Talk:City of London School/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Comments

This article badly needs some references. When it has these then it would be a B. Article looks very good. Victuallers 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

old school with impressive old boys list. Could be a B with better refs. Victuallers 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On 2 September 2005, this article was made a showcase article at the Schools Wikiportal "as it has been identified as one of the best high school (sic) articles on Wikipedia". So maybe it should go up a grade. Chelseaboy (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References added and cleaned up. Gallery addition looks good. I earlier added some pictures. I hope the picture readjustments meet with everyones favor. Yes, a Yank, but a descendant of the founder John Carpenter's elder brother also named John Carpenter.

John R. Carpenter La Mesa, CA USA Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Current pupils and Old Citizens on Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: City of London School has been created for all current pupils and Old Citizens on Wikipedia. Timrollpickering 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To add yourself to this list, insert the following on your user page: 

[[Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: City of London School|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

Alternatively, you can add the following template to your user page (this will automatically add you to the category): {{User CLS}}

This user is an Old Citizen.




Miscellaneous

True or false: they plan on renaming this article "City of London School for Boys" to avoid sexism. 66.245.17.89 00:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

False

Did Joe Strummer go here?

No he didn't; he went to the Freemen's school which was somewhere in Surrey, I think. Masud 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Staff listings

Is it really important to have a list of current staff? I don't think so, they're all fairly non-notable, but interesting trivia for old boys (like me) but I could find that out on the CLSB website anyway. If there are no serious objections, I'll remove the list of teachers. Masud 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - best to remove this list. (another Old Citizen) Bwithh 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!! The list is awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.212.209 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It has Mr. Martin on it and he owns all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.100.65 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Same with Mr. Ellis-Ress - He is a legend

Pictures

The article has a really good selection of pictures, but I think the formatting lets them down: they come one after the other in a long line, I think they'd look better if there was some variation in their placement. I shoved this together in a spare moment: User:Driller_thriller/Lipsum It can be done better, but this is the idea I want to put across. Driller thriller 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a lot better. But maybe you should put it in historical order? So the Milk Street ones and then the Victoria Embankment ones. I like the way you've staggered them, and put one on the left, and another on the right. The Coat of Arms is also a good image, but maybe it doesn't belong all the way at the top of the article, where one of the main points of discussion is the various buildings the school occupied.
In any case, what you have done is an improvement on the current page. --Masud 23:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy couple of weeks; I made the edits. Hope everyone approves. Driller thriller 16:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

that's better, it looks nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.159.83 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone on to put the pictures in chronological order, and have had to slightly resize them so the page's layout isn't disrupted. I think it's important to see the pictures at their relevant points in the article. --Masud 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a few photos and adjusted them and the current potos for the article. When I have some time I will add some references.

John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Does City Count as a Public School?

The City of London School, which derived from a mediæval foundation of 1442, and was reconstituted by a private Act of Parliament in 1835, was held to be a public school by the Divisional Court in the case of Blake vs. City of London in 1886. Yes, it does. Driller thriller 00:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Like the Corporation of London itself, the Corporation's schools are probably sui generis Bwithh 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
No. Absolutely not. Drillerthriller thinks it does because he went there and enjoys speaking of himself in the third person. --SandyDancer 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm an ex-pupil and I agree that it is definitely not a public school. I mean, look at the fees... Pneumataultramicroscopicsiliconvolcaneosis is the longest word in the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pneumataultramicroscopicsiliconvolcaneosis (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a public school on almost any definition. It's on an ancient foundation, it is old by school standards even taking the date of its refoundation by Act of Parliament in the reign of William IV, it has always been fee paying, it was authoritatively determined to be a public school by the Divisional Court in the case of Blake v City of London in 1886, and it is a member of the Headmasters Conference. Chelseaboy (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV and references tags

A lot of claims are made about certain teachers being notable on this article - this needs referencing or should be taken out altogether as unsouced POV Bwithh 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Where 1 is 'a lot'? If the word notable were removed from the heading that would seem to resolve this particular problem, as some seem attached to the list (see comments above). Also I don't see why the article is tagged 'unreferenced' at the top, as there are 2 refs given. roundhouse 20:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific - the entire section regarding notable teaching staff are red linked, implying that they are notable enough for their own articles. This section is also unreferenced. If the teachers really are encyclopedically notable, references should be introduced. Otherwise they should be removed Bwithh 21:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK - remove the red links then. I'd have thought that some staff notable at the school but not more widely could be listed without any great controversy. (Google reveals quite a lot about the head Bryan Bass if anyone cares to pull it together, on a Hymers Hull site.) roundhouse 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Levin as head

