# Talk:Carre's Grammar School

As of January 2009, with the re-establishment of the House system, House names Lafford and Welby have been changed to Clifford and Shelby respectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.66.8 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 

This is unverified, highly unlikely, and so I have reverted your change and issued you with a warning.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is good that people feel there sould be some entries here, but the problem is that these additions have no verification added to them at the point of adding them. Consequently, WP:BLP applies (as they all appear to be still living), and it is recommended that prudence requires them to be removed. What I've done is added them below. Once an entry can be verified by citing a suitable reliable source, then can be struck out here, and transferred back into the main article from this discussion page. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I went to school with 2 of these guys and I added them because I know them. Is that sufficent?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicante22 (talk • contribs) 

No, they won't, I'm sorry to say. As I said, what is required is verification which consists of citing reliable sources that provide the information. Now, given that I attended the school, I happen to know that the school magazine "The Old Carrensian" probably mentioned them and their achievements somewhere, and there is also the possibility of it being mentioned in local newspapers of the time, such as the Sleaford Standard and the Lincolnshire Standard. So, a specific reference to one or more of those for each person, so that others can confirm the information, is what is required. (Additionally, please try to remember to sign your messages by using ~~~~ at the end of them.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


### Names to be verified
Mark Brealey QC, leading silk in EU and Competition Law

This derives from medieval French and means roughly 'In Order to Serve'; or at least that's what we were told when the motto was introduced. Xyster (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The section/table is interesting to see but I have a few concerns about its presence and worth, at least in its present format.

It is (or sets out to be) a copy of information provided on the school web site. I wonder if it should be included if it is merely a copy.
It's not a hierarchy.  If it was, it would be arranged in some kind of order, such as the persons named in lower rows being in some way subordinate to those in the upper rows.  In a hierarchy, there might also be some kind of correlation between the persons on different columns but on the same rows. But apart from the top five names in the column "Teaching Staff", the table is arranged alphabetically.
Lack of information. Apart from the list of Governors, there's no indication of the position, duties, etc, of any other people named on the table.  The source table on the school web site does include that information.
Vandalism. I don't find it surprising that the table has attracted a significant amount of vandalism since it was added to the article, because students give teachers nicknames.  But the vandalism means extra work to maintain the integrity of the information.
Updating. As of today's date, the information on the table is out of date.  Admittedly, as far as I can tell there is only one wrong name.  But who knows what will be the case in a week's time? One way to ensure the information is always up to date is merely to point to the school web site for it, and rely on the school to update its own information.
Design. It does take up a lot of vertical space, with a lot of white space, in its present format.

Thoughts.
I wonder if the table is necessary at all.  The school web site has the information, in greater detail, up to date, and not vandalized.
If the information is to be in the article, I think it should be organized to increase the readers' understanding. That might be achieved by grouping the teaching staff by department (e.g. English, Mathematics, Science, etc) with some writing that explains the curriculum. The support staff could be grouped together by function (e.g. administrative, catering, educational, janitorial etc), with an explanation of the function.
Thoughts, anybody?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpleknees (talk • contribs) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC) 

I think there is value, from a historical perspective, in recording the terms of office of members of the Governing Body, Teaching Staff, etc.  However I'm not sure that this is the correct place for such a record, save for notable persons (such as Chairman of Governors and the Head Teacher).—GrahamSmith (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

