An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Short description: Private school in Hammersmith, London
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Back again for round two -- many comments already dealt with in the first edition. I am still very concerned by the sourcing: I have ended up doing source checks on most of the text, and have yet to do one that is fully satisfactory. Every one is pulling up either WP:TSI issues, where the cited material does not support what it purports to, WP:CLOP issues, where we have closely paraphrased the source material without attribution, or both. The problem here is that sourcing checks can only be a sample: no reviewer will be able to catch everything, so the sourcing checks need to give confidence that the entire article is above reproach. UndercoverClassicistT·C08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For families with incomes unable to pay the fees, Latymer Upper is free: this is not explicitly supported by the source. More than that, it's extremely misleading: there will be an income threshold (Latymer claim that it is flexible, and so do not publish it), and there is almost always a considerable gap between "low enough to qualify for a full bursary" and "high enough to afford the fees". By comparison, Manchester Grammar, which is known for its generosity with bursaries, offers full assistance only to families with a before-tax income below £32,000; full fees are £15,930, which would be a long way from affordable for most families on that budget. Even with the best will in the world, not all bursary applicants are given funding, as the Latymer page acknowledges.
This has been rewritten already.
It derives from a charity school, part of the same Latymer Foundation, founded in 1624 by the English merchant Edward Latymer: a few things here. The source doesn't say that Latymer founded a school -- he says that he left property to pay for them to attend existing petty schools. More importantly, he didn't actually died until 1627, and the property wasn't put to this purpose until 1628. This material also isn't in the body text, though it does appear in the infobox.
Edited.
the J. S. Mill, Literary and Latymer Societies: decap Societies, as the plural isn't part of the technical term. Suggest bracketing (philosophy) or similar to the JS Mill society, and whatever the Latymer Society does? Before doing so, though, see sourcing below.
Rewritten already.
Being very technical, the wall in the sports centre is a bouldering wall rather than a climbing wall (since it doesn't seem to have the means to attach ropes). Noting in passing that this section is supported by the cited source, but largely by the pictures rather than the text.
Tweaked the text.
Latymer Upper School is rated by the Tatler Schools Guide: I think we need to put a date on this: was rated in 2012.
Done.
This included his motto, Latin: Paulatim ergo certe ("Slowly therefore surely"): I'd advise reworking to avoid the awkward colon (perhaps "his Latin motto, Paulatim ergo certe. The bold is a nice touch but not great for accessibility, as screen-readers can't pick it up. I'd suggest spelling out that it contains the hidden word "latimer".
Already done.
Should John Crace get a mention on the alumni list, as we've quoted him for Hugh Grant?
Done.
From 2004, fundraising enabled an increasing number of bursaries to be provided, independently of government: I'm not sure I understand what "independently of government" is doing here -- the Assisted Places Scheme died in 1997, so the government wouldn't have had any business providing bursaries to a fee-paying school. We don't say that Oxfam opened a food bank, or Tesco added a new range of cheese, "independently of government".
Removed the phrase.
The school's academic results place it among the top schools nationally, and it has historically accepted under 10% of applicants: the latter stat doesn't appear to be in the article, and is unsourced. Even then, we only claim that it relates to a single year, and I don't think we can really stretch that to what has "historically" happened (by that logic, the Labour Party has historically held 411 seats in the Commons).
Removed the phrase.
it survives on Queen Caroline Street, Hammersmith: from the Historic England page, it's clear that we're missing an important detail: it was rebuilt, probably (though not explicitly stated in the source) in 1994.
Edited. The rebuilding was in 1913.
There were 33 Oxbridge places in 2017...: can we get a more recent figure? A lot has happened in education (and Oxbridge admissions) since then.
Updated from fresh source.
Dr. Thomas Edwards, who had died c. 1618, was built for the Latymer boys in the churchyard in Fulham.: avoid abbreviations like circa in flowing text: better as "around".
Edited. Other reviewers have insisted on the circa template...
A preponderance of the sentences in "Latymer Upper School, King Street" begin with "The school [verbed]...". Can we do anything for prose about the repetition here?
File:3 Latymer Schools map.svg: citations are given on the Wikipedia page, but not on Wikisource. In theory, the former can only vouch for the caption, not the image itself. Can the Wikisource page be updated with specifics of where the data is from?
Edward Latymer, a wealthy lawyer and Puritan, who left part of his wealth for the clothing and education of "eight poore boyes" from Hammersmith -- this is almost verbatim from Edward Latymer, a prosperous lawyer, left part of his wealth for the clothing and education of “eight poore boyes” from Hammersmith on the Latymer website.
Reworded.
Happy here from a sourcing point of view, though I think the content losses (Latymer's profession and religion, and the clothing part of the bequest) are to the article's detriment. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you push and push on the CLOP button you can't expect anything but this result.