I recall that when Dancey left in 1998 (when I finished at CLS), there was going to be another head who had to pull out late in the day because of illness and I don't think Levin arrived until 1999. Is anyone able to verify this or not? Timrollpickering 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's true: Grossel was temporary head; I seem to remember that the proper replacement head was ill or something, and in the end never turned up. --Masud 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Academics

Why is there an American-style heading in an article about an English school? Surely in British English academics is the plural of academic (ie, a scholarly person) and is therefore very misleading as a title as this section is not about the academic staff but about the subjects taught at the school. Perhaps curriculum might be a more appropriate heading. Dahliarose 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm up for that. I'll go ahead and do it. --Masud 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Radcliffe an old boy?

Isn't Daniel Radcliffe an old boy now? It's the difference between him being in the current notable pupils and the notable old citizens section. --Masud 10:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Age wise he should be in his last year. Timrollpickering 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've removed his name from the old citizens section, and ensured he remains on the current pupils section. --Masud 06:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he'll leave in September.
He has left —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.53.202 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Toby Smyth

Is notable as being goalkeeper for ISFA U16 team Discuss... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.141.53.202 (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

The list of old boys

Even though all these old citizens are notable (e.g. they have their own article), this list is becoming far too large. Either we narrow the list down, and link to a page that has them all, or simply remove the whole lot, and just have the link. What do people think? --Masud 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

keep them there. so what if the list is long? does it really take that much more effort to scroll down past it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.175.25 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just think that the humongous section of non-prose "bolted on", as it were, to the end of the article detracts from the quality of the article itself. Whereas a page that is purely a list only is fine, as that is what people will expect when they go to the page. Furthermore, this article is about the school itself, not those who have been to it. Masud 00:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


First school in england to teach science

The school website does not claim to have been the first school to teach science, it in fact only claims to have been the first to teach paractical chemistry. Is there any further back up for the actual science claim? Ramw2 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The printed school histories referenced at the end of the article make and substantiate this claim. The most detailed account is in The City of London School, A. E. Douglas-Smith (1st edition 1937, 2nd edition 1965). Other schools taught classical authors like Aristotle, which could be construed as science, but the current (March 2008) text is more specific than this, and accurate: "It was the first school in England to include science on the curriculum and to include scientific experiments as part of its teaching." Chelseaboy (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable pupils and alumni

I'm going to make some changes to the list of "Notable current pupils" and "Notable former pupils". First, someone has deemed Alex Watson notable because of who his sister is. I disagree, so am going to remove his name. Second, Daniel Radcliffe is the only name in a list which could, in theory, include a British Prime Minister (Herbert Henry Asquith) and a two well-regarded English authors (Julian Barnes and Kingsley Amis). I agree that Radcliffe is notable, but the list deserves a few more names. --Popeyedoyle 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:City of London Arms.png

The image Image:City of London Arms.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Football

I think that I'm right in saying that City of London switched from Rugby Football to Association Football in the 1990's. Such a change is quite unusual and surely deserves a mention? Millbanks (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly exclusively football for the lower years when I started (early 1994) with no rugby at all (the higher years had a more varied choice - I did sailing) which suggests it hadn't been for quite some time - it would be strange for a school to change overnight. I'm not sure how unusual this is though - a lot of private schools don't do rugby for some or all of their pupils (my prep school only taught it to a few for instance). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the changeover was gradual, over a few years. Millbanks (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture placement

Tbo 157 I restored the previous edit to remove the large gap that appears when the picture of the statue of John Carpenter went to the right. I did not see any other changes.

Any concerns or thoughts? John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wierd. IE7 does not show TOC box but IE6 does. Firefox shows TOC. Any way to move it to a better location?

Thanks Tbo for pointing this out to me! John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Ive had similar problems before. It seems that such problems can sometimes be caused by ad blocking software. Tbo 157(talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I found out that if I was not logged in I could see TOCs. I played with preferences and reset defaults. That seems to have fixed the problem for me. But, it took two tries!

