Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotch College, Perth/archive2

Scotch College, Perth

• Scotch College, Perth recently was a FA candidate and failed. I would like to see this article be FAed, so I have come here to fix the final problems. This article has been Peer reviewed before ((earlier review)). I have addressed these issues. Here is the FA page - FA candidate.
• Any Suggestions on anything would be most helpful. Thanks --Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  I would recommend the following:

  1. Throughout the "history" section, you mention loads of statistics (mostly money), these all need sourcing. done --Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. "The project consists of researching the topic, producing the article and doing a maximum 5000 word write up on the project. The project is marked from 1 - 7 with 2 being a pass mark." - is this really necessary?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

     I think it is, as there is very little information on it here --Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     It seems not really of interest to the readers of the page. I would strongly recommend it's removal. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     Removed --Hamedog^Talk|@ 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  3. The "middle school structure" section could do with many more wikilinks.

     I have put some more in, is that enough?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 04:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

     Yes. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  4. One paragraph sections are bad: merge or expand them ("Novell computer system" and "Moray")DONE
  5. Just list the sports like: "The students can play basketball, football, rugby..." rather than in a formatted list.DONE
  6. Ditto the music section.DONE--Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Having said this, overall, it's a pretty good article. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that the subheading "ties" is unnecessary. My general rule is that if there is only one subsection in a section, it should be merged. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Done

Any other suggestions? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • Any other suggestions at all, any one?--Hamedog^Talk|@ 13:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)