Talk:King George V School, Hong Kong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeKing George V School, Hong Kong was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

[Untitled][edit]

The IP number User:210.0.177.84 serves the King George V School. It has remained a long-standing source of constant and exclusive vandalism of Wikipedia. Among the hundreds of thousands of Internet users, this is the sole feature of the King George V School that comes to mind. --Wetman 06:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of what and who the Headmaster is should not be censored. I thought people were supposed to respect other peoples' view on things, no? I made the assessment at a B-class; I don't feel able to judge the importance. The main reason it won't get any higher at present is a lack of references. The whole article needs citing. It's also weak on history, and a bit too focused on more recent events. --Trebor 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Points[edit]

This article needs a cleanup - there are a large number of grammatical errors and some sentences could do with a bit of re-shuffling. A good effort nonetheless!

Introduction[edit]

I would like to improve on the introduction of this article but i don't know what to add. KGV 14:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School song[edit]

I've removed the lyrics. They may be copyrighted. This needs to be addressed before we include them here. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't copyrighted. It's the school song which is printed on thousands of sheets of paper, as well as programmes, with no copyright notice. Also, I think it's in the public domain. So, should it be re-added? - Jlao04 10:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lyrics should be re-added. As far much as I can remember, the lyrics were written by a teacher and set to a tune. The lyrics have been reproduced countless times in various media with no copyright notice. A book detailing the history of KGV has been written by an ex-history teacher, David Clinton. Copies of the book were available for the Centenary celebration, but it was a small publishing effort and not generally available in stores. Unfortunately as it lacks an ISBN, I don't think we can quote it as a source to back up a lot of the history of the School for the purposes of this article. Earthmage 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the lyrics. - jlao04 06:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN numbers are only a relatively recent innovation. A book does not have to have an ISBN number to be used as a source. If you have a copy of the book about the history of the school then you should be using it as your principal source. It is exactly the sort of material which should be used as the basis for an article such as this. It would also be helpful to list the book in a section on Further Reading. Check out Worldcat too (see the Wikpedia Schools Project page) as there are at least two other books listed about the school which could be used as sources for this article. The copyright of the school song will expire something like 70 years after the death of the teacher who wrote the song. I'm not sure of the precise limit and copyright rules will no doubt vary from country to country. You should only be using the school lyrics if you have definite proof that copyright has expired. Dahliarose 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a student at KGV and i never heard of the school song 42.98.40.189 (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Curriculum - KS3 section[edit]

I am currently creating a section for the KS3 curriculum. It is here - KGV Curriculum - KS3 Section. Comments? - jlao04 13:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the article here. - jlao04 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Teaching staff[edit]

I have restructured the section on "teachers" (now renamed "teaching staff") into another chapter. Please add to it - it is not yet complete. Zero76 11:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its complete now.KGV 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody just deleted. Should it be put back on? Zero76 12:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination - on hold[edit]

The content of the article is okay, but a lot of changes are needed before it can become a GA. Please address:

  • The table of contents is very long.
  • Yet, many subsections are very short. For example, the 1-sentence subsection about the swimming pool is unnecessary.
  • The existing citations are not in the proper format, and almost all of them have spelling mistakes.
  • Don't put external links within the main article body.
  • Copyedit to weed out grammar and spelling issues, such as "Japanese occupationand" and "...the school site is taken over by the japanese as a hospital for prisoners of war." (tense).
  • The school has a dress code; why is this not mentioned in the text?
  • Awkward introduction paragraph. It's not important to mention the 4 houses and 4 buildings in the lead.
  • Headings should be lower-case except for proper nouns and beginnings of headings.
  • School council - is it necessary to mention these people? If so, explain what they do, and organize them into a table.
  • Consider whether the average reader of the page would care about certain details, like whether teachers being impersonated have to sign release forms (Year 13 Pantomime).
  • How well does the school perform compared to other schools in Hong Kong?
  • Explain the Hong Kong educational system (Year n) briefly so readers have a basic knowledge of what is being referred to when talking about the curriculum.

Carson 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed[edit]

It's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold and issues relating to the original reviewer's comments still exist.


There has definitely been some work since the last reviewer went through the article. However, this article still falls short of the good article criteria (see WP:WIAGA). The citations still contain spelling errors and are not formatted properly. Other general grammer and spelling errors exist in the article. It needs a good read-through to catch and fix these errors.