The question I now have is why the TOC does not word wrap or apply like a picture. If you have a lot of sections that TOC grows and puts sizeable gap in the article. Even using hide, it is distracting. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tbo, Now I see the problem you have described. With the complete TOC (Content) the History section gets pushed downward. When TOC is in the hide position, a large gap appears as if the TOC is in the expanded or full position. I will see what I can find.
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, if any image is just under the section (left or right) below where the TOC engages, then the sections fails to revert when TOC - Contents opens or closes. By removing the image from that critical spot, the TOC and following section contracts normally. This may be a framing error for Wikipedia. When the TOC is closed or in the "hide" position, the article looks good for printing. When TOC is open or in "show" position then the gap is reduced. Not perfect but a little better. Thoughts or comments?
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
YEAH! The following code is new (2007) and not well documented. Position is critical. It can not be top line if an info box is next. Spacing is needed. The code is "{{TOChidden}}". I got lucky and found it. It works in the middle also.
John R. Carpenter
Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

H'mmm, still a problem with the large gap because of the standard TOC placement. I'll watch and see how this works out! Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any gaps. Tbo 157(talk) 11:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought I fixed that problem on my end ... I see the TOC with a large gap above with the pic of John Carpenter to the right under the infobox. I'll go check my settings again. Thanks again for pointing this out Tbo! Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Tbo 157(talk) 13:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement drive

I would like to help in getting this article to at least good article status. User:Wehwalt has kindly provided a detailed review of the article at Wikipedia:Peer review/City of London School/archive1 and I would like to thank the user for this.

Any user, who would like to help in improving the article, are welcome to provide their input or make any improvements they see fit to the article.

I would also like to ask any user, if they have access to the book - The City of London School, A. E. Douglas-Smith (1st edition 1937, 2nd edition 1965) so that the history section can be expanded.

Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful resources: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Good articles, Wikipedia:Good article criteria

I will list the improvements I plan on making for every section and I would like to ask for opinions from other users.

Facilities

One of the suggestions which have been made in the review is to say something about the school's facilities. I would like to ask user's opinions on which facilities should be mentioned to avoid an endless list. The facilities are listed on the school website [1] and I have provided a summary of all the facilities below. I may have missed some out.

  • Sports facilities: Multi purporse indoor sports hall, fencing salle, squash courts, 25 metre swimming pool, conditioning room, playing fields/athletics tracks at Grove Park.
  • Music facilities: Ensemble rooms, rehearsal rooms, music technology lab.
  • Other facilities: Great hall including organ, playgrounds, Winterflood Theatre, Coulson Studio, rifle range (CCF).

Curriculum

I have removed the list of subjects not offered as I can't think of any reasons why this is notable.

Tbo 157(talk) 16:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

School Uniforms

I have now rewritten the final few sentences of the school uniforms section as suggested. However I am not too sure if the issue raised has been addressed by this rewrite so opinions are welcome.

School life

I will work on expanding the houses section. In terms of what else can be included, does anyone have any ideas? I was thinking the ethos and aims of the school. Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Good articles has a list of good articles related to schools and so this might help.

Lead

The lead should summarise the article as suggested in WP:Lead. However it is not easy to summarise the complex history of the school in the lead.

