Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of education in Wales (1701–1870)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2025 [1].

History of education in Wales (1701–1870)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be interesting whether you are from Wales or not. It tells the story of education in a society where there was no compulsion to send children to school but a real hunger for knowledge. It also includes recent research into one of the most well-known topics in Welsh history; the Welsh Not.

This is the third article I have nominated as an FAC; both previous articles are now FA's (though one took two nominations). This one has been through GA (see) and Peer (see) reviews. Thank you to anyone who comments, I will respond as quickly as possible.--Llewee (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I peer reviewed the article and was impressed. It seemed to me then and seems to me now to be of FA quality. Of course (apologies!) I missed a few things at PR that I'm going to carp about here, but only four:

Those are my only quibbles and I am happy to support the promotion of this admirable article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 13:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh drat! I misread my scribbled notes and omitted one other quibble: "an emotive description of the practise" should have "practice" for the noun. Doesn't alter my support, I hardly need say. Tim riley talk 13:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tim, I have also corrected the additional issue.--Llewee (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow follow in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, It's been a bit more than a week since you made this comment. I don't want to pester about the issue but I was wondering if you had forgotten.--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgotten - just a bit waylaid along the way. I hope to be with you shortly - you're next on the list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "schools from 1833; which was later followed by school inspections and teacher training." The semi colon should either be a full stop or comma, or the "which" should be a "this". It doesn’t work grammatically as it stands
    changed--Llewee (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grammar schools continued": This short paragraph has three uses of "the period" or "this period": changing one of them would make it much less noticeable
    Took out the second two as they don't seem to have been adding much--Llewee (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Early modern education
  • "Alongside the grammar schools ... providing elementary education": Some in-line age distinctions may help here. Were the grammar schools providing primary education up to the age of nine? The confusion is partly because of "alongside", which makes them sound like they had the same 'audience'. (see also below re "elementary")
    Reworded in a way that should be clearer--Llewee (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an 1843 report, HMI[note 1]" -> "In an 1843 report, Her Majesty's Inspector (HMI)[note 1]" Don't make people click away to find out what an acronym means – it's a real pain when reading on a mobile, where most of our readers come from. The note can cover the his/her difference and what an HMI is
    done--Llewee (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18th century schooling
  • Elementary education: why are we using the American terminology in stead of the most common British "Primary education"?
    The term primary education wasn't used until the 1944 education act. The sources which are by British authors all use the term elementary education for this period (for example, see the preface of Welsh Not). Elementary education referred to a slightly different concept than Primary. There seems to have been a rough sense that elementary was a basic level of education focused on teaching literacy but it was also a term linked to the social class the education was intended for. That seems to have been why it was abandoned in the 20th century.--Llewee (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Them this needs to be covered in the article, even if it’s a footnote. Readers in the US (and a few other places) will see elementary as post-kindergarten without the definition being made clear, and UK readers will wonder why the US term is being used. You need something that says”elementary” is used in the sources as “entry level”, or however they define it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a terminology section to the start of the article--Llewee (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However because": I'm not a huge fan of "however" at the start of a sentence, but when used, it should be followed by a comma
  • "However, one of the main limitations": This 'however' is entirely superfluous as it's not contradicting anything that precedes it
  • As an aside, there are twelve 'however's in the article, which is about seven or eight too many. I suggest going through and examining each of them to see if it’s really needed, or a version of a verbal tic!
    I have put the article on "however" rations and taken out the specific two above.--Llewee (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done to Grammar schools: more to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC) Dropping back to the earlier section for a second:[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar schools
  • "certain degree of decline in grammar schools": when I read this first, I though it was referring to a decline in standards. A "decline in the number of grammar schools" would help
    changed to Grammar schools "had various difficulties"--Llewee (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " declined into elementary schools" (again, as elementary school means (in AmEng) what we would refer to as a primary school, an earlier definition on what you mean by the term—or even an alternative word so it doesn’t confuse those who immediately think of a post-kindergarten stage)
    see above--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy." This feels like only part of a sentence and really should be combined with the previous one to make any sense.
    Tried to fix this--Llewee (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accommodation for boarding pupils": perhaps a piped link here? boarding pupils feels about right.
    added--Llewee (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cliche of rich boys": I hardly think so. Can you check the source, as I suspect "a clique of rich boys" is far more likely.
    Yes, fixed--Llewee (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary education

