Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford

message: Over the last few weeks I have generally re-written the article to better comply with wiki policy and contain much more detail with better referencing. I have also removed the multiple issues tags as these are no longer relevant.
I have also removed the copyrighted school logo and replaced it with a free image of the coat of arms of Edward VI which performs the same function, (looks better) and is as relevant if not more than the current logo as it is more timeless.
I also propose to move the list of alumni to a separate article, as it is poorly referenced, and brings the overall article standard down. This would be follow the pattern set by other article within the WikiSchools project which have a GA status, also if this list is not updated as regularly as the rest of the article it would not affect the main article. As such I plan to do this 7 days from now unless there are any objections. TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now moved the Alumni section to List of Old Guildfordians TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: I am assessing this article for the Schools project based on a request filed there.  I am bumping this article up to a "C" rating.  There is absolutely no reason to downgrade importance.  An expert in UK schools might review the importance of this article and consider if this school might be eligible for "Top" importance, though this is only granted to a very limited number of schools in any given nation.  The school's history and association with cricket might make it eligible, but I do not think I am in a position to make that call.
For a school of 500 years old, I find the history section to be rather short.  This may be due to a lack of reliable sources being available.  There is still a great deal of the article which needs to be referenced.  The associated list of alumni includes a great many non-notable alumni which need to be removed.  Many more need to be referenced properly.
While school articles need to be very careful about incorporating too much about sports/extra-curriculars, I found myself amazed that this school gave birth to cricket, but no more than 1-2 sentences discuss this.  I would hope that good sources could expand this into its own small section (perhaps in the history section).
To get it up to a "B" class, editors are encouraged to consult the criteria for B-class articles.  I wish editors the best of luck in their editing this very important school article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both very much for having a look at the article, with regards to the History section, there appears to be no reliable sources documenting anything from about 1610 up until 1860, so I'm not really sure what can be done to rectify that gap? But there are plenty of sources either side, so more info can be added into there. I've had a look at the 'B' class criteria, and i'm not quite sure what more needs to be done to this article for it to reach this class? Thanks TheAuthor22 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can't find any sources, then there is little that can be done. The school might have some kind of archive on it's history, though getting access could be a challenge, so I think it is best to presume for the moment while assessing the article that there are no sources for that time period. I think LonelyBeacon's main concern with this article were the gaps in coverage, though given that a dead end has been reached on the history section, and my earlier comments, I will give this article B-class. CT Cooper · talk 11:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2011 Assessment

message: I have been asked to review this article by Glanis. The article certainly is very different from when I saw it last, and is beyond B-class and looks impressive - I see a potential featured article here. I have difficulty finding fault with the page, though GAs aren't my speciality and other editors might well do. On the issue of the lead, it is of a more suitable length than it was and should be of decent enough quality for GA. CT Cooper · talk 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2011 Assessment