Talk:City of London School for Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance within Schools.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This passage is obviously not from a neutral point of view: "The school has a growing academic reputation which is demonstrated in rising league table results, although some accuse it of anti-intellectualism in favour of exam performance. Most notably, the school achieves far higher results in the intellectually undemanding GCSE examinations than it does in the more challenging A-Level examinations. This stands the school in stark contrast to its brother school, where the trend is the exact reverse." Who are the "some" who "accuse it" - can we have names? References? The point about GCSE/A level performance is interesting, but how can "results" in the girls' school be compared with a "trend" in the boys' school? This could be fixed by stating hard facts so that readers could make their own judgments: what years are referred to and what are the results relied upon for this point in those years? There may be a debate about causes - for example, does the girls' school lose some of its most able pupils to mixed sixth forms in other schools (such as Westminster School)? But the passage needs to alter the balance between fact and opinion first. Chelseaboy 09:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think there are many statements like excellent academic reputation, fantastic extracurricular opportunities, The pastoral role of the school is strong and it deals well that need backing up with sources; the article doesn't cite any of its sources. I have added a template highlighting that the article's neutrality may be disputed. Drum guy 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
however the sentence about the a level and gcse results and anti intellectualisum is quite true, but also npov is the part about the school being a hot house, however it is quite an accurate desciption. I must say this review gives quite a poor opinion of the school
girl 13 jan
I've just tried to fix the article a little now, but I still think it's got a serious point of view problem in favour of the school. It seems still to have been written like an advertisement for the school - I don't think the fact that "casual vacancies arise occasionally" really fits in an encyclopedia article.
I think it needs to have predictions about the future removed - I think "As its success rises" should be "As its success has risen". Everything needs to be backed up with a reliable, third-party source. I'll reference the history to the school's website, but, I think, that's probably all that the school's website can do as a source. See WP:SOURCES for more information.
Examples of ideas needing reference are: that the school has a 'reputation of a hot house', that it has an 'excellent academic reputation' - league table results may show it to be above average, but that's all we can say unless a trusted source has interpreted them to be excellent, or it is beyond doubt.
I'm probably being a bit harsh - it's just a pity that the article has both a biased point of view, and no sources. I've added a external links, which I've just found with a simple google search for City of London School for Girls. I've added a POV template, as I don't have time to do all the work that I think is needed. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a spelling correction to the first paragraph of "Future Plans" and a couple or grammatical corrections to the second paragraph. But the second paragraph is so poorly written and polemical that it should probably be deleted altogether. it reads like somebody's personal gripe against the previous headmistress. (DK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

Removed the section: History of the City of London School for Girls, Précis of 'Daughters of the City' by Joan Carden, Jean Cardy, Rosemary Hamilton, Pat Bawden and Anne Savage. Likely not public domain. ed g2s • talk 02:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems a pity, unless you're sure it's not public domain. The editor has described it as a precis and, if it is a precis (and not cut and paste) it cannot be a copyright violation. Copyright is in the exact words, not in the meaning or content. Even if it is not a precis but a cut and paste job in breach of copyright, summarising what you have removed would solve copyright problems without losing information.Chelseaboy 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London School Stub

I have removed the stub template as I believe the article is long and comprehensive enough to no longer be a stub. Drum guy 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

good alumni Victuallers 19:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)