I disagree; it's perfectly possible to take the evidence from a source without closely paraphrasing it. Without wishing to teach a much more experienced editor how to suck eggs, the WP:CLOP page has a great deal of good advice as to how a closely-paraphrased passage can be reworked to keep the information while ensuring that the expression is original. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The charity school was replaced in 1755 with a two-storey building, the ground floor for 25 girls, the first floor for 20 boys, later reduced on grounds of cost to 15 girls and 15 boys. The school was expanded in 1819 by adding two further classrooms, serving a total of 50 girls and 80 boys. Demand for the girls' school proved insufficient, and it was merged into the parish school; the boys' school increased to 100 pupils, filling the available space. In 1863, the boys' school moved to a new and larger building, with space for 125 pupils, between King Street East (now Hammersmith Road) and Great Church Lane, a little to the east of Hammersmith Broadway.. This is WP:CLOP from here: By 1755 the existing building had become dilapidated, and it was replaced by one of two storeys to accommodate 25 girls on the ground floor and 20 boys above. The cost, however, proved a serious drain on the income of the charity and the numbers were reduced to 15 boys and 15 girls. In 1819 two rooms were added and the numbers increased to 80 boys and 50 girls, who were educated on the 'National' system. Later the income of the girls' charity decreased and it was absorbed into the St. Paul's parochial school, but the Latymer boys' school flourished, having 100 boys but no room for extension. In 1863 a new building for 125 boys was erected in Great Church Lane (Hammersmith Road).
Edited down to bare facts. Note however that BHO is PD.
Similar to the above; I'm happy that this is no longer plagiarised (and copying wholesale from any source, without acknowledgement, is plagiarism: a citation declares only that the facts are supported), but a lot of factual material has been lost, and the article is weaker for it. There is a very large middle ground between closely paraphrasing a source and leaving most of its evidence unused. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the same source: The school was extended with five extra classrooms, a workshop, and laboratories in 1901, allowing the total number of pupils to rise to 450 is CLOP of in 1901 accommodation was increased to admit 450 by the addition of five classrooms, laboratories, and a workshop.
The Science and Library building, opened in 2010, includes labs for the three sciences and a library with seating for more than 200 pupils which occupies a floor at the base. Van Heyningen and Haward Architects were responsible for constructing these four buildings: very little of this is supported by the cited source, except for the last sentence and the existence of the library.
Edited down to bare fact.
I'm afraid that even this bare fact isn't actually in the cited source -- but there is surely some press release, local news story, etc. to give the opening date? The article only (indirectly) says that they finished building it in 2010. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Picky. Completed it is.
There are a couple of hits on Earwig for this source, which are close to the borderline for WP:CLOP: I don't think it's sufficient to raise a major stink on its own, but some adjustments might be advisable.
Tweaked.
I am a little dicey about The school offers all students a trip every year in 'Activities Week'. Trips range from outward bound camping, mountain walking, and sailing, to the cultural with visits to Barcelona, Paris, and Venice; local activities have included visiting London art galleries, producing a pantomime, and making a documentary film. being cited to a web page from 2008. That's a long time in education, and these sort of institutions are particularly often re-invented by enthusiastic senior managers. On a separate note, the tone here is on the wrong side of WP:PROMO. Other sourcing issues: the source says that not all events in Activities Week are trips, whereas our text at least implies that they are (we've effectively said that the school offers every pupil an orange at lunchtime because they have oranges next to the cake counter), and this section is closely paraphrased from Over 25 trips go out, ranging from camping and outward bound trips to Devon, the Brecon Beacons, County Mayo to walking in the Swiss Alps, sailing in the Mediterranean, cycling around Britain or surfing in Cornwall. For the less physically inclined there are cultural trips to Paris, Venice and Barcelona. There are also London based activities, ranging from visiting galleries and exhibitions, studying London landmarks to making a documentary in a week and producing and performing a pantomime.
Rewritten from new source.
The url seems to be missing from that citation? On another note, "energetic outdoor activities" reads as WP:PROMO to me, and we still have "range from" from the original source, which is quite a distinctive turn of phrase to take from a copyrighted source. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added and tweaked. Really, "energetic" is just a neutral description, I'm not from the school, and "range from" is just one of not very many ways of saying there's a wide range of etc.
Something seems to have gone wrong with the formatting of note 37 (supporting The Latymer Performing Arts Centre, completed in 2009, contains drama studios, rehearsal rooms and a 150-seat recital hall.) The source says that the hall has 100 seats; we say it has 150.
Fixed both.
Some sourcing issues here: the article is in the future tense, so we can't use it for "was opened" (the project could have been delayed or cancelled). It also says that there's only one drama studio; we have multiple in the article. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 140 clubs and societies at Latymer, including the J. S. Mill, Literary and Latymer Societies: none of this is supported by the cited source.
True, but updates will be better done by reading the source and updating both text and source at that time.