Tbo 157(talk) 13:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:City of London School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 23:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First impression is that this looks like an informative, organised, well cited and readable article. Hopefully this should be fairly easy. I haven't looked too closely, though the lead feels a little flimsy at first glance. And I am uncertain about the several lists at the end. The list of past headmasters is of little value to the general reader as none of them appear to be notable - it is simply a list of the names of unknown people. Also, the lists of notable people could be condensed into one section. Lists in articles are generally frowned upon - some thought could be given to writing up the mentions of the most notable people associated with the school as prose - see Stuyvesant_High_School#Notable_people, Oriel_College,_Oxford#People_associated_with_the_College and Dartmouth_College#Alumni as examples from featured articles. SilkTork *YES! 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is attractive and readable
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lists at the end need attention, as does the lead, as indicated in my initial comments above.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    There are times, indicated in my comments below, where claims and statements need firmer sourcing.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    There is a good deal of information here, and the article may well address the main aspects of the topic - however I'd like to raise the issue of some more detailed discussion of the buildings, especially in a dedicated section, as the buildings are distinctive, which the article acknowledges with comments within the image captions. "For 30 years, this building was featured on the Thames Television logo"; "This view is occasionally seen in popular media"; "The Great Hall stage and Walker organ, originally designed for the Victoria Embankment school building. The organ has...". Some of these captions tease, as there is then little or no accompanying detail within the main body. I'd also welcome some greater discussion on the schools academic, musical and sporting achievements - these are sometimes hinted at, but not developed. I'd like to hear more about the claim that City was the first school to teach Eng Lit, as I thought that was the Arnolds (Matthew and Thomas at Rugby. If the article is talking about Edwin Abbott Abbott introducing English to City under the influence of John Robert Seeley, that should be explained clearly, and some good sources given to justify the claim that this was the "first" time that Eng lit was taught at an English school.
    B. Focused:
    The Second World War section drifts into amusing anecdote rather than encyclopedic material. It's attractive, but questionable stuff.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    It does seem neutral - however, there are a few sentences which, unless sourced and explained, could be seen as biased: "musical excellence of the school"; "curriculum's innovative trends"; and "school seeks to provide a harmonious community".
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There have been attacks (particularly earlier this year) - but given that the topic is a school, that is understandable. Nothing excessive.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Checked
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Some captions are not succinct, and in my opinion some of the comment might be better placed in the main text, but it's debatable, so I won't hold up a GA on a quibble
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  1. ) I'd like to see the lists at the end dealt with.
-I've turned most of it into prose and removed the year groups section as its not really encyclopedic. Im not sure about the list of headmasters as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines suggests putting this in and many UK school articles have this, some even having their own page. See List of headmasters at Eton College.
  1. ) The lead could be beefed up to give a better understanding of the school and its importance
- Im not really sure how to write a good lead. I tried to follow the advice which was given to me in the peer review and had a look at some GAs but Im still not certain on how a lead should be written. Can I ask for some advice?
  1. ) More information needed on the schools academic, musical and sporting achievements - in particular, more and clearer detail on the claims regarding the innovative nature of the curriculum.
-Can I ask what kind of information?
  1. ) Consideration given to providing more information on the buildings - perhaps in a dedicated section
-This was an issue also raised in the peer review. I found many sources on the school's history but I found very little on the building. I have added the information I found during my research.
  1. ) Consider the amount of detail and tone of the "war clouds on the horizon" anecdote
I have removed trivia.

Overall a decent and informative article that just needs a bit of tightening here and there. Regards SilkTork *YES! 18:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked a few questions regarding the advice above. I do apologise for having to ask so many questions. Im not very experienced with writing GAs. I have asked another editor who has done quite a bit of work on the article about the English Lit claim as I have not found anything related to this during my research. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Also just a note, I've removed the year groups section as it seemed a bit trivial but I will welcome any alternative opinions. Tbo 157(talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


Some good comments and questions. A good GA Review is a dialogue - the more communication the better. And, also, much of any assessment is subjective assessment so it is always appropriate to question, and to offer suggestions.
I agree that the year group list was trivial, though the Old Grammar name for Year 6 seems slightly different to the norm, and that could be brought in somewhere - I'll take a look and add it.
I'll take a look at the lead and give some pointers. If you're still unsure, I can do it. Sometimes, it can be quicker and easier to make small adjustments to an article rather than listing them for someone else to do, and giving such assistance is encouraged in GA reviewing. Where it can get tricky is if a reviewer gets too involved and starts to make substantial contributions, then there comes a conflict of interest, so I want to limit any such direct involvement.
The situation regarding the buildings needs to be thought about. Some very well written and detailed articles can fail GA through not having appropriate coverage in one particular area, and the argument that the information couldn't be found has generally not been accepted as a reason to pass the article. If you have any contact with the school it might be worth asking if they have any information on the buildings. In the meantime I'll do a quick Google and see what I can find.
I'll take a look at those links you provided on headmasters. SilkTork *YES! 11:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the comments and for your help. Regarding the outstanding issues:

  1. Buildings information - I'll also continue to search for references on the building.
  2. Lead - Any advice would be very much appreciated.
  3. School's achievements - Again, any advice would be appreciated.
  4. English Lit claim - I'll need to find details on this. I'll try and find out who added this to the article and see if they can offer any help.

