Talk:Malvern College

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMalvern College was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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
September 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 29, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Reassessment[edit]

Malvern College[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 1, 3, and 4. The lead section is far too long for the article length and includes a random paragraph (with typos) about an alumni who was convicted of corruption in Malaysia. Additionally, the history section needs significant reorganization. It also appears that the article isn't up to date, as the last dated event in the article is hiring a new headmaster in 2019. Finally, there's a fair amount of PEACOCKing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately GA often accumulate trash edits, school articles in particular, and especially if the creator or caretaker is retired from Wikipedia. The solution to this of course is simply to restore to a stable version that still meets the GA criteria on which it passed GA. 2001:44C8:4180:42D:D0AF:62A2:39D7:66AA (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with reverting is that the article passed GA in 2010. That version of the article would fail 3a as the article would be out of date by 13 years. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have tidied the lead. I'd agree it still needs work. KJP1 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.