merit his OBE? If it was related to his work with the school then again this should be highlighted and there would presumably be published articles to provide references (eg, The Times Digital Archive). I believe Peter Allen was a former history teacher at the school and he might benefit from a whole paragraph to himself as I believe he's written a number of local history books about Thatcham. I'm also intrigued to know what has he done to merit having a house on the school site.

Too many of the references are to school league tables which are widely published and not particularly noteworthy. They are subject to interpretation and of course a school's results depend largely on the calibre of the intake. It might be helpful to have a paragraph about the admissions policy to help people interpret the statistics as they are meaningless when taken out of context. A section on extra-curricular activities might also be of interest. Are there any former alumni of note?

I hope these comments are of some help. Keep up the good work. 172.209.148.58 23:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add:

• Get rid of the juvenilities. "Mr. Dick OBE"? If you are addressing him, you may well call him (or be required to call him) "Mr. Dick"; but that's not how an encyclopedia article is written. Give his full name the first time it appears. If the man has an OBE, he may be notable himself; if not, at least mention what it's for.
• Drop all the honorifics with which the article is studded. There should not be a Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. in the entire thing.
• The article needs to be trimmed of at least half the fluff and fat, if not more. --Orange Mike 23:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And a few more!

The good article nomination is somewhat premature. This article has far too much trivia which is only of interest to people within the school. We really do not need to know about the school canteen and the detailed contents of the school library. There are also far too many tables. The history section is completely inadequate. Future building projects should not be included in an encyclopaedia. I have a book called "The Book of Thatcham" written by Peter Allen, Halsgrove, 2006) which has lots of information on the history of the schools in Thatcham and several pages on the Kennet School. I haven't got time to write a proper history section at the moment but I suggest the article's authors borrow the book from the library and use this book as a source. If the article is going to be a good nominee candidate there really ought to be a few photos of the school as well. Dahliarose 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the changes

There is still a mind-boggling quantity of trivia here, the sort which makes the reader's eyes glaze over. Drop stuff like "In September 2005, the science block was extended to allow for a larger preparation room and between June and September 2006, the Resources department was extended and the main entrance refurbished including automatic doors and a lobby area. In October 2006, work commenced on the building of a new drama and VI form study block, expected to open in September 2007" and re-hashes of the details of school council politics, definitions of "littering" and the like. The tables are a bit much, too; maybe put in a link to some site where the details are available. Tighten, clarify ("for services to education"?), wikilink where appropriate, be merciless, be bold. I'd suggest you get recent graduates now at Uni or other locals involved in the editing. --Orange Mike 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very poorly organized and many lists

2. Factually accurate?: Has inline citations but could be better organized with {{cite web}}

3. Broad in coverage?: Can be greatly expanded still to cover extracurricular activities.

4. Neutral point of view?: Lacks a section about criticisms of the school

5. Article stability? Passed

6. Images?: Can be better organized

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — If you disagree with this GA nom review feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 02:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rename?

Should this school be renamed as Kennet School. This is the name used on the school's own website and also in the school's OFSTED report. Dahliarose 12:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. It was originally called this, so should be easy enough to revert back. robertvan1 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Unsure School photos around the school read Kennet Comprehensive School which infers that the school was called such at some stage, note that the pictures date from the 1990s. It's probably best to get in contact with a member of senior staff from the school and ask for the official full name. CR7 (message me) 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Support per nom. Discussion with the head confirmed the school's official title remains Kennet Comprehensive School, but Kennet School is used by the school. Title should be changed, but a note should be in lead saying that the school's official name is Kennet Comprehensive School. CR7 (message me) 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of {{cite web}}