For citation help, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources. To assist with copy-editing, see Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit

Work on this article, and address all the issues raised by Carson and myself and then try to re-submit this article for good article review. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work over the grammar and so forth, as my maiden project for the League of Copyeditors. As I don't find the article that interesting, forgive me if I do it gradually. I'll work on putting some refs in too.--Wehwalt 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

I have added a category on Users whos secondary school is KGV, if you are one of them, please add [[catergory:users whos secondary school is King George V School]] on your user page.KGV 14:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox[edit]

I have created a userbox for users whos secondary school is KGV, if you are one of them, please add {{user kgv}} on your user page.KGV 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help! reliable citations needed[edit]

This article needs immediate attention as it don't have much citations. Please help. ThanksKGV 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staff list[edit]

Why is this section always being deleted? As this is an encyclopedia I think no information should be considered "irrelevant". Zero76 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The staff list is of no interest to anyone outside the school. Members of staff could of course be included in the article if they are particularly noteworthy in their own right. Lots of school information is trivial and not relevant for an encyclopaedic article. The article should focus on noteworthy and non-trivial subjects. Dahliarose 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We don't know who these people are, and we don't particularly care. The article is written for the purpose of informing interested people, mostly outside the school, about the school. To have a list of names that means nothing to any outsider, and goes on for screen after screen, is counterproductive as it may well cause the reader to turn away from the article. WP is not a collection of random information.--Wehwalt 06:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to delete the staff list yet again. If anyone really thinks the staff list is necessary please discuss the issue here and provide justification for its inclusion. The consensus so far is that the list is unnecessary and counter-productive. Such information is also impossible to verify and impossible to maintain in the long term. Dahliarose 11:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 6, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is mostly well-written. It could use a copyedit for minor grammar and usage issues and to bring it fully in line with WP:MOS.
2. Factually accurate?: This article needs more sources. There are only eight citations total. Entire sections are wholly uncited ("Facilities") or largely uncited despite exceptional claims ("History"). 7 of the 8 existing citations appear to cite non-independent sources; independent secondary sources should be sought out. This is the largest issue at the moment; sources are lacking in both quantity and quality.
3. Broad in coverage?: Clicking on 'edit' I am greeted with the following comment: "Please don't re-add the section called "Controversy" -- it has been removed several times for a reason." If there is a notable controversy regarding this school, it should be a part of the article. I don't see anything about it on the talk page. Going through the history, it appears as if this was a non-NPOV and unsourced section, deleted many months ago, which is fine -- but the note concerns me. We should not appear to forbid the addition of a sourced section dealing with any controversies regarding the school. Aside from that, the article appears thorough.
4. Neutral point of view?: A few potential issues in the History section, but these should be addressed by the addition of citations. There's also the note mentioned above. No other issues though.
5. Article stability? Seems stable since mid-February; no problems here.
6. Images?: The school logo doesn't have a fair use rationale. Other images seem okay.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --Shimeru 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, it seems the school webpage is down, so I can't check the composition date of the song. Please note that it may be a copyright violation. If the lyrics are still under copyright, that section should be removed from the article. Shimeru 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor points[edit]

I don't think that pavilion rooms are prefixed X: there aren't any classrooms there

The JCSRC is NOT part of the KGV school, except for the jr. pastoral offices. KGV does NOT use the garden rooms for teaching.

The section on teaching staff would be wonderful if it were added again in a table.

Do we need a longer trivia section? Or should we delete it altogether?

The school song should be all right to be on here. I don't think it's copyright. It's online at [1]

students can choose 2 languages out of four, and EAL is taught to the children with bad English (it's not a choice for them).

Section on buildings doesn't include DS rooms? BS rooms? MS rooms? K rooms? LO rooms? we could have a rooms section instead, if it wouldn't be too much trouble.

The sentences

"The school motto and song is Honestas Ante Honores "Honesty Before Glory" in Latin. It is sung at school events such as the Junior School Celebration and Speech Day."

"In 1974, the principal Miss A. Smith decided to join the English Schools Foundation, and in 1979, the transfer was complete. KGV is currently the oldest school in the ESF.[2] [3]"

are confusing.

The form letter G seems to stand for Galaxy instead of Ganymede, so alter it + the "heavenly bodies and planets".

you could reorganize the sections so that the Senior Student Council could be below School Council, and curriculum could be higher up.

Else well done.

219.77.16.13 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of students[edit]

On the KGV School Info Page it states that "the school provides 1,500 places", while the article says it's 1,700. Which is correct? Fickleflavoured 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1700 is correct. Blland (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Student Council[edit]

Is the table about the Current Student Council noteworthy? Students councils only last for one year? I don't think anyone outside the school would be interested in knowing who's in the student council. I'm going to remove it, if you disagree, discuss it here. - plau (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The school logo does not seem to be used in school or mentioned anywhere in the school's website (www.kgv.edu.hk) and was therefore removed. The school logo mentioned was Azure, on a chevron charged a lion rampant. Replace the logo back into the School motto and song section if you believe the logo is correct and accurate. Referencing would be appreciated. --Lennieii (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on King George V School (Hong Kong). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2020 racism and sexism allegations[edit]

I found https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3090434/ceo-hong-kongs-english-schools-foundation-says-complaints which could be covered in this article WhisperToMe (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_George_V_School,_Hong_Kong&oldid=1203295990"