Wikipedia:Peer review/Hopkins School/archive2

Hopkins School

First Peer Review, Failed FA nomination

This is an article I've been working on for quite a bit. The first PR/FAC was before I was really familiar with Wikipedia. I've tried to really improve the section most requested through both processes, history, and generally spruce the article up. Any advice on what else to do before making a more serious push for FA status? Staxringold 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the school-related article crowd here but I would suggest you place a request on the talk pages of a couple of participants from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Participants to review this article. Also, you can examine some of the other school-related featured article candidates that have failed and learn from their mistakes: Haileybury College, Harrow School, Sydney Boys High School. --maclean25 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, but I feel like I've already done it. Hopkins, at least IMO, is no longer plagued by the traditional issues school articles face of thin history sections, short sections and subsections, and POV from current students. I'm looking to see if there's anything else to do before that final leap. Staxringold 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick look, I don't see any great problem. Personally, I like the idea of mentioning a few (but not most) of the famous alumni, in the school article itself, and include maybe just one picture of them. Discussion of sports acheivements, if its been covered might be good (instead of just listing off the sports). History seems to be well covered now. I think what could be improved, really depends on what media coverage the school has gotten in modern times. I would look for news stories on the school, and base it a little on that (without using transient information). Basically, I like to have an article look like it wasn't written by somebody from the school and is personally familiar with all its details (like the list of sport teams), but rather, somebody who has only read about the school, and only knows what's written about it. But, of course, accomoditating my opinion could easily make it worse in the eyes of others. --Rob 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The summary for Famous alums is a good idea, although I tried to exactly follow the model of FA Caulfield Grammar School in that section. As for sports achievements, that is precisely the kind of stuff complained about in the first FA, that discussing small, local, largely NN events made the article too POV and non-encyclopedic. Staxringold 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very thorough and well-researched. It needs a good once over to make sure the entire article has the same tone of voice. Ambiguous phrases like "three somewhat divided" may be confusing to the reader. I would go for more definitive words such as "unofficially divided" or "informally grouped" or whatever terms fit the situation best. Davodd 19:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that example, and it's a good idea (I just need to find someone besides myself. :p). Staxringold 22:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through about half this article and tried to tidy the prose, which is awkward throughout. With details about what facilities are on what floor of what buildings you will have objections if it goes to FAC that this inside trivia really isn't encyclopedic and is inappropriate for our site. As for specific objections:

First, you should find out what the legal name of the school is. You mention "formal" situations that "grammar school" is still used.

It's Hopkins School. The Grammar School suffix is not used in any organized fashion, it's just occasionally used on school letterhead and such.

Second, the caption of the 1911 students mentions the headmaster. What is his name? You identify a future headmaster in that caption so why not him? And in mentioning Lovell, is he particularly significant?

Lovell held the office for longer than any other headmaster and has a building named after him. I'll ask the archivist about who the headmaster is in that photo.

Third, the history feels very superficial, particularly the modern history, which is mainly details about what building opened in what year.

What specifically? I'm still working on the earlier parts of the section which will clearly be the longest part, but how should I word the modern history?

Fourth, the prose for the mascot really needs to be completely overhauled. It reads very poorly.

Ok, I'll give it a shot

Fifth, give us a few words about who John Malone is. What year did he graduate, what field did he make his money in? How much has he donated?

This is covered in more detail on the famous alumni page. I'll add a note in the history that he's in telecommunications. As for how much he donated, I can try to find out but they tend to keep numbers like that private.

Sixth, give us the full names of the people those buildings were named for.

Ok

Seventh, the date of the founding section is confusing. The papers speak of the fourth day of the fourth month and some believe this means May? At the time under English law, the year did not legally begin until March 25th, Lady Day. But I'd have to check about the numbering of the months this way. It's confusing and not strictly necessary. If the consensus is the school began in 1660, then go with that until you can get more certain facts.

I'll remove the confusing quote, but it's from Chronicles of Hopkins Grammar School, which is a very reputable historical source.

Eighth, you mention an "unofficial seal". I don't know what you mean. A person or a corporation has a seal or they don't. I haven't any idea what an "unofficial" one is.

Official seals of heraldry had complex records under English law. Hopkins just made this one up out of the clear blue sky.

Ninth, subjects are not capitalized, e.g. "science". Only in speaking of departments, e.g. "the Department of Science", should it be in caps.

Ok

Tenth, you say the school is "infamous" in its scheduling? To anyone aside from its students? I'd never heard of the school itself until I was asked to review this article.

Ok

Eleventh, sports shouldn't be capitalized in the "athletics" section.

Ok

Twelfth, you don't have much about the formal governance of the school. Is the Fund the governing body or is it separate from a board of trustees? Who are the trustees? How are they chosen? Self-perpetuating? Elected by alumni? What's the head man of the school called? Superintendent, headmaster, principal? Who is that person? How is he chosen?

Yowza.. I'll do what I can but that's a huge level of detail...

Thirteenth, when did the turnover in leadership you mention cease? Have recent leaders enjoyed a long tenure at the school?

I am still expanding the history section

Fourteenth, you mention the school's endowment. How big is it? (Yes, I see it in the infobox, but it ought to be in the article too.) How does this compare to other schools?

Where would I put it in the article? As for a comparison, that wouldn't serve much purpose as there aren't very many northeastern, American, prep schools still around from that era. Yale is a college, so that would be unfair. Maybe Roxbury Latin School, but that article makes no mention of the endowment and what I can find only mentions "financial aid" money, not neccessarily the full endowment.

Fifteenth, how does the current enrollment compare to the past? Is 650 typical of the last century? Has it been expanding, contracting?

Wow... Well, up until the 1920's classes were no bigger than 30-50 kids, though I can't speak to more recent years.

I know I sound fussy. I am. But from shepherding numerous articles of mine through the gantlet of the FAC voting, I'd like to see others spared similar grief before they get there because there are people fussier than me who vote. PedanticallySpeaking 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed overview! Staxringold 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would any one be able to review Scotch College? --Hamedog^Talk|@ 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to merge some of the subheadings to keep everything at ==Level 2== if possible. Other than that, I've reviewed this article so much it makes my eyes water; we mus be getting close to an FA now. That bar is set extremely high, especially when compared to something like cities on FA, where many make the grade quite easily. Harr o5 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is massively improved since the last time I read it (I especially love the history sections). The only suggestion I have is to rewrite the lead so it doesn't read like a promotional brochure for the school. I'd also bring in more of the history into the lead.--Alabamaboy 14:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]