I have hopefully now sorted out the following issues:

  • Trivial sentences in the WW2 section.
  • Placing details in the picture captions in the main body.
  • Removed opinionated phrasing.
  • The lists at the end.

I think I've covered all the thigns you mentioned but please let me know if you're not satisfied with any of the above or if you have any more issues to add. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just spent some time over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I feel that guideline is in need of an overhaul to bring it in line with wider Wikipedia consensus and guidelines, and have started some discussion at the project's talkpage. However, I don't wish to hold this article to a higher standard than generally accepted, so accept that a school's achievements are not at the moment covered in a distinct section, nor dealt with in depth, so therefore the average reader would not be expecting much information on achievements.
The simple thing to do with the Eng lit claim is to remove it as written until it can be sourced. It's easy to add it back in later if details are found.
I haven't done any building research myself yet, and will get round to that shortly, and then have a look at the lead for you. SilkTork *YES! 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This gives good details of the second building. SilkTork *YES! 15:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Ah. I see you already have this information. SilkTork *YES! 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

J B Bunning was the architect of the first building. There stuff on him on the web, he was the architect to the City of London, so it's appropriate he was used! SilkTork *YES! 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This says the original building was in "Tudor style". SilkTork *YES! 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This one says "Elizabethan" - but also gives Brunning as the architect. I think what this and the previous are talking about is Tudor Revival or Tudorbethan. SilkTork *YES! 16:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom Meddings was the architect of the new school. More details. I think it's worth mentioning that he was a student at the school. SilkTork *YES!

Both architects were old boys.

I think that's enough to give you a starter. I'll take a look at the lead later. SilkTork *YES! 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I can never seem to get the right sources from google searches. I'll have a look at the sources you've found and add in necessary details. I think I'll integrate the buildings information into the history. Im not sure if an entirely new section devoted to it is appropriate as that might break up the flow of the article. What do you think? Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've integrated the information you've given me and I have also integrated some information I found myself into various parts of the article. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections of an article are there for people who want info on just that aspect of the topic. While it is nice to think of somebody sitting down and reading through the whole article as though it were a book, that's not, on the whole, what encyclopedias are about, nor how the general reader uses an encyclopedia. People are curious about a topic (City of London school), and want some idea of what the school is - what type of school, when it was founded, where it is, if it has moved, what it is notable for, the most prominent people associated with it, etc. This information is put into the lead section. A thumbnail sketch of the major points of the topic. Then, people may wish to know more about one or more aspects of the school - so they go to those sections. If people want information on the buildings, they may not want to have to wade through quite a long four part history section to get that information. My suggestion is that there is a buildings section, as in Oriel_College,_Oxford#Buildings_and_environs and Christ's_College,_Cambridge#Buildings. SilkTork *YES! 09:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now created a new building section. I have put images in a gallery format for both ease of use and aesthetic purposes. Many FAs and GAs do this when appropriate.

Arbitrary leg break

The new buildings section is very helpful, and the selection of images is appropriate and again very helpful. SilkTork *YES! 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with the anecdotal nature of the Second World War section. That the school made a plan to go to South Wales is not encyclopedic, and frankly of limited interest even to those closely connected to the school. It never happened. The school was evacuated to Marlborough College. And that is the fact. But that the boys carried a "standard bag of emergency rations and a gas mask in a cardboard box" is local colouring more appropriate for the school magazine than a global encyclopedia. My concern is that much of that section fails 3 (b): "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I would suggest going through and cutting unnecessary detail such as: "The boys, most of whom lived in urban London, were bored in the countryside, although school staff set up games to amuse them." Purple prose like "war clouds on the horizon" is unwelcome in an encyclopedia. Let's be factual here - "on the eve of the Second World War" is more factual, professional, and helpful, and provides us with an opportunity for an internal link for anyone who wants to know which war we are talking about. SilkTork *YES! 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have cut out anecodotal sections. Please feel free to suggest or make changes yourself if you still have concerns.

