Talk:Oldham College

message: I have a feeling that someone from the college themselves wrote this article. Not only is it blatantly advertising itself (See WP:SOAP) with statements like "The Oldham COllege is an Outstanding vocational college", it also has next to no citations for anything relevant.
I added a few templates in case anyone wants to help and I'm also going to we-write at some point. 2.123.7.17 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Outstanding" sounds like it might have been taken from the Ofsted report, and skimming through it it seems to be used several times. That said the article could certainly use a bit of TLC. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but I still feel like it's exploiting an ambiguous loophole in order to try and promote itself - It's just like the movie posters that take review lines out of context. I'm somewhat sure that it wouldn't have been mentioned if the college has been ranked "Inadequate" and for that reason it should instead simply state that it was ranked "Outstanding" by OFSTED in 2008. 2.123.7.17 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True, although in the interests of neutrality Wikipedia should mention if the school's latest report said the school was inadequate; some articles manage this but it varies. What do you think of the following: "In February 2008, Ofsted published an inspection report describing the school as "outstanding""? Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality issue?

message: I've moved to following list out of the article as it was unreferenced. I'll be looking for sources for these, but they shouldn't be re-added without verification. Nev1 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable alumni / teachers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Oldham College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207071607/http://suzanneshawofficial.com/about_me to http://suzanneshawofficial.com/about_me
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: file=:c:File:OldhamCollege.jpg|patten=No permission indicated subpage= 
Message automatically deposited by a robot on 07:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  File nominated for deletion on commons 

message: A couple of IP editors have made major contributions to the article, the latest one including the word "our", implying a connection with the college. I haven't reverted because I think the article as it stood, before they edited it, was probably unfair on the college in its current state. Much of the information added may be accurate. The ofsted inspection, for example, could easily be verified, and much of the text that the IP editor removed looks almost like an attack-page. On the other hand, much of the information they've added is wildly promotional, and none of it is backed up by sources. This article desperately needs a clean-up from someone who knows what they're talking about, but who can do things in a neutral and balanced way. Elemimele (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the COI template because the IP editor has returned and removed the non-neutral material, and added a citation for the Ofsted report. Although the 45M investment could do with a citation, the article is not over-promotional, and the editor has done a decent job, whether or not they have a COI. Elemimele (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest editing