Talk:History of education in Wales/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Llewee (talk · contribs) 21:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 09:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi {{Reply to|Llewee}, this is the last GA nomination in the education section! It would be great if you could get around to fixing these this December.

Comments

I think you did a really good job of writing in summary style.

Fixed all dash mistakes, and other minor mistakes mentioned in previous GA reviews in this series.

This article had a huge amount of sfn/harv errors but I fixed them all.

Thank you, citing to the authors of individual chapters obviously didn't work.--Llewee (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a few direct quotations which require inline citations.

Girls schooling needs more updates through this article. For schooling, there is currently information from the 1860s, 1870s and 1900 on girls. A lot of progression definitely happened post-1900. Although they did not receive much education pre-1860, I think at least some information in the before 1701 section to clarify the state of their education would be appropriate.

Before 1701

but there was a steady expansion in the 15th century: Could do with the additional clarity added to this sentence in its main article.

done--Llewee (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1701–1870

Circulatory schools -> circulating schools if it is changed to that in the main article.

done--Llewee (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a certain degree of decline in grammar schools during this period, though there was some evidence of an increase in demand: "though there was some evidence of an increase in demand" is unnecessary detail in my opinion.

done--Llewee (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

1870–1939

The boards were allowed but not required to make education compulsory. A power that was extended to other districts in 1876: Will probably need to be altered following discussion in the main article GA review.

Nothing came of this point in the relevant review.--Llewee (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Compulsory education was also extended to deaf and blind children in 1893: I think this should either be omitted, or the almost identical legislation for disabled children should also be added

I've included it in a condensed way.--Llewee (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

1939 to present

In July 1943 the government published a reform proposal called Education Reconstruction: To clarify, I think this should mention it was after the end of WWII.

The war was still going on at that point.--Llewee (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The Aberfan disaster destroyed a village junior school in 1966, killing many children: As mentioned in main GA review, 'many' can be replaced with the actual number, 116. Also, this fact is an entirely unrelated topic to all the information around it. I think it should have it's own paragraph.

The paragraph is meant to be about primary schools in the 1960s and 70s. I've moved the final two sentences to make that clearer. I wouldn't like to break the bit about Aberfan into its own section because I think one line paragraphs look a bit scruffy.--Llewee (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Primary education was offered infant and junior schools, departments or a combined primary school: "primary school" may need to be changed depending in main article GA review.

Clarified in the same way as the main article--Llewee (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Language usage

In 1847, a report was published into education in Wales which—though some modern historians have defended it's quality—was badly received in Wales at the time because of a derogatory tone. The report depicts the Welsh language as a negative influence limiting the potential of the Welsh population. The report argued that much of the Welsh-speaking public was keen to learn English and that bilingualism in schools was the best way to teach it: This is more detail than the main article on this time period. It should either be more detail in the main article, or equal detail in both.

The bit that doesn't appear in the main article is "though some modern historians have defended it's quality—was badly received in Wales at the time because of a derogatory tone" . The first part is a summary of "Gregg Russell, the author of a history of 19th century school inspection in Wales, describes its substance ... as "a detailed picture of educational poverty". Jones and Roderick wrote that the educational aspects of the report's criticism were broadly reasonable." The second part is a summary of "The report, released in 1847, caused great offence in Wales due to its negative depiction of the Welsh language and the moral character of the Welsh people... The regional dialects of the English working classes were also criticised in other educational reports. At the time Nonconformists generally interpreted the report as an English and Anglican attack on the Welsh, while some Anglican churchmen criticised its tone." --Llewee (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Higher education

During the period between 1200 and 1500 about 400 Welshmen were registered as attending the University of Oxford and 40 the University of Cambridge but those figures are probably underestimates: Could do with the additional clarity added to this sentence in it's main article GA review.

done--Llewee (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly to the main articles, the last update we get about women's education in universities is when they were chaperoned. A lot has changes since then which requires coverage.

Sources

The page numbers on citations need to be more precise. Most of the content was trimmed from the main articles, but the citation pages were not changed, e.g. [66], [67], [71]. I won't try to comprehensively list them all because you will be able to identify and fix them much quicker than me.

[38]: As mentioned in the main article GA review, what part of the text requires Stephens page 77? It seems to me like it is all supported by page 79.

Images

Well illustrated and all images are licensed correctly.