The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:18, 18 August 2010 [1].

Royal National College for the Blind[edit]

Royal National College for the Blind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TheRetroGuy (talk), Paul Largo

I am nominating this for featured article following a request which was made to me a few weeks ago. This will be the third time this article has been put forward to FAC, and issues from the last request in May appear to have been addressed as far as is possible. As has been previously stated, the article covers the topic comprehensively and is well referenced, is of reasonable length (currently 58KB) and reads well. It has been stable for several years (in fact, I can't find an instance where it has been vandalised). The article was recently the subject of a comprehensive review, and althoughI'm not as familiar with the subject as the previous nominee, I have attempted to deal with the issues raised as far as I am able to do so (please see also my notes regarding the suggestions). TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must confess I wouldn't know where to start with this. Legal matters are not one of my strengths either. Would it (perhaps) not be better just to replace it with another image? TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same question would apply to any copy of the logo. The question is not if you can use it, it is what the license tag should be. I commented on this in the last FAC. I have reposted the question at MCQ. Hopefully an expert opinion will be forthcoming. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some comments about the logo and Threshold of Originality at MCQ, but I would like to iterate that I don't think it matters to this FAC. If the logo is PD, then great, free image, no problems, and we don't need the long rationale. But if we cannot determine if it passes the ToO, we need to presume non-free, but here the use of the image - the logo of the organization within the infobox of that org's article - is pretty much a defacto exception within NFC for non-free images, particularly logos. As it appears its non-free rationale was all spruced up in the last FAC for this article, it should not be causing a problem with the FAC being passed in this case either. Thus, either way, we have a valid image use in the article, and the FAC should proceed without waiting on the determination of the image non-freeness. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA are the showcase of the Wikipedia project, and improperly licensed content is sufficient to fail an FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing if a clearly non-free image has been marked PD - that's a failure there. It is a completely different issue if we have been overcautious and marked a questionable PD image as NFC, providing a strong rationale for its use. At worst, the image stays that way forever, but does not disrupt the free-content mission per the exceptions given; at best, the community decides its PD and its use is no long a question. Because the determination of whether an image fails the threshold of originality is something that can only be done in a legal case, we cannot expect to get any strong word on whether this specific image is PD or not. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of some advice on these? What I should be looking for, etc. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I think I'll probably need some help doing this as I haven't encountered it before, so I'll post a request somewhere tomorrow (I'm assuming there's a help page that deals with this sort of thing). Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found the place. I might das well do it now while I think about it. If this can't be done then I suppose the information it references could be removed. It would be a pity if these minor problems were to trip up an otherwise reasonable article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request posted. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, we have an article for Trade Arabia. That must weigh in its favour? TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. We have articles on Stormfront, but that doesn't make that site a reliable source... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in terms of reliability, I think there's probably a bit of a difference between a website dedicated to business and one dedicated to Nazism, but I take your point. :) As I said earlier, if these can't be passed as reliable sources then they can get the chop. Shouldn't make too much difference to the overall article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, decided not to wait till this evening. As I couldn't find sufficient information to back these up or anything else to support the statements they referenced, I have removed them. The article is now 57KB long but is not seriously affected by this information not being there. In the meantime, if anyone can find something to support these publications as reliable sources then the information can go back in. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - I commented on this article at the last FAC and in the interim left extensive comments on the talk page, most of which have now been addressed. Some of those remaining are:

( "...in recognition of the "outstanding" quality of its teaching." The quote should be sourced.

While I would like to see higher quality images, I agree with Hamiltonstone below that this alone should not derail the nomination. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the recentism thing, I wasn't quite sure what I needed to do there. I should be able to deal with everything else except the pictures. There are other point4 images (see here for example), but they appear to belong to media groups and/or the college itself. The only other Orchard Hall image is this one from the college, which I think is an architect's impression of what it would look like. Sorry this is in a Google search rather than the image itself. Since I upgraded to Windows Vista I've been unable to click on individual images in Internet Explorer without crashing my system (and have taken my old XP system down on which this facility worked with no problems). Perhaps someone else can help here? TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have added some information from the 2006 Social Care Report which helps to give the article a bit more depth. Will have to read up on how to fix the reference probperly though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice some of the Ofsted reports give actual numbers for people attending the college. Looks like it can accommodate 200 students, but often has fewe than that. I'll dig out the 2008 figures (from the most recent Ofsted report) tomorrow and update the article accordingly. I'll say something like; "The 2008 Ofsted report recorded the student population as ---, although the college has accommodation for 200". TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed this so thanks for spotting it. I don't think there needs to be a capital 'D' in dining club so I'll update it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified support, the qualification relates only to the 'restructuring' section.

Otherwise all good. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've made one or two tweaks to it. The two sentences mentioned are now removed and I've changed the first instance of "documentary" to "film". I'm not sure about the use of the word academica. I think this article has been based on the one for Baltimore City College where the term is used. The term academics has much the same meaning in the UK - i.e., that it refers to the faculty of a university. I'll change it to Education, but someone can change it back if this is not right. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just discovered that the 2010 World Blind Football Championships started on Saturday (14 August) so I'll need to update that a bit. I'll take a look at what's been happening and change it later on. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A great deal of work has been done since the last FAC, on top of some thorough preparation beforehand following my brief peer review of many months ago. Issues relating to images and sourcing appear to have been resolved satisfactorily. While there will always be nits to pick, I don't see anything worth delaying promotion for, and believe this is now a worthy FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please resolve similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she means the capitalization of academic subjects and such. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I'm guessing she wants me to put them in uppercase so I'll do that. Hope that is right. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got them all now. Give me a shout if there are any others. I'm offline for the next hour or so but will check back later. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review throughout for WP:MOSDATE#Precise language (see my inline). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, changed the "Assistive technology" section so it now begins "The college is actively involved . . ." as I'm not sure when that started. Also changed the "in recent years" in Academics to "late 2000s". I seem to get the impression that this was something that occurred over some time. Also changed Academics to Education per a discussion yesterday. Think I have everything, but will take another quick look now. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of questions. What changes did you make to italicised/non-italicised text? I'm not picking that up. Also should I de-link the rest of the sports - ten pin bowling, etc? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see :) I italicized per "words as words" your description of the word normal. [2] Terms not commonly known to most English speakers should stay linked-- swimming and horseback riding are common, some of the others may not be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think I've sorted everything else out. The one thing I need to do is to update information about the World Blind Football Championship, which started last weekend. It is due to finish this coming Sunday so I might wait till then and change the relevant sentences to the past tense. I can also add a bit about which team won, etc. Having said that, however, I will update it before then if I need to do that for the FAC. I should be around again tomorrow afternoon and evening so could do it then. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More