I've just taken a look at the lead and Wikipedia:Lead section as well and I think it does cover necessary detail such as what type of school, when it was founded, where it is, if it has moved, what it is notable for, the most prominent people associated with it. However, I will welcome any opinions. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


I am a bit distracted at the moment with the discussion going on at WikiProject Schools regarding the appropriate guidelines: [2] and [3], and I'd like those to be resolved before finalising this review - I will sort the lead at that time. I am comfortable with City_of_London_School#Notable_people as the section has a prose overview, though City_of_London_School#Headmasters fails Wikipedia:Bio#Lists_of_people (and so fails Wikipedia:Verifiability) and WP:Embedded lists. WikiProject guidelines are not part of the GA criteria, so the MoS guideline is the one I have to follow. Despite my own enjoyment of the article (and the topic, which I have a personal connection with), I cannot pass it as GA while it fails the criteria. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria - 1 (b) "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation" Don't worry - we'll sort this, as I have no intention of failing this article. It just means working through the issues to a satisfactory resolution. SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. My intention was always to improve this article and I feel that a list of headmasters is useful to readers. I have never been a believer of following policies and guidelines to the letter and that the focus should be more on community consensus and satisfaction with regard to people finding the article useful and interesting. However, I am willing to discuss this issue and agree to some kind of issue to resolve your concerns. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 15:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I know what you're saying, and I'm not going to pick holes in it, other than to say that the guidelines and polices are the wider community consensus, which can sometimes get forgotten in the particular concerns of the moment. The usual response to an objection to a community guideline is to take up the matter on the relevant talkpage - so, for example, in this instance, raise the issue of the headmaster list here and here. I think I have been involved in writing some aspect of both of those guidelines, and I recall that the people who mainly hang around are mostly quite sensible and decent folk. However, that bit of throwaway advice aside, the reality of the day is this article, this GA Review, and not spinning it out into too great a drama. I can leave you to sort out policy changing for some other time at your leisure! Let's get this GA thing sorted now. I'll tear through the article, get it GA criteria compliant. You disagree with me before I pass it and change it back, and we have a stalemate. You disagree after I pass it and change it back, and somebody else may decide to delist it (though it's not an exact science, and not everyone reads the criteria the same way or as closely, so it may not get delisted). SilkTork *YES! 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The headmasters section is taking a bit longer than I thought, as it seems the headteachers have quite a bit of stuff out there on them. I've made a start - would you be prepared to help out on turning it into prose. I know you have a preference for that section remaining as it is, but I hope you can see that there is some value in sourced prose - even if it involves a bit of work writing it up. SilkTork *YES! 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice but I think I'll pass on starting a discussion to change well established policy as im not really a very active user anymore, only temporarily active over summer to improve this article, and I think these things are beter left to the active users. Just to make it clear, I have no objection to anything you're saying. Putting that aside, my intention here was only to improve this article to a GA and so I'll go with whatever you're happy with. Thanks again for all your help. Tbo 157(talk) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the GA process as articles end up improved whatever happens at the end, and that's the important thing. I also like the notion that a reader can feel reassured that a GA article has achieved certain standards which the whole community has agreed - which is why I am fairly strong on articles complying with the GA criteria. There is, however, always room for individual interpretation - which makes the process even more interesting! I'd like to get this article finished as soon as possible, and will try to get to it later today to finish off - but I have various real life things to attend to first. SilkTork *YES! 09:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I've been looking at a book on the history of the school and I've found it has some information on most of the headmasters but im not sure how to decide which ones are notable. Books tend to have too much detail for an encyclopedia. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 09:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
See which have Wikipedia articles (well, Abbott, duh). Google them and see who gets the most hits.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lists at the end are tidier - though the headteacher section could do with some more work - I've simply made a start.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    This has now been addressed.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The buildings are now covered.
    B. Focused:
    The Second World War section could still do with being sharper, but it's acceptable. GA criteria is not the same as FA.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The lead could be more focussed, and give a better overview of the school; the Second World War and the Headmasters sections need a little more work as indicated, but overall this is a decent enough article which meets the basic requirements of the GA criteria. I enjoyed reading the article and found it reasonably informative, with a good standard of prose writing.