I don't follow: the most likely potential issue is that a web redesign means that the page gets renamed or deleted, which would break the link. The bot will archive it anyway, so it'll be trivial for a future editor who notices that problem to fix it, but not all of our readers are editors. With that said, WP:ENDURE is good sense but not a GA criterion. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school's own on-site prep pupils enter the Upper School automatically at the end of Year 6: not supported by the cited source.
Removed.
The playing fields are used for training by the England Rugby Team.: the source only demonstrates that they used them once, in 2020. Our text implies that this is a current and ongoing arrangement.
Edited.
Would advise putting a date on this ("were used by the England Rugby Team in 2020"), and might raise a question-mark as to notability if all we have is a few pictures of them playing on the fields. Did they use the school for a training camp, or have any more serious involvement in it? UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tuition for 2020 was £21,000 per year, plus other mandatory and optional fees: this is cited to a document for the 2008–2009 academic year.
Updated and fixed.
Now works well, though I'd suggest clarifying, using another source, that there are three terms in a year. This may not be obvious to non-Anglosphere readers. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Done.
This served until around 1657, when the Latymer Charity School for the parish was founded in the churchyard of St Paul's, Hammersmith: the source does not give it this name.
Done. If there are any more such minor tweaks, feel free just to fix them directly.
The school has a substantial fund from donations ring-fenced to fund bursaries; in 2017–18 it had a total income of £34.7 million, with a surplus over expenditure of £8.2 million. Of that surplus, £7.9 million was from ring-fenced donations for bursaries; the school added £2.5 million to that to pay for bursaries during that tax year: this is partly sourced to an article from 2013. It's also pretty heavily CLOPped from TES: Latymer Upper School’s accounts also showed that £7.9 million of its £8.2 million surplus came from donations ring-fenced to fund bursaries. It also spent another £2.5m on bursaries in that year
Rewritten from new source, concentrating on the fees side. I don't agree about "heavily CLOPped", it was completely rewritten; I've now deleted that paragraph and won't revisit it.
The edit works: it leaves out a great deal, but for GA we only need the key aspects of the topic. Given that we're working from the school's own publication, we have to be very conservative about the level of detail per WP:PROMO, WP:SELFPUB and so on. Personally, I think the school's stated ambition to become needs-blind is notable, and it's also worth stating that they put a deadline on that "1 in 4" commitment of 2024 -- presumably, they meant September 2024, but have they given an update to say that they've met it? UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Added a word about the ambition.
In 1945, Latymer became a direct grant grammar school, meaning that it took both state-funded and fee-paying pupils. At the same time, its head joined the Headmasters' Conference.: the source does not say that these two things happened at the same time, only in the same year. Strictly, it only says that he was invited, but I think we can take it as read that he accepted.
I am a concerned about "Latymer 400": it is essentially self-published by the school. It's holding a fair deal of weight, particularly about things (such as the original intention of the school's founding, the awards it has won and the internal reaction to going co-ed) that we would not normally be comfortable getting from a non-independent source.
The materials are reliable and directly concern the school, as is required when using primary sources. British History Online (the PD source) goes only up to the 1960s and has gaps before that; other sources say little about details within the school. I've cut the reaction bit, at the risk of being accused of whitewashing, so again we're down to bare events.
The materials are reliable: on what basis do you say that? Per WP:SELFPUB, the general presumption is that anything published by its own subject should be regarded as unreliable, and used only with great caution -- such as, for instance, per WP:PRIMARY, where we would qualify everything it says with "according to the school's own publication..." or similar. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about down to bare facts, which is precisely what WP:PRIMARY says is what we should use such sources for. I don't think that repeating the explicit attribution 20 times through the text is going to add anything to the article's readability, while both the type of material and the sources make the attribution clear.
WP:DUEWEIGHT requires, for inclusion, information to be published in reliable, independent, published sources (emphasis mine). I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss over citing items of architectural history to a source linked with the school, but there is a real problem with using it for the school's achievements and accolades. This is particularly an issue for In 2018, the school won three Times Educational Supplement awards, for "Independent School of the Year", "Independent-State School Partnerships", and "Senior School of the Year". It may be true, and it may be bare facts, but if we can't show it in an reliable, independent source, it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. See also From 2004, fundraising enabled an increasing number of bursaries to be provided, which is woolly and arguably promotional on its own ("increasing" from what to what?), particularly given the importance of bursaries in the school's branding and indeed current political debates in which it, as an HMC school, is involved. Again, I take your point that the facts here may well be true, but there is almost always a great deal of information about a subject -- particularly one such as a school -- which is true but shouldn't be included in its Wikipedia article, for all sorts of reasons. UndercoverClassicistT·C13:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation in note 3 (""Putting the best possible case for being a public school in this day and age") is no longer needed, as the article no longer claims that the school is a public school. As it's highly promotional and no longer has any verifiability reason for inclusion, it should be removed. UndercoverClassicistT·C11:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
_Smith.jpg){kind=link}