Talk:Sydney Church of England Grammar School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] assess
Whats missing from this good start article is references for all the information. A list of alumni would also help to judge the schools importance. Welcome. Victuallers 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] userbox
| Image:Shorecrest.jpg | This user studies at Shore School. |
Is it not against Wikipedia Policy to have a userbox? Jpeob 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is against Wikipedia policy to have userboxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV. Therefore you can have
| Image:Shorecrest.jpg | This user studies at Shore School. |
- but not
| Image:Shorecrest.jpg | This user thinks that Shore School sucks. |
- Snottygobble 05:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
The following sections need references, to fit with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability, or they are likely to removed:
- School psalm
- School song
- School hymn
- Headmasters
-- zzuuzz (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Specific Sporting Results
In the section on Sport, I believe it to be irrelevant to cite specific sporting results (which will vary on a year by year basis) unless the article is making the primary assertion that the school is particulalry strong (or weak as the case may be) in that particular sport. Hence, whilst it may be true that another school has been recently been more successful in the sport of rowing than the School the subject of this article, such a fact is of peripheral relevance to the article as a whole. --Calabraxthis 07:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trial GPS sports
Before any mention should be made of checkers or poker as trial GPS sports, perhaps the editor could provide an appropriate citation?--Calabraxthis 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reference to Elite Nine Australian Schools
I have partially restored the edit or Loopla referring to the Elite Nine Australian Schools as this appears to merely cross-refer to an academic study (not of Loopla's own choosing) rather than to state the editor's own POV, per the comment of Merbabu. --Calabraxthis 13:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- No - it needs to go - it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. It has verifiability problems, it's one academics POV, and it's notability hasn't been proven. --Merbabu 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