Passed as a Good Article. Well done. SilkTork *YES! 16:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim of first school to teach English Literature

Hi. Just a note to anyone editing this article that I have removed the following sentence:

"it was also the first school to teach English literature (and not just classical literature)"

as I cannot find any references for this and I am not satisfied that the sources provided include this claim. Please feel free to point out any references if you find any. If the source is a book, I would recommend that page numbers are included. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Improvements

Hi all. Although this article has now been passed as a GA, some minor issues were hilighted by the GA reviewer. The main points are:

  • The lead which could be more focussed
  • The headmasters section which could be in more depth
  • The WW2 section which could also be in more depth

Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I must also thank User:SilkTork, User:Wehwalt and all the other editors of this article who helped to make this article a GA. Tbo 157(talk) 20:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Charity Commission in 1547

I don't have access to any sources but I'm not convinced by this edit. What exactly happened in 1547? Perhaps the first two sentences should be changed to this?: "A report published by the Charity Commission in 1823 reveals that over the centuries, the expenses of the boys' education vastly exceeded the income from the bequest due to the diminishing purchasing power of money, and that the funding for four boys in the City of London had been discontinued in 1547 as a result." Open4D (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Guildhall Chapel and Library were forfeited under the Chantries Act in 1547. The funding for the boys were discontinued at the same time. 1823 is when the investigation was caried out by the Charity Commission which lead to the realisation of the losses. It also lead the Corporation of London to realise that it had taken, "great pains...by searching in the archives of the corporation and other places for the will of John Carpenter, without effect". They should have been looking for the will of John Don which would have specified what the Corporation should do. This lead to various arguments about how the bequest money shoul be spent. Were they entitled to make only secific payments for children's education and support and keep the surplus etc. In 1826, the council adopted what was suuggested in a report by a select committee of the City Lands Committee. This was to spend the bequest money to benefit a larger number of boys.

Im not quite sure how to fit this into the prose whilst keeping the good article requirements. Could someone try and insert this into the article without compromising the GA requirements? Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Schools Guide quote

The quote in the lead "The Good Schools Guide described it as a "Very urban, very happening, very cosmopolitan school that achieves high standards without undue pressure and produces independent, outward-looking boys." comes across as spammy and WP:PEACOCK. This is not really encyclopedic or WP:LEAD material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001: DAVID RAYNER SAYS: Darren Burn was most certainly in The Insomniac (1970). He is listed on the IMDb in the cast list. You gave two links to two different films with the same title, the other one being a foreign film made in Singapore. Well, of course, he wasn't in that one. As for Darren, he was once (in the late 1960's and early 1970's), the famous face of Heinz Baked Beans, being the little boy in the ITV film commercials seen numerous times in millions of homes, before becoming even more famous as the son of EMI executive Colin Burn, who spent millions (at today's prices) launching his talented ex-choir boy son as the British answer to Jimmy Osmond in 1973, a disastrous and misguided enterprise that eventually ended in Darren's suicide at a young age. I suppose you're too young to remember 1973 and all the fuss over Darren Burn, with the television crews following him everywhere. Of course, with you being in America, you wouldn't. But he was famous in Great Britain. Darren was a pupil at the City of London School from September, 1972, aged 11, to September, 1977, aged 16. I certainly think that Darren Burn was / is notable enough to have his name added to the list of famous ex pupils. Read and see all about Darren here: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1330630442&ref=ts —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRayner (talk • contribs) 08:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Facebook and IMDB are not considered quality reliable sources to make statements about the personal lives of living people. Refer to RS and the archives of RSN. Fæ (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

DAVID RAYNER SAYS: Darren can hardly be described as a living person as far as this world goes, for he died nineteen years ago. I can assure you that the information on my Facebook tribute to Darren, meticulously researched over many years, is entirely accurate, if not entirely comprehensive.

To clarify; Facebook is never a reliable source unless the account is confirmed as being self published by the person the article is about, as per WP:SELFPUB. Any personal information only supported by IMDB may be removed as not reliably sourced, see Citing IMDb. If someone is notable then sources should be available in non-disputed reliable sources, if you can find no such sources then notability can be easily challenged. To include alumni in this article reliable sources should also be supplied to demonstrate their status as an alumnus in addition to the issue of notability. Fæ (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of names of former "old boys" or "old citizens" is getting to long once again. I suggest merging them with List of Old Citizens. Thoughts? Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Notable people list is inaccurate as of September 2010 as Skandar Keynes and Harry Michell are now former pupils. Lexiyh (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_London_School/Archive_1&oldid=1065825965"