David H Rees (the H stood for Hollingsworth, I think) was definitely headmaster in 1961, when my older brother attended the school, and remained so until around 1976 when he retired and went to live on London Road with his wife, who had also taught there (he wrote a letter to me after I had contacted him with some updates as to my university life and career and told me that he was retiring and living there). I know this doesn't count as anything like a reliable source, but it may help guide the search for reliable material confirming the dates. Ellis' book ("Charlie" we called hi,) is a very welcome source to use. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of most historical material he taught, and I thin k his books and articles would show that. It might be worth adding (so long as it is sourced), that in 1966, a new library was also opened, up to that point, it was housed in a room that was joined by a door to Big School (the old room then became the Prefect's Room).  DDStretch  (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dud, My recollection is that what you say became the prefect's room became, in our final year of 1971-72, more of a sixth form common room - everyone together. I shall never forget the day the Old Man kicked me out of the old library for rowdiness, with a simultaneous ban for the rest of the week - at precisely one minute to two o'clock on a Friday! The new library was built over the walkway between the new classrooms and the hall/dining hall/offices block. It is only by reading this article that I have learned that Charlie Ellis (the most inspirational teacher ever) wrote a book on the school (in 1954 for crying out loud!), and the same goes for Dago Hoare's book. Cliff (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi DDStretch, thanks for the info - that's very useful. I am working on the Sleaford area articles at the moment - my rather ambitious goal is to get Sleaford and each of the three schools up to GA standard; I am using The Judd School as a guide for writing school-related articles (it is an FA), but a list of headmasters seemed appropriate to add, especially given that it is referenced. I intend to find proper references for the recent headmasters to fill in the gaps, and also expand the history section considerably; Ellis seems to have put together a rather thorough history and it will probably form the bulk of reference material up to the 1950s; afterwards, newspapers will likely suffice, but that will require a lot of time to put together. I will probably find a source for the library at some point soon, it's in the period I am currently looking at. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC).
Should the reference to "King's Edward's School, Retford" under Derek Lee, actually say "Retford King Edward VI Grammar School"? At the very least the apostrophe on "King's" must be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.155.73.34 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carre's Grammar School/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks great. Will review. The article is exceptionally well-written, and do well even at FAC. I have only a few comments. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Could we add the precise date when the school was founded to the Lead?
Done.
Who was Robert Carre? His profession?
He didn't have a profession per se, but was a member of the gentry. I've linked to the Carr baronets page; he was linked to them, and I hope to do a lot of work on that page at some point.
Who was Robert Cammock?
Another local gentleman.
£4 per annum Italics not needed
Removed.
Boys usually take nine or ten subjects...  (Key Stages 3 and 4) What about the girls?
Girls don't enter the school until Sixth Form, which is Key Stage 5.
Why say " c. 1963 " and not simply 1963? (Extra-curricular activities)
Because it is not clear that change happened in 1963; I don't have the book to hand, but the implication was that it closed down in the school year 1962-63 I think.
I think "Old Carresians" could be renamed as "Alumni". Just an idea.
I've changed it to "notable former pupils".
Nooooo! The school's ex-pupils are known as "old Carrensians" both among themselves and by the school. The school annual magazine was, in my day, called "The Carrensian". Cliff (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Noswall59: Would you please respond to this comment? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@CWB001:, @Sainsf: Hi, I have added a note in the infobox that past pupils are called "Old Carrensians". There isn't any clear precedent to follow here, but I see that The Judd School, an FA, uses Sainsf's suggestion, which may be easier for unfamiliar readers to understand. I am not wholly opposed to changing it, but I don't believe it's a major issue and the current formulation is entirely accurate. Cheers, --Noswall59 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC).
Link indenture (History); French, German, Latin, Greek (Curriculum); GCSE (Key Stages 3 and 4)
Done.
Duplinks: Kesteven and Sleaford High School (School structure); Sleaford Joint Sixth Form (Sixth Form); Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme (Extra-curricular activities)
Removed, although I could not find a link to the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme in the Extra-curricular section.
References: Could ref. 47 be properly formatted?
Done.
@Sainsf: thank you very much for taking the time to review this—I will address these comments within the next few days. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC).
@Sainsf: thank you again for comments. I believe I have addressed all of them and made the appropriate changes (please see this edit). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC).
I must thank you for all your thanks and cooperation! I am satisfied with your replies. The article satisfies all the GA criteria and is a quite well-written, well-sourced, pleasant read. I would be happy to promote this article. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)