Talk:The Laurels School
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]virgo fidelis prep is 10 times better than this lamo skool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.148.96 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
built
[edit]in what year was it built? founded in 1848, but the main building was buil in...? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
mixed school
[edit]is this a girls school? is there a primary school and a secondary school? is it the same institution? i ask this because in one of the websites there are mixed pupils. if so, there needs to be a correction, or a distinction at the least. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
TONE CONCERNS
[edit]sentences such as: "Kung Fu Juggling tournament, it did not end well", "Packed to the brim with happy, well taught students it is a shining beacon for all to marvel", " the really good windfarm." are inacceptable. this article should be considered for wikification or rewriting in its entirety. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
How Wikipedia works, pt 94
[edit]On 5 April 2009, Lumos3 added the sentence, "The school building was originally a hunting lodge belonging to the Earls of Bristol." On 23 July 2016 an IP tweaked the sentence first to read "The original building on the site was a Hunting Lodge belonging to the Earls of Bristol."; and then again to read "The original building on the site was a 'Hunting Lodge' (of unknown age)." On 1 December 2016, an IP vandal changed that to read "The original building on the site was a 'Haunting Lodge' (of unknown age)" (plus two other changes of "Hunting" to "Haunting", and one of "Pugin" to "Penguin"). Nobody seems to have noticed this, but on 25 July 2017 a major rewrite by Dormskirk eliminated the other vandalistic edits. The first one, however, was left untouched (perhaps in the mistaken belief that the quotation marks and capitals suggested that it was a direct quotation in archaic spelling from a historic source). I have now corrected it. GrindtXX (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good spot. I was taken in by that one! Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)