Done to the start of Participation rates and literacy; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participation rates and literacy
  • "According to historian W. B. Stephens:" As you've introduced and full named him already, just "According to Stephens:" will suffice
    done--Llewee (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd to link Nonconformists here where you've linked the first occurrence and not the second
    corrected this, I think working on different parts at different times makes it hard to link at the right point--Llewee (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1844,[note 3]": odd place to leave a note: why not at the end of the sentence
    moved to after semi-colon as the note is specifically about marriage signatures--Llewee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note 3): "Though, the correlation is complicated by the fact people might have grown up in a different place to where they married." Much like the first time you used a sentence beginning 'though', it's grammatically awkward and looks like it should belong connected to the first sentence
    joined up sentences--Llewee (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1833 the two voluntary societies": personally I avoid putting commas after the initial dates in a sentence, as you have here and the next paragraph, but you have a comma in the preceding one ("In 1844,") and a couple of other places. Whichever method you choose, it should be consistently applied
Growing government involvement
Curriculum and conditions
  • For instance, David Rowlands also known as Dewi Môn, a man born in 1836 remembered": the commas are a little odd here as I would have expected to see one after 1836, as that's a sub-clause. Do we need to know the Rowlands was "also known as Dewi Môn"? Removing that and moving the comma to after the date would be better.
    Taken out Dewi Môn, as it appears to have been a pseudonym.--Llewee (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, some people": This is an opportunity to remove a "however", as what is written doesn't contradict what goes before
    see above--Llewee (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "child labour, health problems, and poor weather": odd to use a serial comma here when it's absent in the rest of the article (including a couple of times in this section)
    Done--Llewee (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Blue Books; more to follow - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Books
Government and schools approach to language
  • "government investigations were indicating": why not just "government investigations indicated"?
    done--Llewee (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "children were becoming literate in English without being able to understand what they were reading or writing": I think this may need a bit of a rewording. Most scholars would say 'literacy' means not just letter and word recognition, but understanding too – and a good proportion of readers will understand it that way too
    I have changed it to "children were learning to read and write in English without being able to understand the words".--Llewee (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Private, Ragged, Sunday and Works schools
Higher education
Legacy

That's my lot. Please ping me when you've worked your way through the lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from MSincccc

[edit]
  • Comments to follow soon. MSincccc (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lead
    • Being a peasant was and is quite a common occupation. It could be delinked in the lead.
    I would prefer to keep the link as I think a lot of people would assume that "peasant" is just a derogatory term for a poor person.--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • State funding was introduced to schools from 1833; which was later followed by school inspections and teacher training. A comma rather than a semi-colon should be used after "1833".
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    linked both languages--Llewee (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Background
    • Several grammar schools were established in Wales in the 16th and 17th centuries;[1] which catered to boys of "the middling sort". The semicolon is incorrect because the second clause is not an independent sentence. Hence, a comma should be used in its place.
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • and clergyman Thomas Gouge "the" before "clergyman" to avoid a false title. They should be avoided if possible.
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    *Overcrowded, unsanitary towns developed where the poorest could find little assistance. Replace the comma with an "and".
    In British English, the Oxford comma is typically omitted in simple lists, as in "overcrowded and unsanitary towns." However, it is used to prevent ambiguity in complex lists. Therefore, in this sentence, the comma is unnecessary.
    That's not an Oxford comma and the sentence is grammatically correct with it there. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Llewee This rounds off my first round of suggestions. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    18th century schooling
    • They might organise apprenticeships and supervision after boys had left school. This sentence could be improved upon.
    I'm not whether you are referring to grammar changes or content.--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    done--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy. This sentence could be rephrased:
    Learning Latin was still an important part of preparing to enter professions, especially the clergy. MSincccc (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer to keep "though" to emphasise the contrast between this point and the sentence before it.--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacy
    • While people in the 18th century saw them as a response to religious concerns;[ The phrase "in the 18th century" can be omitted from this sentence as it is understood from the previous sentence that it refers to the people of that generation.
    I'm not keen on this suggestion, including the time period in both clauses makes clear the distinction, if no time was given in the first clause the whole sentence would seem to be referring to the time given in the second clause.--Llewee (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • became a theme of 19th century Welsh nationalism. This phrase can be rephrased as :became a theme of Welsh nationalism in the 19th century so as to avoid false titles. I will not insist upon it, but it will be preferable to do so.
    done--Llewee (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ] A similar story was that of Mary Jones; a teenaged girl who was said to have walked 25 miles in 1800 to get her own copy of the Bible from Charles, inspiring the creation of the British and Foreign School Society.
    That's a slight mix-up. Mary Jones' story did inspire something significant, but it was the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), not the British and Foreign School Society. In 1800, 15-year-old Mary Jones walked about 25 miles to buy a Welsh Bible from Reverend Thomas Charles. Her determination highlighted the lack of affordable Bibles, leading to the founding of the BFBS in 1804 to make Bibles more accessible worldwide.
    The British and Foreign School Society, on the other hand, was focused on education and was founded in 1808, largely influenced by the work of Joseph Lancaster.
    Yes, that was a mistake on my part, corrected.--Llewee (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best-selling novel How Green Was My Valley (1939)... Could the author's name be also mentioned here?
    Llewee This concludes my list of suggestions for the article's FAC nomination. It was an interesting read and I look forward to your response to my suggestions. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added his name. Thank you for the comments, MSincccc, sorry for the delay responding I have been busy this week.--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSincccc, is there more to come here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild No. I have already added my support for its promotion. MSincccc (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Why the cut-off in 1870? I assume from the next article in the series, that you see Elementary Education Act 1870 as a key dividing line. However, this is not mentioned in the lead of this article, and makes 1870 seems rather arbitrary, given how many of the sources cover the entire Victorian era. - hahnchen 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think 1870 is a useful dividing line even if it was not as important as people sometimes think. It's also a good breaking point for Wales-specific reasons as the first welsh university college was established in 1872 and the government began to implement different education policies in Wales to England from the 1880s. I have added a comment about the education act to the legacy section and a mention to the intro--Llewee (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Does May, Trevor (1994). The Victorian Schoolroom. Shire Publications. not have an identifier? Don't see anything else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added ISBN--Llewee (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did a double-check here since it seems like Tuesday's reviews were at times bit subpar. There seem to be some consecutive sentences, each with a reference, and the reference being the same. e.g "and intended for children who were unable to attend other elementary schools due to their poverty. A ragged school in Cardiff was attended had 299 pupils in 1853; this group included 130 children of labourers and 32 orphans. Examples of the individual children who attended ragged schools in Wrexham included; a poorly-dressed girl from a family of beggars and a boy whose mother had been struggling to earn a living through repairing shoes since his father enlisted in the Crimean War." can probably have the first ref tag excised. I checked Grigg 2002 and it seems it is being correctly used, although I wonder if a mention of the Irish "issue" and the idea of using schools to combat crime is needed somewhere in the article. One thing I notice: This article is almost entirely sourced to books and papers; are there contemporary government documents, newspaper reports or the like that might be usable as sources? Also did some spotchecking of other sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, apologies for my slowness. I am a bit cautious about using contemporary sources as they usually have to put in some kind of wider context . I have added citations to a couple of newspaper reports and an 1864 book. I think I have dealt with the rest of your points. I have kept in some double citations that were immediately after a quote--Llewee (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More source review points:

  • Why are some publishers linked and others not? Best to unlink all, as they're fairly pointless
    Unlinked the various publishers and journals--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with whether you have a publisher's location or not
    I think this was just one of the books which I have taken out.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to format the ISBNs in a consistent manner (you have three different versions at the moment)
    I've gotten rid of the hyphens in the ISBN's. The structure is now consistent in the books section. The journal templates seem to have automatically generated hyphens in the ISSNs.--Llewee (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check on https://archive.org/ and ensure any books there are hyperlinked

- SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee? FrB.TG (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I haven't been working through the comments as fast as I would like as I am quite busy at the moment and have been having various difficulties with technology. I will try to get through the current batch of comments by the end of the weekend.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and SchroCat, hi, could either one or both of you please comment whether your concerns regarding sources have been resolved and if you have any additional concern? FrB.TG (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issues were resolved, but I didn't do a full review, so Jo-Jo will have to chip in too, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have anything to add. SchroCat has a sharper eye than me on things like inconsistent format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeSupport from Borsoka

[edit]
  • A first question: which source(s) verifies/verify the timeframe of the article? For me, the title of Evans (1971) suggests that the period from c. 1700 to c. 1900 could be regarded as a unit of presentation, and the title of Seaborne (1992) also supports that a period closed c. 1900. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Llewee? Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article's timeframe is not supported by any of the cited sources. We are here to present topics as they are presented in academic sources. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies that I did not respond sooner Borsoka, the nomination has a lot of comments I have been working through. The books I use as sources which discuss the subject in general terms distinguish between the period before and after about 1870. Jones and Roderick have a chapter covering the period from 1670 to 1847 and a chapter covering 1847 to 1870. Seaborne has two chapter covering the 18th century and another three covering the early to the mid-19th century. Stephens has separate chapters covering elementary and secondary education before and after 1860s. Johnes divides between the periods before and after the revised code in 1862. This google doc has images of the books contents.--Llewee (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read the article and not found any issues of relevance. Nicely written, comprehensive article, so I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_education_in_Wales_(1701–1870)/archive1&oldid=1281048481"