Should we convert web references to {{cite web}}, or is it fine as it is? I have no real preference, what about other editors? robertvan1 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Using cite is a choice for you at this stage. It is more academic to use cite but you need to make sure you can all use it Victuallers 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it makes much difference. I've no idea how to use cite web but if other people can work it out and want to use it then I see no problem. It seems like a lot of unnecessary work to me! Dahliarose 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Hi. I'm removing the trivia of the fire and phone mast. If you can come up with a reason why they aren't trivial, please state why here (with non-school sources). Do not revert the sections until their addition has been justified. This article seems to have a lot of unnecessary information in general, and these two sections in a section that could be easily retitled "trivia" are the obvious first bits to go. Anything else that could be cut to make this article more concise and cleaner can also be discussed here. 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is cited and has been read through my many other users. Please create a user account before removing sections as this is clear deletion of a section. CR7 (message me) 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why I have to register to remove sections, however I didn't remove a section. I removed two subsections that clearly fall within the scope of wp:trivia. Please do not revert them unless you can add non-trivial material to those subsections, or integrate them into the rest of the article. The title "Miscellaneous" is clearly a synonym of "Trivia". The fact that there are citations for these trivial facts does not make them non-trivial. Rather than clutter the page with a trivia tag I have removed the material. Please do not revert, but update and improve. Also, assume good faith - do not accuse people of vandalism who are trying to improve the rating of this article. Yours, 88.172.132.94 —Preceding comment was added at 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You may have misinterpretted WP:Trivia: it clearly states This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. That is what you have done. It is also a guidline not a policy. CR7 (message me) 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted the "guidline", I am trying to improve this article. As you can see I removed some text that was trivia and uninteresting to anyone outside the school (and probably to those in the school too). However, I upgraded the subsection on the school library to a full section. Please remember to assume good faith, and move the discussion on to what would improve the article. Do you have any information that would raise those two "misc" subsections from being trivia? Thanks 88.172.132.94 08:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have removed two sections containing bad points/criticisms of the school. These are required to maintain neutrality, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I quote:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

They are both cited with non-school sources, and in a misc section as they did not fit in anywhere else. The section could be renamed criticisms if necessary.  robertvan1  talk  16:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't need trivia to be neutral. The phone mast is not a valid criticism of the school, in fact it is probably a good thing as it's bringing in extra money for the school. The health risks are bunk. The "fire" fits the definition of trivia unless you can add verifiable and legally acceptable criticisms of how the school handled the event. Even then unless it endangered life or school property it's unlikely to not be trivia. These sections are not critical of the school, apart from the one unsourced and potentially libellous statement. Neutrality doesn't require you to make up criticisms or elevate small points. If these are the only problems the school has I wish I'd gone there :) 88.172.132.94 17:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the phone mast and the fire were somewhat unencyclopaedic and really added nothing to the article. I don't see any need to reinstate them. I'm pleased to see that all those references to compact discs and DVDs in the library have now gone. I seem to remember removing them in the past and they got put back in! It might be better to have a section on Facilities and put the paragraphs about the sixth-form block and the library in this section. At one time I seem to remember seeing a list of subjects taught at the school. Lists are usually frowned upon but there ought to be something in the article about the curriculum and what the school offers in addition to the National Curriculum. Dahliarose 18:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should edit the page any more, but here is another suggestion: the world cup and charity section should be joined into one, and trimmed a lot. Most of the information is unnecessary - such as the times and the writing up the results. The most important information, money raised, is absent! Is there not a local rag article that shows it was notable too? Thanks, 88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be sprucing this up

I have images I took myself of the school,as I go to it I will be updating the page and filling in the blanks ;)-- Tama63 Talk  16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)‎

I also have access to the school's logo and house shield image stock and website-- Tama63 Talk  16:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)‎

Salary of the headmaster

I have removed the comment from the lead about the remuneration of the headmaster:

1. This is an article about the school - not the current headmaster, nor education policy or teacher pay. To include it in the lead gives it WP:UNDUE prominence; to include it at all seems to be a WP:COATRACK.
2. It seemed to be written in a non-neutral way and did not back up claims of being "controversial". An OBE for services to education and an above-average salary suggests an above-average performance which, if referenced and in a suitable place for inclusion, might establish some balance.

RichardOSmith (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)