Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of infant schools in Great Britain/archive1

History of infant schools in Great Britain

Featured article candidates/History of infant schools in Great Britain/archive1

Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}}~~ 750 h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that. My bad 750 h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

My support from the previous nomination still stands. I'm seeing that discussion of Ireland has been removed, and I think the change in scope has helped keep the article more specific. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

An instructive article by a writer clearly in command of the subject. A few minor quibbles about the prose:

"It was somewhat common for children" – you like the word "somewhat" somewhat: it crops up five times in your text. Like "however", "somewhat" is usually better omitted. I think the prose would be less woolly without any of the five here.
reworded to take out the somewhats, in some cases I've tried to keep the meaning the somewhat was conveying--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the societies did not aim to cater for the younger age group" – you are even keener on "however" than on "somewhat" – there are eight "however"s throughout the text, and you could, and I suggest should, lose at least the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh of them.
I've gotten rid of most of them. I'm not sure if they are the ones you suggested as I lost count a bit.--Llewee (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Various other figures also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject. David Turner, an academic, wrote ..." – I think it would be helpful to your readers to make it clear that Turner was not one of those writing contemporary books about the subject but was writing in 1970.
added "who studied 19th-century infant schools" after "an academic"--Llewee (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"By the mid 1830's" – does the source really have the naff apostrophe?
"some schools were too dominated by religion" – a bit judgemental without a citation.
I have taken that bit out as the point is also said in more neutral way in the quote.--Llewee (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"W. B. Stephens, an historian" – unless you are aged 90+ and cling to the pronunciations 'otel and 'istorian, I'd make "an" "a".
"According to historians Helen May, Baljit Kaur and Larry Prochner" – clunky false title.
dealt with in the same way to the David Turner issue--Llewee (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He was not primarily interested" – the last person mentioned was "the pupil", and it would be as well to replace the pronoun with the name.
done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the questions indicate to desire to avoid rote learning –should the first "to" be "a"?
done--Llewee (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of children under seven in schools ... In 1840 the Council on Education in England and Wales" – the whole of this paragraph is given a single citation. Does it cover all 196 words?
I've broke this and other long chunks of text into multiple citations.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Many more of the less financially secure working classes" – is this a posh way of saying "poorer"?
It is a bit jargony. I think I was trying to emphasise the distinction from the "skilled working classes" mentioned previously. I have changed it to "Many poorer families".--Llewee (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The expansion of young children attending school" – I take this is meant to mean that the numbers rather than the children expanded.

I don't think child obesity was as much of an issue in those days. Changed to "rise of".--Llewee (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the under five's" – we could well do without the apostrophe.

Removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"More middle-class parents" – this is ambiguous: were the parents more middle class or were there more parents from the middle class?
I have changed "more" to many" to clarify this point.--Llewee (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first year, the 'reception class', children" – any reason for ignoring the MoS's preference for double quotes?
fixed--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This method quickly became the principle method" – you mean "principal", I think.
changed this--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. – Tim riley talk 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Tim, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment of principle/principal was the final change I was looking for. After a last read-through I am now happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 16:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the 1830s thing is in the source sorry.--Llewee (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Images seem well-placed. What's the copyright status of the painting in File:Flickr - USCapitol - Weaving.jpg? File:British Central School Borough Road.png has a bare URL, as do several other images. Some files may need a commons:Template:PD-scan. Viz File:Infants of the British school, Llanymddyfri NLW3363470.jpg, do we know when the photographer lived? File:A practical guide to the English kinder-garten (children's garden) - for the use of mothers, nursery governesses, and infant teachers - being an exposition of Froebel's system of infant training - (14596479949).jpg needs an actual copyright tag. OKish ALT text. Sauce-wise, is #37 really saying "infant school"? I figure a government or education website would be a better source for such a claim, too. What makes https://education-uk.org/history/index.html a reliable source? Are the ITV report, Morgan Thomas 1936 and Grimshaw 1931 influential enough to warrant mention? Nothing jumps me as unused or questionable otherwise, but I must caution that this isn't a field where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, The first image's page on commons says that it is in the public domain because it was created by an employee of the American government. I have added John Thomas's age range; he died in 1905. I have fixed the URL and PD-scan issues. The man who created History of education in the UK (See) appears to be a retired teacher who has a Diploma of Education; he says in his autobiography that he has strong political views but the history itself seems very well written and based on academic sources (for example, see the first section of chapter one). It appears that citizensinformation.ie is run by a agency of the Irish Government (See). The cited page doesn't mention infant schools but it does mention infant classes and the point when children enter them. The two early 20th century biographies correspond to what Whitbread says about the period; I included them in order to give more tangible examples as the academic sources can be quite abstract. The ITV News report received a little discussion recently; though Wales doesn't have much of a public debate. I included it mainly in order to add a bit more detail to the Welsh paragraph and as balance to a article cited slightly earlier which criticises phonics.--Llewee (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is OK, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Per my comment at the first fac, my concerns were pretty much solely 1B orientated; that the scope has been sufficiently adjusted that I see no major obstacles to promotion. Tight faded male arse. Decadence and anarchy. A certain style. Smile. 10:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by Generalissima

Always love seeing your attention to education - such an undercovered subject on-wiki!

Lede solid, good length.
Terminology good.
I'm interested by the relatively limited mention of religion as a motivation for early childhood education within Great Britain itself; it seems to mainly come up in its spread elsewhere. Was there just not as much religious advocacy for these institutions?
The second half of the article is especially very well-written. I like how you cover smaller details like teaching methods without ever getting too niche.

@Llewee: Really just have the one question about religion and I'll be happy to support; I'm not an expert in the subject matter, so I'm curious. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima There was some religious influence on infant schools which is mentioned a bit in the article. I have added a quote to illustrate the point in the home and colonial infant school society section. But sectarianism wasn't a major issue (which it definitely was in other aspects of 19th century English and Welsh education).--Llewee (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

I took part in the more general review for Infant schools and return to an article with a more specific focus. I am not sure if that limitation is already complete, seeing a level-2 header about Worldwide spreading. Or what do I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The movement quickly spread across the British Empire, Europe and the United States. It was used by missionary groups in an effort to convert the empire's non-Christian subjects." - Besides that spreading seems not exactly "in GB", which empire?
clarified British empire--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Why a Boston illustration when the focus is GB?
I chose that image because it shows a pre-industrial family business. It is quite hard to find relevant images on commons and my searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn't have much success. I've found a fairly relevant image which is meant to be depicting a British family now. But its not ideal as it was drawn much later in the early 1900s.--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"New, more punitive, forms of child labour", - more p. compared to what?
clarified--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why Dame school capital?
its after a full stop, unless I have missed something--Llewee (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide ...

As said before, I wonder about the scope. Do we exclude Ireland, but include the World, or at least the Commonwealth?

Professionalisation and expansion

This seems a too general header, followed by subheader Home and Colonial Infant School Society which seems too specific - I never heard that term. It seems about adopting Pestalozzi's concepts, no?
I hope the new headings are an improvement--Llewee (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardian ...

Will the article for the longish red link be written soon?
I added that link on the advice of another editor. I'd like to write an article on the subject at some stage but I haven't got any immediate plans to do so.--Llewee (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

I am not happy about the four articles, thinking, that the first should contain the later three, in which case the whole bunch could be replaced by one link to the first in the prose, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]