Talk:Royal Grammar School, Guildford

"Third party" orange banner

@Tacyarg: With this edit a "third party" orange banner was added to the article. Do you think this banner is still valid? If so, should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Royal Grammar School, Guildford

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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the COI orange banner at the top of the article, which needs to be resolved for the article to keep its status. There are also uncited statements in the article prose. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• I see sufficient reliable sources in the article to ensure that the essential details are properly sourced. The source that User:Tacyarg appears to be concerned about is the school's own website, which is allowable per WP:SELFSOURCE as the source is supporting everyday information about itself, such as "Drama is offered as an academic subject from the first form". As the school source is allowed per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we could ask Tacyarg if there is something else in the article that they are concerned about. SilkTork (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• User:Z1720, would you tag those uncited statements that concern you. I noted one statement which was tagged, and as it was about something which hadn't yet happened I removed it, so there are currently no tags. Having the statements tagged makes it easier to source them or discuss them to see if they need removing. SilkTork (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: I have added the requested citation needed tags. I also recommend that level 3 headings be added to the "History" section to break up the text and make navigation easier. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Go for it Z1720. Put those headers where you feel appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• @SilkTork: I prefer those who are interested in the article to do it, as they usually have a better idea of where to place headings than me. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've broken up the History section, removed the Independent sources tag as not appropriate, and either cited or removed the contentious statements (mostly trivial everyday stuff). I feel there is a lack of clarity regarding the foundation date of the school, but sources do use the date of the death of the school's founder, so we can't go against that. I also feel the article would benefit from trimming some trivial details, and a general tidy up. But I'm not seeing these remaining issues as significant enough to delist. They are largely everyday editing issues. Keep. SilkTork (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've taken a good look at the article and after the work by SilkTork I can't see any glaring issues that prevent the GA listing being kept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

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.